Live Debate: Commons Chamber

Estimates Day: Estimates day (first allotted day). Subject to the agreement of the House, there will be debates on estimates relating to the Cabinet Office, in so far as it relates to security and resilience; the Northern Ireland Office; and the Home Office and Ministry of Justice, in so far as it relates to criminal justice

>> Are you. >> Yes. The question is, as on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. The question is, as on the Order Paper, the debate will be opened by the chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy.

17:31

Matt Western MP (Warwick and Leamington, Labour)

- -

17:48

Dr Ellie Chowns MP (North Herefordshire, Green Party)

- -

and not just through conventional means. He's talked about cyber warfare. We've talked about the threat of disinformation. He also briefly touched on the effects of the pandemic on our country. And I would point out that, of course, the greatest threat to human health in our history for many, many decades is, of course, the Covid pandemic, which killed nearly a quarter of a million people. Now, recognising pandemic preparedness as hugely important within the security and resilience framework is is absolutely key.

But the particular thing that I want to speak about today is another key threat to our country's security and resilience, which does not receive nearly enough attention. And that is climate breakdown. It's not just the environmentalists who say this, it's the ambulance workers. It's the Joint Intelligence and Security Commission's committees, National Security Assessment, which itself says that ecosystem breakdown poses a clear threat to national security. And, of course, the Committee on Climate Change has pointed out that we are woefully ill prepared as a country for the effects of climate breakdown.

We urgently need to take more action to avoid causing climate change. We equally urgently need to take far more action to recognise the threat to our national security and resilience posed by the effects of climate breakdown, and this was brought home to us in a hugely clear terms last week as we faced the second major heat wave of the last month or so, a heat wave which led to record call outs for the ambulance service more than ever before, more even than under Covid.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I spent time with London Ambulance Service. They told me then that the May heat wave was their highest number of ambulance call outs, even including Covid, and that terrible record was exceeded last week. We have to recognise the reality of the effects on human life and livelihoods, and our national security and resilience caused by these issues. And it's not just the health effects. I spoke to numerous constituents over the weekend about the effect that this was having on schools, the appalling temperatures that were being faced by our students, and we clearly urgently need to put in place maximum temperatures for schools, for workplaces as well, and take action to ensure that that is that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

followed through. I will. Thank the Member for giving way. Would you accept that there is a Would you accept that there is a certain irony that whilst those who certain irony that whilst those who are concerned about the climate change and and temperatures going up. But at the same time, they had campaigned to have air conditioning taken out of buildings because of taken out of buildings because of the energy consumption that air conditioning used. And then the CO2 emissions from that energy consumption can't have it both ways, can't.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I honestly don't recognise the caricature that he is painting technology exists to both provide technology exists to both provide heating and cooling in ecologically friendly ways, and that is absolutely what we need going forward. Far better building standards so that we are building buildings that adapt, that are, that are suitable fit for the that are suitable fit for the future, homes that are fit for the future. Absolutely essential. And of course, the Committee on Climate Change, the government's own independent advisers, have set out repeatedly that these solutions are available.

They have set out repeatedly the things that we need to put forward, and they have set out repeatedly, as have any number of people over any number of years. The fact that the costs of inaction far exceed the costs of action. This is a point that the hon. Member was making just previously in relation to other security challenges. This applies with knobs on to tackling the challenge of climate breakdown. Professor Nick stern 20 years ago set out hugely clearly that the costs of inaction far, far outweighed by many times the costs of taking action.

Now to address these risks, 20 years later, of our heads in the sand. Collectively as a country, we are reaping the whirlwind of that inaction. And so it I call upon the the I call upon the government. I call upon the Cabinet Office to recognise the reality that tackling climate resilience has to be a central plank of any strategy to protect national security and resilience. We need a Minister within the Cabinet Office whose responsibility it is to put in place that work to take across government approach, because this is not a siloed issue.

This is not something that can be dealt with in only one single department. This needs a cross-government approach. We need a comprehensive strategy preparing the NHS for the new public health challenges. As I've referenced, investing in flood protection because we don't just face extreme heat, we face increasing frequency and severity of flooding incidents. And we've all seen what a disastrous effect that has on the economy, as well as lives and livelihoods. We need to develop a comprehensive extreme heat strategy and a national drought plan.

And of course, a farmer led transition to support the transition to climate, climate resilient food production. Our farmers are crying out for this support. They too are on the front line of the security and resilience challenges that the reality of climate breakdown places upon us. We need to strengthen our transport infrastructure, our energy infrastructure, our water infrastructure. Last week we heard about nuclear power stations going offline in in France, we had a train company saying that nobody should travel unless it was a matter of life and death.

We have water shortages becoming more and more frequent. We absolutely have to have this collective long term strategic approach to tackling climate resilience as a core plank of of national security. Tackling climate breakdown is not just an environmental issue at all. It is a central plank of security and national resilience, and the costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of taking action. Now. So I ask the Minister, will she commit to putting in place that national strategy, that individual identified within the Cabinet Office who leads on it? Does she recognise that we must invest now or pay the costs that far worse costs later? Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Brooke. I wasn't sure if you were going to swap seats again, but you're comfortable where you are. Marvellous. The floor is yours.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marvellous. The floor is yours. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. May I start by wishing to confine my start by wishing to confine my remarks today to the use of taxpayers money? Actually, the responsible use the resilient, use the transparent use. And I say those remarks as chair of the all party parliamentary Group on Anti-Corruption and Responsible Tax, a role which sees me engage with ministerial colleagues from across government on a whole swathe of issues pushing government constructively to increase transparency, improve controls and increase enforcement.

When those who would seek to defraud the

17:55

Phil Brickell MP (Bolton West, Labour)

- -

taxpayer are identified. Public sector fraud and error is estimated sector fraud and error is estimated to cost taxpayers between 55 billion and £81 billion annually, billion and £81 billion annually, that is not sustainable when we're asking taxpayers to shoulder a asking taxpayers to shoulder a large burden, and when our public finances are already squeezed at a time of increasingly turbulent geopolitical headwinds. That's why, back in December 2024, I was delighted to see the government announced the introduction of Tom Hayhoe as the new Covid fraud commissioner, tasked with identifying areas of reckless spend overseen by the previous government, and going as far as possible in claiming monies back for the taxpayer.

Now. Since then, Mr. Hayhoe has identified £10.9 billion lost to fraud and error across the Covid schemes at a time when the government's resilience was pushed to the limit. Let's dwell on that £10.9 billion figure. Because of that, £324 million was lost in PPE fraud during the pandemic and £1.88 billion of fraud in the Bounce Back loan scheme issued by the Department for Business and Trade. So when we talk about more money for the Defence Investment plan or increase resilience at a time of increasing geopolitical stability, those figures of taxpayers money lost to fraudsters by the last government are truly astonishing.

Now, without straying into ongoing litigation, let's just dwell on the PPE medpro scandal for a second, which has become symbolic of the waste and poor oversight that occurred during some Covid-19 procurement processes. As we know, the company was awarded government contracts worth more than £200 million through the controversial VIP VIP lane system. And in 2025, the High Court ruled that PPE Medpro had breached £122 million contract for surgical gowns because the product supplied did not meet the required standards, and the company was ordered to repay that money to the government.

This matters because holding suppliers accountable when contracts are not fulfilled properly helps protect public funds and reinforces the principle that those who benefit from government contracts should meet their obligations. That's a vital premise because we have to ensure government procurement is resilient and delivering best value, ensuring those who rip off the state and by default, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, myself and every other person up and down the length of the country, it's absolutely vital that those individuals are held to account.

So alongside our debate tonight on the Cabinet Office's estimates, I wonder if the Minister could articulate why the government announced last week to only partially accept four of Tom Hayes recommendations. Those recommendations were that government, should one have a challenge champion in crisis situations? We talk a lot about resilience today. Two, ensure that small companies publish profit and loss accounts, remembering that small companies were the engine of the bounce back loan fraud. Three that there should be stronger measures when Ministers issue directions to override the civil service.

That's crucial, given that ministerial directions include overriding and accounting officers concerns about fraud on bounce back loans, and for clearer central oversight of m g spending through local bodies, including grants. Now, I appreciate my hon. Friend may not have the answers to hand, but if she could write to me after today's debate, I would be very grateful. Now, let my questions not detract from the good work that has been undertaken during this Parliament, and I'd particularly like to commend the Cabinet Office on the work undertaken by the Public Sector Fraud Agency, including last week's launch of the new Public Authorities Fraud Investigation and Enforcement Service, and I had the benefit of meeting my hon.

Friend the Member for Southampton Test only a few weeks ago to discuss the work, the vital work of the PFA. We both know how critical it is to drive up transparency, to break down information silos and to drive cultural change via tone from the top across government. So we should be proud, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Spha has reported savings to the taxpayer of £311 million in 2020 324, £373 million in 2023, 24 and over £480 million in 2020 425.

That's a trajectory I want to continue seeing approximately a 50% increase within the course of two financial years. And in total, the government reported £7.53 billion in taxpayer savings from counter-fraud activity in the last financial year, including almost £400 million linked to Covid fraud, which had been recovered. That is vital work that should not go unnoticed and it's not small change. Those are critical funds we all need to see retained in the public sector for infrastructure, for resilience and for security.

Now, the Minister may not be surprised to hear me say that we must not rest on our laurels. Can I therefore welcome the my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test views on establishing a central government database to strengthen the detection and prevention of fraud, alongside enhanced mitigation measures and greater transparency in how they're implemented. I also express my support for a potential new offence of fraud against the public purse, coupled with meaningful incentives and protection for whistleblowers to help identify and expose wrongdoing, as recommended by the campaigning organisation Spotlight on Corruption.

Because my constituents, whether in Heaton or Norwich, chew more chequerbent need to know that the government is on their side and that no matter who you are or who you know, attempted public sector fraud will have consequences. And it's only through pursuing fraudsters tenaciously that we will be able to find the much needed resources to support investment in critical infrastructure and ensure we are as prepared as we can be when the next pandemic, climate change, industrial sabotage or conflict. Thank you.

18:01

Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

- -

We now come to the front benches and I come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Lisa Smart. Are we ready? ready? >> Lisa Smart ready. Madam Deputy Speaker Thank. >> You very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. NATO Secretary General Speaker. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said earlier this year that we are not at war, but we are certainly not at peace either. And certainly not at peace either. And we've seen that if we look just over the last two years since this government took office, there have been many reports of multiple instances of foreign espionage and interference.

Earlier this year, it was reported that Chinese spies used LinkedIn and other recruitment platforms to target UK officials and military staff. A tracker was successfully placed on the Prime Minister's car and has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell and West Dorset attacks on the Prime Minister's homes and car, and people with links to a sitting MP were arrested on suspicion of assisting a foreign intelligence agency. So it is no surprise when the government says national security is its first responsibility and they are right to do so.

Now I'm lucky enough to be a member of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme this year. I've been fortunate enough to meet some of the remarkable people serving in our military, from the most junior to the most senior, and the key message I'm taking from these interactions is that we as a society are not scared enough, and we are certainly not prepared enough when the thoughts of many, when talking about preparation, will instantly go to physical safety and defence spending. And I understand why there needs to be a whole of society approach that goes beyond our armed forces and to national security, resilience and preparedness, to food security, economic security, cybersecurity, energy security, and so on.

It's a point that's already been raised by others, but I'd be grateful if the Minister, when she makes her remarks shortly, I'd be grateful if she could update the House on the government's plans to increase the awareness of the British people, including my own Hazel Grove constituents, on the role we must all take to keep our country safe and prepare should the worst happen. Looking at the estimates and with one specific question for the Minister, as I understand it, the security spending under the.

Keeping the country safe Subheader is rising largely because the Integrated Security Fund has been moved across to the Cabinet Office, not because Ministers have found new money to meet new dangers. So could the Minister tell the House how much of this uplift is new investment in our resilience, and what changes are happening to this spending as it comes under the Cabinet Office? We cannot have national resilience if the public can no longer trust the integrity of our democracy. The National Cyber Security Centre dealt with more than 200 attacks on our critical national infrastructure in the last year alone, and around three quarters were traced to the hostile states, primarily China, Russia and Iran.

These reaching to hospitals, energy supply and the public services many across the country depend on. That is why the Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment to the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, which would require the government to publish a digital sovereignty strategy had it been put in place. This would clearly set out how the government will assess, manage and mitigate risks to the security and resilience of critical network and information systems arising from foreign interference and reliance on foreign technology. Additionally, our society, our strategy would place focus on strengthening government procurement practices, which would ensure that the government laid out how it intends to reduce strategic dependencies on foreign owned service providers and commit to prioritise domestic tech.

We would ensure that critical national functions are powered by technology that only the UK government could, or UK companies could control. Perhaps the sharpest threat to our democracy is the money flowing into it from outside. British politics is being targeted by powerful interests beyond our shores, who would happily see our democracy weakened, and the loopholes that let them in remain far too open. Opaque, foreign and dark money can still find its way into our political parties, our campaigns and our online conversations.

And the government has not yet done enough to combat this money. Entering our democracy. The government commissioned the Ryecroft review into political finance and to date as committed to just two of its 17 recommendations on these benches. We would ask that the Minister give serious consideration to the other 15 and commit to all of them in full very soon. The election strategy paper, published last summer and the Representation of the People Bill are both welcome steps. But there is an Elon Musk shaped hole running right through the middle of them.

They contain nothing to stop social media platforms paying elected representatives to post increasingly divisive and incendiary content, and nothing to shut the back door through which foreign money reaches our politics. Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments to the Representation of the People Bill to fix exactly that. Our amendments would ban payments to MPs by X and other platforms, bar people who have served foreign administrations, from donating to political parties, campaign groups and think tanks, and we would implement the Ryecroft review's recommendations to ban foreign funded online political ads altogether.

Given the scale of potential foreign interference, we believe the government should go one step further and launch an investigation into US interference in our democracy, including financial support by this White House for those in the UK who, and I quote, share their values. I urge the Minister to consider further how we can best ensure that the department's Budget is used effectively to limit the reach of foreign interference in our political system, because our democratic security is our national security. Thank you.

18:07

Alicia Kearns MP (Rutland and Stamford, Conservative)

- -

Shadow Minister. timely, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing it, because in recent months, the Joint Committee on National Security Committee on National Security Strategy has been joined by an ever growing and increasingly anxious chorus of voices despairing at the government's failings on national security. Lord Robertson, who this government commissioned and asked to lead the Strategic Defence Review, warned in April that Britain's security was in peril due to thee and, I quote, corrosive complacency that was being shown to defence.

He went so far as to accuse the Treasury of vandalism. Then earlier this month, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough resigned as defence secretary. He was clear the reason was a defence investment plan, which the times newspaper appears has also had sight of. He does not give. He claimed that it did not give the armed forces the resources they need. He has followed out the door by the armed Forces Minister, who said the government's plans were neither transformative enough

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nor sufficiently funded. Now, given the hon. Member had served our armed forces, your thought his warning might have been heeded. My hon. Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend. I will happily give way. Bearing in mind an item that's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bearing in mind an item that's appeared in the news reports today. Does she agree with me that either Does she agree with me that either of those two. Right, hon. In one case, honourable and gallant gentleman in the other case would gentleman in the other case would be a far more suitable future Secretary General of NATO than the present Prime Minister, whose lack of proper funding of a defence policy, amongst other deficiencies, has led him to be looking for a new job.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend, I have to say that I always found the former Defence Secretary to be very former Defence Secretary to be very decent in the way he engaged cross-party and work, cross-party, and how seriously he took the job. I do not think there is a vacancy I do not think there is a vacancy for the NATO Secretary for a very long time, at least another eight years. But no, I do not think the current Prime Minister, who has taken us from third place to 12th in NATO defence spending in the last couple of years would be the last couple of years would be the right man to lead NATO at this time or any other.

The shadow hanging over this whole state of affairs is the Defence Investment Plan. It was due for publication in autumn 2025 and of course we have not yet seen it. As a NATO member, we are committed to spending 5% of GDP on defence and national security by 2035, 3.5% on defence and 1.5% on national security and resilience. So let's review where the government actually is on rearmament, on the progress towards 3.5 and 1.5%. As I say, we are 31st out of 32 NATO members, second to last.

And we have only moved to that place in the last year. We are bested only by Iceland, a country that has no armed forces at all, and that is where the government has currently left us on the road to rearmament, on defence spending as a percentage of GDP. We have gone from third in 2021 to 12th this year. Both of these are on the Labour government. The failure of this government to properly fund our core defence is not just a disaster, but actually it's an international humiliation.

And the very same pattern is playing out across national security and resilience. Lord Harris, chair of the National Preparedness Commission, has said that funds for these vital areas are currently being treated as a creative accountancy exercise. And when you look at the figures before us today, you see what he means. Now there is a headline increase the Cabinet Office's security focussed expenditure. I recognise that, but the vast bulk of that additional £130 million is simply the Integrated Security Fund being moved from the Foreign Office to the Cabinet Office.

It's not new money. It's the same money in a different pocket. Meanwhile, and this is the figure that tells the real story, the Budget for the National Security Secretariat has been cut to £18.9 million, down from 34.4 million last year. That's nearly halved at a moment like this. Whilst there is very little detail that's been given to us to scrutinise, what is clear is that Cabinet Office spending on national security and resilience is not at the level that is required, nor will it match the threats that we face.

So I'll press the Minister on specific areas shortly, but let's check in on some past commitments. Had they been fulfilled or like the Defence Investment Plan, are languishing out of sight, underfunded and promised but never delivered. In February, the former security Minister promised a one third increase to the Integrated Security Fund for Indo-Pacific threats, primarily the Chinese Communist Party. There is no sign of it. We were promised a £17 million increase in counter-terrorism funding and a further £10 million to address organised crime by the end of 2020 627.

Is the government on track to deliver these, or have they too been quietly forgotten? Now let me turn to specific areas that demand this house's attention. First, cyber security. As we've heard from various hon. Members over the last year, 40% of British businesses have suffered a cyber attack or breach. Iconic names like Marks and Spencers and Jaguar Land Rover. The Cyber Security and Resilience Bill the government brought forward was welcome, but it was not sufficient. Indeed, it fails to name the threat of the Chinese Communist Party and extraordinarily, it excluded central and local government computer systems from its scope.

The very systems that hold our citizens data have been left outside the bill. What investment is being made to bolster our cyber defences, and is that funding rising? Second subsea cables, the Jcn. S reported last September on the risk of undersea cables being targeted by hostile states. They carry 99% of our data, the arteries of our economy and of our daily life. Closer cooperation with Jef nations, especially Norway, has been welcomed across this House, but specific plans and any funding remains elusive.

But these cables carry everything that we do, and there is no plan to protect them. So I ask the Minister, when will funding come forward to do so? Third, biological security. We have discussed the Covid pandemic today, and the inquiry that followed it laid bare the need for a greater focus on biosecurity. The government promised that it was published. The Cabinet Office's Plan for biological emergencies this spring. That deadline has, like many others, been missed. So can the Minister tell us when those plans will finally appear, and when will the £1 billion promise to establish a network of national biosecurity centres come to be? Fourth, our critical national infrastructure, Putin's renewed illegal invasion of Ukraine and the brutality that Russia has industrialised should serve as a warning.

The Russian military has deliberately targeted power infrastructure, substations, pylons, cables. Drone warfare has made our energy networks a target from terrorists and hostile states. As a member for Rutland Stamford, I am dismayed at the government's plans to put a string of upon mile of pylons across eastern England, because one single drone could plunge huge swathes of our country into darkness, and Google Maps literally provides an online map, a targeting plan for anyone who wishes us harm. We have the capability to lay those cables underground.

Instead, the government has chosen to sacrifice our security to save a few pounds when we should be learning from Putin's daily attacks on Ukraine's infrastructure. Fifth, and this matters more than any other line. It has been discussed, I believe, by every single member is the whole of society resilience. The threats we discuss cannot be tackled by government alone. It would be foolish to suggest so. They demand that each and every one of us are prepared and able to play our part. But the government therefore has to kick off the national conversation it promised.

And so here I think we must be honest about a failure that is not Labour's alone. And I quite agree with the chair of the GNS, but since the Iraq War it has suited the political class to say to the public, you don't need to worry about national security. You don't need to worry about foreign policy. Don't you worry your little heads. We've got it under control, and we've taught a generation or two that danger is someone else's problem. That resilience is a job for the state, and that citizens don't need to think about it at all.

And we've allowed the public to abdicate their personal responsibility, whether it's choices about whether or not to be on TikTok. Get off it, or the purchases you make or the way you live your life. And that is a fatal arrow in the heart of our national resilience. Because when the crisis comes and it will come, a people who have never been asked to prepare will not suddenly know how to. The Lord's Risk Assessment Committee, the NSS and the National Preparedness Commission have all called for a single, simple step the appointment of a Chief Resilience Officer to coordinate across government.

This is a sensible suggestion and I am not sure why it's been ignored. This role would look at protecting everything from our research innovation to our education, to our universities, to genomics, abuse of charities, the information environment and tackle things like the use of organised crime that led to that heinous attack on our Prime Minister that has been exploited by foreign states who have misconstrued what took place in order to harm the government. That is a shameful state of affairs and one that I agree.

We should have discussed more. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I turn now to China. Before the election, Labour promised to take China to the international court over the genocide of the Uyghurs, an issue both you and I have spoken about consistently in this place. They promised a full audit of China policy to guide strategy across every department. And yet the China audit was never published. Its contents have never been shared with this House. And we are now in a situation where the national security adviser travels regularly to Beijing to meet Chinese Communist Party officials meetings.

We only find out about because the Chinese Communist Party publishes press releases. They are more transparent than our own government, and not least because he will not appear before this Parliament, unlike all of his predecessors, to face justice. Well, justice scrutiny both because doesn't our country deserve to know that things are being done right? How can we know that there's being done right, that our country is being protected, and that hostile states are being held to account if there is no scrutiny? Our own government keeps quiet for preparing to pay billions to surrender sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, and we do not see the very protections put in place used.

We pass the National Security Act precisely to counter the threat from hostile states. Yet Labour refuses to put China in the enhanced tier, and the results speak for itself. It is now one year Madam Deputy Speaker in July, since the foreign interference registration scheme came into force. How many organisations or companies do you believe have registered as working for China on the Foreign Influence Risk register? Not one. Three have registered as working for Republika Srpska, a tiny little entity within Bosnia.

But not one says they are getting any money from the Chinese state. Have there been any investigations about this failure of anyone to register themselves? No. Have there been any prosecutions? No. Why? Because the government is too busy wooing the Chinese Communist Party to deter it. And when the Prime Minister went to Beijing, he even met with Chi Chi, the very man who had been running a spy network targeting this Parliament. He did not apologise for doing so. He seemed to think it was the right thing to do, and since that case collapsed last year, there have been zero repercussions.

The Chinese Communist Party for spying on this Parliament. That is not deterrence. It is rewarding a state that has attacked our Parliament. Why is this government content to let our own laws be flouted by Beijing? Because let's be honest here about what's been described. A retailer that sells our groceries has been halted by hostile actors, a car maker that employs thousands of our constituents. As we brought to its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

knees, undersea cables carrying 99% of our data's shadow And Matt while the Russian vessels I. Spy network run from Beijing against its own parliament. Our own Prime Minister attacked. Luckily, him and his family were Luckily, him and his family were not hurt and the government answers all this with a transferring of budgets and missed deadlines and an budgets and missed deadlines and an audit. It will not be published. These are not isolated incidents. We are not at yet. We may not be in We are not at yet.

We may not be in the same state of war that our grandparents would have recognised. There is no declaration, no front line, no army amassing on our borders, thankfully. But make no mistake, we are under sustained, deliberate and coordinated attack every single day. Call it what you will. But previous generations understood their duties. When the nation is under threat and they put a country, our country, on a war footing. They found the money, told the public truth and did not hide behind creative accountancy.

Not my words. Those of an expert. 31st of 32, a national security secretariat that's been cut in half. No resilience officer, no investment plan and no published order. That is not the country that knows it's under attack. So my challenge to the Minister is simple fund what must be funded and protect what must be protected, protected. And I conclude this debate as it is again, about the money, about asking about what the figures cannot show. Once you strip out the transfers of function and the accounting changes, what is the real terms trajectory of spending on the security and resilience functions of the Cabinet Office? If it is rising by how much and how fast? Because the first duty of the state is to protect its people.

And on the evidence before us today, based purely on the figures alone, is a duty. The government is failing. History will not forgive those who saw the danger, named it and look away. And so we hope the government will take away our request and act to fund

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our defence, fund our national security and step up and fund our national resilience. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Well, Minister Angela Eagle. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker and I'd like to Deputy Speaker and I'd like to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington on securing the debate. He will, of course, know the importance this government to this government of

18:21

Dame Angela Eagle MP, Minister of State (Home Office) (Security) (Jointly with the Cabinet Office) (Wallasey, Labour)

- -

18:36

Matt Western MP (Warwick and Leamington, Labour)

- -

includes water supplies, climate, our economy, of course, our democracy. And you think about democracy. And you think about democracy and the fact that even the electoral commission has suffered a cyber attack. There are suffered a cyber attack. There are so many challenges, so many threats that we face and those states that that we face and those states that wish to exploit those weaknesses. And and therefore, that is why this And and therefore, that is why this debate was so important and as recognised by the Backbench Business Committee, is because of the number and the scale and the the diversity of attacks that we are now facing, and from the points that have been made, whether it was just adding to the the information about the Canadian system, what they're doing there, or talking about corruption, as my hon.

Friend Bolton West was talking about financial impropriety. But then also others spoke to the the attacks on the Prime Minister. It is so vital that we get our heads around the urgency of this because the, the, the, the threats that the attacks that we're facing are growing exponentially and are becoming more and more creative and inventive. So with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I thank once again the backbench Business

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee for granting this debate and thank the members again for their contributions. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order under standing Order number 54. The question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the to dispose of proceedings on the motion stands over until 7 p.m. tomorrow. I will allow a couple of tomorrow. I will allow a couple of moments for the front benches to moments for the front benches to swap over. We now come to the motion on the estimate for the Northern Ireland Office. I call the Minister to move the motion formally, but to move the question is, as on the Order Paper, the debate will be open by the chair of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Tanya Antoniazzi. Thank you. Madam Deputy Chair.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Chair. And I would like to take the opportunity to thank the backbench Business Committee for granting Business Committee for granting time for this timely debate on the spending of the Northern Ireland Office. As I stand here today, Office. As I stand here today, Northern Ireland remains with no agreed Budget, despite being a quarter of the way through the quarter of the way through the financial year, executive Ministers have failed to agree a Budget which has left departments and civil servants forced to rely on emergency contingency powers, with spending limited to 95% of last year's opening Budget.

Most concerning though. Madam Deputy Speaker, this leaves the people of Northern Ireland uncertain about the public services they will be able to access in the coming year. Although the Finance Minister Although the Finance Minister published a draft multi-year Budget in January, it was not supported by the other parties within the the other parties within the executive, a deadlock which is frustratingly still unresolved. I will.

18:39

Tonia Antoniazzi MP (Gower, Labour)

- -

Also acknowledge now that even members of the finance, Finance Minister's party are now opposed to the Budget that he produced.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for his for his intervention there, and I

18:40

Northern Ireland Office Tonia Antoniazzi MP (Gower, Labour)

- -

18:52

Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)

- -

19:04

Katrina Murray MP (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, Labour)

- -

Debate and topic. scope. Within scope. >> Katrina Murray Deputy Speaker And I will absolutely do my best on that, on that score. And I congratulate my friend, the Member for Gower, for for securing this for Gower, for for securing this important debate. I want to draw on what's been a consistent message to the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee that we have had throughout a number of inquiries, whether it is into public services, the Northern Ireland economy or policing security is a recurring question that whether the Northern Ireland Executive has been given sufficient funding to deliver public services that people rightly expect, and I know that I am looking at this from an interesting perspective, that of an MP whose constituency is not on the island of Ireland, who is not directly affected by the day to day machinations of and interdependence of the relationship between the Northern Ireland Office and the Treasury.

This place, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Assembly. But as a Scottish MP, I do understand the practical realities of of devolution. Week in, week out I see the impact of different political priorities being pursued by different governments with the resources available to them. And we always say that we do not have enough money, but nobody you will never have enough money. We don't have. If we always want more, we always want more money. And that experience has shaped how I view this debate committee has considered in depth the evidence of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council the.

Recognising that the unique circumstances. Which means that it requires funding more than a simple Barnett consequential. And I keep coming back to the. The fact that the Fiscal Council keeps concluding that that funding at around about 120, 24% of comparable 100% funding in England is appropriate. It's considerably better than sticking a finger in the air and thinking of a number. And the spending review reflects that assessment. The executive receives an average of £19.3 billion a year over the spending review period, alongside targeted investment and public service transformation, policing, cities and growth deal growth deals.

That is not to dismiss the very real pressures on Northern Ireland's public finances, but funding alone is not enough. If public services are unable to plan because the executive has yet to make the decisions needed to allocate that funding. Tomorrow is the last day of June, the end of the first quarter of the 2627 financial year, and the Northern Ireland Executive still has not agreed a single year Budget, let alone a multiyear one. And it matters because budgets are not simply accounting exercises.

They allow hospitals to plan, schools to recruit, police services, to invest, public services to provide certainty for the people they serve. The consequences of delay are not abstract. The effect real people. I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members interests. As one of the chairs of the unison group of Labour MPs and 30 years membership of unison, because before my time in this place, I lived this. When the Assembly collapsed in 2022, health workers in Northern Ireland received no pay increase because there was no functioning executive able to implement the recommendations of the independent pay review body.

The eventual eventual award had to be backdated at the end of the financial year. Consequences were significant. Employers had to take action to ensure staff were not inadvertently paid below the national minimum wage. Payroll teams face complex manual calculations to recover interim payments once backdated awards were made, and for many low paid NHS staff who were also in receipt of Universal Credit, it created unnecessary financial uncertainty and administrative complications because of years back, money in one pay packet is not an indicator of regular income.

It was unfair on staff, inefficient for employers and ultimately patients paid the price. When public services cannot plan with certainty. This was not a one off. It happened four times in the last five years. Regardless of whether Stormont has been sitting or not. And I know the Member for South Antrim in his life before this place, did his best to try and get through and it is recognised and known, but it is not acceptable and for this year the agenda for change.

Trade unions have been told there will be no uplift until a Budget has been has been agreed, which means, again, there have been those manual, there has been those manual calculations to ensure that people are not being paid below the national minimum wage. We need to do more about that. Northern Ireland does receive funding above its independently assessed level and need, and the. And there have been levels of growth deals, defence growth deals, support for city growth deals, the need to invest in apprenticeships, the opportunities there, the questions not simply about whether there is enough money.

It's about whether the decisions are being made, taken to use that money effectively. The priority must be for the executive to agree a Budget, and preferably a multiyear one that gives public services the certainty they need. The long term planning ensures that significant investment delivers tangible improvements for the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I ask the Minister what further discussions he is having with the executive to encourage agreement on on a multiyear Budget, so that this record settlement can be translated into the public services and better outcomes that the people of Northern Ireland deserve, because they deserve nothing less.

19:11

Rt Hon Sammy Wilson MP (East Antrim, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

19:27

Jen Craft MP (Thurrock, Labour)

- -

Thank you. >> OK. And many. >> Members across the House have spoken about the financial situation in Northern Ireland. And situation in Northern Ireland. And the Member for Gower, my hon. Friend, spoke very well about the impact that has on the lives of people in Northern Ireland. I would like to briefly touch on the impact that it's having on a particular group of vulnerable individuals, and I declare an interest as the chair of the learning disability APPG in this matter, and that is that of people who had the misfortune to be housed at Muckamore Abbey hospital.

An inquiry into two decades long systematic abuse concluded last week. Two weeks ago, I should say, and published its report and some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the findings were absolutely Be horrific. They found that mistreatment became a normality and patients suffered black eyes, patients suffered black eyes, broken bones and severe neglect. And these were patients who had learning disabilities and mental learning disabilities and mental health issues. Some of the most vulnerable people in our society. vulnerable people in our society. Quite often nonverbal and unable to raise concerns about their themselves. They were subjected to neglect, poor care, and a wider diminuation of their rights.

And that many had their lives made miserable by systematic bullying by certain members of staff. The report found, raised serious concerns about the attitude of the trust towards patients and towards this abuse being reported. There was evidence of patients being not washed with faeces under their fingernails or on their clothes, becoming obese or losing weight dramatically owing to a lack of care over diet, and other patients were overmedicated and described as being zombified. And parents have described seeing their adult children basically disappearing before their eyes in a locked institution they were unable to access.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this situation, with the mistreatment of people with learning disabilities and mental health wards, is unfortunately not contained to Northern Ireland. But I think given the discussion we're having today around the estimates given to the Northern Irish Executive, I think there presents a potential opportunity for Northern Ireland to lead some of the way here. The report has spoken about the need for a transformation in social care in Northern Ireland, to make sure that people who have learning disabilities and mental health issues can be treated in the community in a way that is compassionate and sees them as individuals.

And given the £185 million set aside for public service transformation, I wonder if the Secretary of State would be able to speak as to whether or not he shares my hope that those who have suffered at Muckamore Abbey hospital, their families, their loved ones might see some transformation being undertaken as a result of the report and so that people in Northern Ireland and indeed across the UK do not have to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suffer similarly. Which brings us to the front

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which brings us to the front bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Paul Kohler.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The 2627 estimate for the Northern Ireland Office asks this House to Ireland Office asks this House to approve spending plans for this politically sensitive region in the

19:31

Mr Paul Kohler MP (Wimbledon, Liberal Democrat)

- -

politically sensitive region in the United Kingdom, 2020 627 block grant in cash terms has barely increased from 2526 levels. As someone's executive is warning, this will leave a massive deficit represents a 2.7% decrease in real spending power. That settlement arrives against a backdrop in which the executive overspent its Budget by 400 million in the last financial year, covered only by Treasury Reserve advance, now being repaid in instalments with £80 million due this year in the first tranche. This is a government clawing back money back, not investing in Northern Ireland's future.

Let me begin with policing. The government has provided an extra 130 million through the PSNI additional security fund. That figure sounds impressive, but it does not begin to address the operational drain. The legacy demands placed on day to day policing. The Chief Constable, John Boucher, has warned that without the PSNI being funded to service the demands of what is planned to become the Legacy Commission, the entire project will fail. Yet he petitions the Secretary of State. He's told police he is a devolved matter who returns the executive.

He's told legacy costs arose under direct rule and are a matter for Westminster. The responsibility bounces between the two, but the PSNI ends up footing the bill. What these estimates do not contain is any resolution to that deadlock. No acknowledgement that the that the legacy burden is a UK government, not Stormont liability. Let's be clear the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has now twice recommended a dedicated ring fence funding stream to meet PSNI legacy costs, and continues to do so in the face of Northern Ireland Office rejections on trade.

It's worth reminding the House that it is 56% of people in Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU. They have been proved correct as Northern Ireland has borne the consequences of Brexit ever since. Disrupted supply chains, chains and barriers to trade. The Windsor were the Windsor frameworks meant to give Northern Ireland the best of both worlds, of course, and unfettered access to both the UK internal market and the EU single market. The evidence suggests it has delivered neither.

The Federation of Small Businesses survey found that more than half of businesses trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are experiencing real difficulties, with one third of UK wide respondents that move goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland having stopped doing so entirely. Just 1 in 7 Northern Ireland businesses say they benefit from dual market access, much less than the 71% figure quoted by the parliamentary Under-Secretary of state and Newark this afternoon, citing a pre Windsor framework survey.

While some two thirds of Northern Ireland based businesses say they have no understanding and have not taken advantage of the framework now implemented, the Windsor framework is a stated Northern Ireland Office priority. Yet the only dedicated line of funding for it in the estimate is 8.5 million reserve fund. Well, today we heard on Northern Ireland Select Committee, the Northern Ireland Business Support Service, also known as the One Stop Shop Shop, will not come on stream until next financial year at the earliest.

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I just point out that this estimate transfers £35 million from the Home Office to the immigration Health surcharge? Yet the Home Office has not published data on the number of asylum claims lodged in Northern Ireland. Were being asked to approve spending derived from a population of claimants. The government declines to count. Northern Ireland has endured too much and waited too long for a government that matches the scale of its ambitions, with the substance of its spending, and on the evidence of these estimates, it is still waiting.

Thank you.

19:35

Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)

- -

Shadow Secretary of State Alex Burghart. Burghart. >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker and I'd also like to Deputy Speaker and I'd also like to begin by congratulating the chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee for making sure that we got this debate. It's very clear without her and the support of her committee, we wouldn't be discussing this incredibly important issue on the floor of the House. And I'd like to repeat the remarks made by my hon.

Friend from East Antrim. You know, the Select Committee in this Parliament has been exemplary and has given us some very high quality analysis, which has benefited debate on both sides of the House. And the reason we are here and debating this is simply because the situation is becoming dire. The. This, as the. The hon. Lady from Cumbernauld said, this is not. I fear my pronunciation may be slightly out, but I think we all understand the. The. This. This is not abstract.

This is having a genuine impact on public services today and on the planning of public services for tomorrow. And this uncertainty is building and and I'm I'm sorry to say, I think that there is no suggestion that it's going to be alleviated anytime soon. In fact, as one hon. Member from one of the unionist parties mentioned earlier, it appears that we are further from agreement now than we were at the start of the year, because within Sinn Fein itself, there is no disagreement on the proposals that were put forward.

And I think this begs the very important question of the government as to what is going to happen next. And obviously this is a debate about devolved issues. But I know that the Secretary of State and his officials from the Northern Ireland Office have been in talks with the executive and their representatives. I very much hope we'll get an update on those talks now, but I do think that we have to raise the question of what will happen if no agreement is forthcoming.

And as was said, we are we are now, I think, a quarter of the way through the financial year. And there is no no solution in sight. So I, we, we, and we can't continue to move into a position where overspend continues to be normalised and where the. It appears that the executive is effectively saying, you know, we can't solve this problem. We need more money. And that is not a sustainable position. And it cannot give anyone confidence in in devolution as it is now.

So I do ask the Secretary of State what is the government's plan? If, you know, current talks break down and we find ourselves moving into the summer without an agreed Budget in Northern Ireland. There's. There are a number of particular points I'd like to ask him about. Whilst I have the opportunity, and most significantly, about legacy and he may have detected from some of our previous debates that on the side of the House, we're not in favour of what the government's doing.

But that said, we do think very strongly that if the government is to press ahead with its plans and given that it is acknowledged that those plans will create an additional burden on public services in Northern Ireland, on the police and on the legacy institutions, the government should be prepared to meet that financial cost. You know, it's not enough to say that £250 million is being made available, that £250 million was was made available by a conservative government some time ago.

And indeed, since it was granted, I think that inflation has probably degraded that 250 million to at least 200 million, or at most 200 million, I should say. So it's clear that the legacy the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, if it goes ahead, will increase the case load of iswara, or rather the Legacy Commission as it will become, but will not increase the resources that it has at its disposal. It will increase the caseload that PSNI is dealing with, but it will not increase the resources of PSNI.

And the danger is that we see in the first in the Legacy Commission a bottleneck and actually the very slow processing of cases and in the case of PSNI, an additional drain on resources which will take more people away from frontline policing. We know that frontline policing in Northern Ireland has about 1000 fewer officers than were expected when New Decade New Approach is signed, so that it is a clear and present danger that that currently the troubles Bill presents to financing within Northern Ireland.

And I'd be very grateful if the Secretary of State would explain what what the government's position is. I'd also be very interested to hear whether he has had any discussions with the heir presumptive to the Labour Party leadership on the future of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, because obviously that legislative timetable has been has been pushed to the right. Again, seems very unlikely that we will have the legislation before the summer break. And that being so, it will be a consideration for the next Prime Minister.

Can the Secretary of State tell us what conversations he has had with the Member of Parliament from Makerfield about this legislation, whether the the. The next Prime Minister, if that's what he is, is in favour of it. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'd say that in the negotiations that any government has with the executive in Northern Ireland, I think there is a duty to make the case that that Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland should be prepared to raise revenue on top of the Budget settlements that that the Treasury gives.

You know, the. After the last Budget, I was prepared to say that I thought that the Northern Ireland Office had had acquired from the Treasury reasonably good settlement for Northern Ireland. The key now is that that obviously that money is well spent and that if Northern Ireland wants to spend more, it should be prepared to raise revenue, but it should also be prepared to deliver its public services more efficiently and effectively. And and I hope that HMG will work with institutions in Northern Ireland to try and help that to happen.

Thanks very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

19:41

Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Leeds South, Labour)

- -

20:04

Ireland into a better place where it can be financially. Many thanks to the Shadow Secretary of State and to the hon. Member for East

20:04

Tonia Antoniazzi MP (Gower, Labour)

- -

Antrim for his very kind words. But I also want to pay tribute to the hon. Member, from Thurrock to talking about the the very difficult reading of the review from the Muckamore Abbey hospital, and to see. I want everybody to be able to see that across this House. able to see that across this House. We care for everybody wherever they live, but especially in Northern Ireland. Thank you, Madam Deputy Ireland. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Order, order. Understanding. Order number 54.

The question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion stands over until 7 p.m. tomorrow. I will allow a few moments for the front benches to swap over. We now come to the motion on the estimates for the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. I call the Minister to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move the motion formally. I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, the debate will be opened by the chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Sir Geoffrey

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clifton-brown. Madam Deputy. Speaker. Can I firstly thank. The backbench.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The backbench. Business Committee, Mr. Speaker, and yourself for granting this debate, and also for the Minister debate, and also for the Minister for being here tonight. I hope she will find it useful. We often speak

20:06

Home Office and Ministry of Justice Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP (North Cotswolds, Conservative)

- -

in this chamber about defence spending and rightly so. Defence spending and rightly so. Defence keeps our nation safe, but justice is what keeps the public safe, ensuring victims receive justice ensuring victims receive justice and that offenders are removed from our streets. According to the our streets. According to the National Audit Office, the Ministry of Justice is total expenditure, 24.5 was 15.5 billion, with an 24.5 was 15.5 billion, with an income of 1.9 billion, resulting in a net cost to the taxpayer of 13.6 billion.

To put that into perspective, it is equivalent of just two weeks of welfare spending. When I refer to one justice system, I mean the police, the courts, the prison officers, the probation service working together as a single interdependent system. Too often in this House, we consider when one partner underperforms, it creates a domino effect across the entire system. Since the beginning of this parliamentary term, the Public Accounts Committee has published a number of critical reports on the criminal justice sitting covering Crown courts, police productivity, probation efficiency, violence against women and girls, MoJ reports and prison estate capacity.

These are not separate issues, they are interconnected pressures with one within one system and they must be analysed, funded and reformed accordingly, not in isolation. I would suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker, the PAC is a very useful committee for considering these types of cross-cutting issues. However, it is clear that the criminal justice system faces considerable weaknesses. A central issue is the lack of usable integrated data. Police, courts prisons operate on separate systems that do not effectively communicate with one another.

This fragmentation makes it difficult for the system to function efficiently as a whole, and increases the risk of serious administrative errors. This is reflected in the number of erroneous prison releases in the last 12 months to March 2025, 262 prisoners were mistakenly released, an increase of 128% compared to the previous year's. So let me turn firstly to the estimates themselves. After all, this is what this debate is about. It is striking, even identifying a clear, unified figure for the system is difficult because of the fragmented way the funding is structured and assessed.

The House of Commons Library have confirmed that the Ministry of Justice 267. Main estimate for RDL is. That's running expenditure is 12.69 million and capital expenditure confirmed at 2.36 billion. This represents a 4.4 and 2.6% increase compared to last year, respectively. The Home Office main estimate. In contrast, 267 for order was 19.5 billion, representing a 10.8 increase on last year. Prime Minister has said that governing this country is about choices. So the question is are these the right choices? Whilst the government has committed to increasing Ministry of Justice's Budget by over 2% a year a year, the Department faces mounting pressures.

As the Minister will know, half its running costs are spent on staff. It has has experienced rising demand, inflationary pressures and higher than expected costs. It has responded by transferring £695 million from Underspent capital budgets into day to day expenditure, largely due to the delays in the prison expansion programme. At the same time, the ministry has committed to delivering at least 5% savings, reducing administrative costs by 15% by 2930 and introducing AI to drive efficiencies. All good things.

But they do put pressure on the present Budget. These are ambitious targets, but they must not come at the expense of frontline services and must come with a date to back up that ambitions. So I will now turn to some of these issues in more detail. Police officers are on the front line and too often they face criticism without proper recognition for the vital work they do to keep our communities up and down the country safe. Whilst their funding has increased, with £535.8 million uplift in 26, seven forces are dealing with growing complexity of crime, sustained financial pressure and persistent productivity challenges.

And yet, in Gloucestershire's case, the government are not delivering sufficient funding through the police grant to invest in any new digital IT, which would enable them to be more efficient. These pressures inevitably feed into the courts, which are already under severe strain. With a rising population in this country, it is bound to mean that more people, people would be going through our court system. There are now around 4 million new cases entering our courts and tribunals each year.

In England and Wales. The average time to resolve a case has risen dramatically, from 481 days to 685 days. In the criminal courts. The backlog remains exceptionally high, with an unprecedented 80,200 Crown Court cases open as of December 2025 might have come down a little since then. The median time from an offence being committed to take to the case being completed is 355 days, with some rape and other serious sexual offences, the so-called Russell cases taking three years or more and sometimes can be postponed up to six times.

And the fact is that many of those victims simply give up their case, give up before their cases come to court in order to try and put the trauma they have suffered behind them. And is the system any better in the magistrates courts? In the magistrates court, there is a backlog in excess of 310,000 cases. With the Courts and Tribunals Bill. I am aware that the government is proposing to increase magistrates sentencing powers of up to 36 months. However, we have a huge problem with recruitment of magistrates, meaning that the system is likely to be overwhelmed if more cases get diverted to them and it cannot be right, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we have empty courtrooms and burgeoning waiting lists, the government changes to legal aid have also led to inefficiency with now, and I don't blame these people at all.

But more people are representing themselves, meaning each case takes longer because very often they have to have court procedure explained to them. Crown court sitting days have not kept pace with demand, despite offers from the Lady Chief Justice to increase capacity, which have not been taken up fully by the government. Around 11% of courts are inactive in any given day. Delays of this scale are unacceptable for victims, for defendants and for public confidence in the system. These delays have a direct impact on the citizen population, with more people being held on remand due to the backlog, as well as increased time of preliminary hearing and granting bail.

This all adds to the prison population. We are also seeing an increase in the number of people received into prison, driven by tougher sentencing and rising remand population. There are currently about 16,600 to 18,000 people held on remand in UK prisons, meaning that they have been denied bail or are awaiting trial. Many of those people have been on remand for over six months. The target case for maximum remand. This accounts for nearly 20% of the prison population. The increased flow of untried defendants and extended waiting times due to court backlogs is leading to this unacceptable increase in the prison population and, if dealt with more efficiently, would help overcrowding in our prisons without sufficient capacity or staffing.

This trend is unsustainable. The population reached a record high of 98% capacity, or 88,000, last in August 2024, the highest ever overcrowding is driving violence, placing staff at risk and undermining rehabilitation efforts. The government has committed to creating 20,000 new prison places, as we all know. Yet progress has been slow, with repeated delays and underspending. In a recent accounting officer assessment, there were significant delays in awarding new contracts. Contracts at both HMP forest Bank and HMP Rye Hill.

The AOA does not set out the cause for these delays, or the additional costs that they have incurred. At the same time, retention of prison officers remains a serious challenge, affecting safety and stability and stability across the prison estates. Madam Deputy Speaker, just to give one example of what's going on in the prison system and our hearing on HMP Dartmoor, the issue of radon was raised. The Ministry of Justice has signed a lease until 2023, which it can't be broken.

But the prison. No sooner had the lease been signed, was deemed to be unsafe because of radon. It's costing 4 million a year for an empty prison. Dartmoor is an example of a department making a decision under pressure and at speed, leading to a complete waste of public money. In March 2025, approximately 242 individuals were under probation supervision. Vacancy rates in the probation service have risen from 14% in 2021 to 21% in 2025. Staff are routinely working beyond capacity at an estimated of 118%, though likely higher, and particularly in London, this workload will be increased further with the government's early release scheme, we heard deeply concerning evidence describing a culture of emotional strain trauma amongst probation staff.

This is not, I would say to the Minister, just a workforce issue. It is a public safety issue. When probation fails, re-offending offending rises, placing additional burdens on the police, courts and prisons. The cost of re-offending to this country alone stands at a staggering £20.9 million. But the human cost of victims and communities is immeasurable. In part, this is because our prisons are so overcrowded that prisoners are not being given meaningful activity, for example, work training, so that when they are released, they have developed skills which could help them find work and reduce the reoffending

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rate. On that. Point, I have to give way to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point, I have to give way to. Gentleman, agree and recognise the issue as well. Whenever people enter the do retraining, rehabilitation in prison, return back to the community that they were brought up in where their problems are to start with. And if you you might be able to sorry, the the report might be able to the report might be able to recommend that things can be done in prison, but when they get back to the community, it takes over and they start where they left off.

And does he not? And does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it comes to sorting those issues out, that the issue must be sorted out in the location, the community and the place they come from to ensure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they don't go back to the bad habits? Well. The hon. Member raises a really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member raises a really interesting point. I think the government really needs to consider in the round how it can actually in the round how it can actually give people useful training and work and leisure in prison. So they come out with some skills where come out with some skills where they go out to how they're housed, what employment offers they get, I think, is something that was seriously that the government needs seriously that the government needs to consider. It's a really big problem.

So the number of recourse to prison is now at an all time high, demonstrating a system under severe stress. Planned reforms, including early release schemes, risk placing even greater pressure on an already overstretched probation service. Well run probation is not optional. It is essential. It's what enables people to reintegrate into society and prevents the cycle of crime from continuing. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, the criminal justice system must be treated as one system. The Home Office and Ministry of Justice need to work much closer together to resolve some of the serious problems I've outlined.

Investment reform accountability must reflect this reality. Fixing one part in isolation will not solve the wider problem. As I have said, democracy is is founded on an effective and properly functioning criminal justice system to keep its citizens safe. Serious criminals need to be removed from society by imprisonment, but the system must help itself by taking strenuous steps to reduce reoffending, which, I repeat, cost this country 20.9 billion a year. It's a well-thumbed maxim. Madam Deputy Speaker, whatever the cause, justice delayed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is justice denied. Thank you. Andy Slaughter thank you. Very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate. time for this important debate. This debate is a joint application by the Chairs of Justice, Public by the Chairs of Justice, Public Accounts and Home Affairs Committee. The concern for our criminal justice system is cross Committee, justice system is cross Committee, as the chair of the pack has just has just said, and I thank my

20:21

Andy Slaughter MP (Hammersmith and Chiswick, Labour)

- -

fellow chairs for their focus on this issue in its widest sense. As chair of the Justice Select chair of the Justice Select Committee, I will focus my remarks on the estimates for the Ministry on the estimates for the Ministry of Justice. A year ago, the Justice Committee was granted a similar debate on the spending of the debate on the spending of the Ministry of Justice. I noted at that point the positive settlement the MoJ had received as part of the the MoJ had received as part of the spending review, including 7 billion investment aimed at delivering 14,000 new prison places by 2031 and 700 million a year for the probation service by 2020 829.

In the light of the Sentencing Act reforms, while I welcome many of the actions the government has taken over the last year to reform our criminal justice system, there's still a great deal of progress being made as those targets indicate. The Ministry of Justice suffered years of cuts to its Budget during the years of Tory austerity, meaning that when this government was elected in 2024, MoJ expenditure was 11%, less than 2010. In real terms, the main estimates for 2020 627 confirm that the Moj's day to day spending is set to increase by 757 million, or 6.5%, which includes further investment in the Prisons and Probation Service, the Courts and Tribunals Service and the Legal Aid Agency, and I'll come to each of those areas in turn shortly.

The Moj's capital spending is also set to increase by almost £60 million, or 2.6%. I also note that the MoJ anticipates drawing down further funding at the supplementary estimates to support its prison capacity capacity programme, and that must be right. This year's main estimates allocate over half its day to day spending to the Prisons and Probation Service. This is aimed at investment in staffing, opening of additional prison places and paying for prison contract costs. The prison population stands at over 87,000 and is predicted to increase, with the most recent yet set of projections forecasting 91,400 by September 2026 and between 97,400 and 102, 102,100 by September 2029.

And these are the highest numbers that we will ever have seen in in in UK prisons, already, 25% of of prisons prisoners live in overcrowded conditions. Overcrowding has, again, we've heard, reduces safety, increases the likelihood of self-harm and violence, and impairs the rehabilitative programmes that prisons are able to offer. The justice Committee has focussed much of its work over the last year on the endemic drugs crisis in our prisons, and the poor rehabilitative offer available for prisoners. The government's continued investment in creating new prison places is necessary.

But alongside the provisions of the Sentencing Act, some of which have now come into force, I hope we can begin to see a stabilisation and eventual reduction of the prison population and an improvement in conditions there. I note the deaths in prison custody decreased by 12% in the previous 12 months up to the march of this year, but any non-natural death in prison is a tragedy. I would direct members to our reports on drugs, in prisons and rehabilitation in prisons, which have been tagged to this debate on the Order Paper.

As I mentioned earlier, the. By 2020 829, the probation service will receive 700 million additional per year to support reforms in in the Sentencing Act, including a significant increase for the use of electronic monitoring and tagging. This investment is a substantial and welcome increase for a service that has been under strain for many years. I've raised repeatedly my concerns over the performance of Serco in its provision of the of the service, and the Justice Committee will monitor closely their performance.

Moving further forward, I would like to commend the work of the Public Accounts Committee in looking at the probation Service and the report they published in February of this year. PAC's report stated that the vacancy rate for probation officers increased from 14% in 2021 to 21% in 2025, with probation officers working above capacity for several years, the system has been running hot for an unsustainable period, and this impacts on the hardworking probation staff. And that cannot be underplayed, and I hope to see improvements in this area soon.

Turning to the additional funding for the Courts and Tribunals Service. This is driven by pay increases and and increased. Indeed, uncapped sitting days in the Crown Court, which are necessary to recruit and sustain staff and to address the backlog. The Crown Court backlog continues to sit at around 8000 cases. The uncapping of sitting days for 2020 627 is is a welcome step and has a positive impact already, but it's widely recognised it is not enough on its own.

It's against this backdrop of an ever increasing backlog that the government introduced the Courts and Tribunals Bill earlier this year. Among other measures, the bill would shift more cases to the magistrates court and reduce the use of jury trials. The justice Committee recently published an extensive report on the bill, in which we warned the capacity of the magistrates Court is unlikely to expand quickly enough to meet this increased level of demand. Our report highlighted the long standing reductions in the number of magistrates and legal advisers, and describes the recruitment target of having 21000 magistrates in place by 2029 as unrealistic.

The Courts and Tribunals Bill has been carried over to this session, but a date for its Report stage has not yet been set. I would encourage the incoming Prime Minister whomsoever that may be, to carefully consider the committee's critique of the bill, but also to be conscious that reform is desperately needed and the can cannot simply be kicked down the road to avoid difficult decisions in a good way. Yes, of course I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just I'm grateful to the chair of the Select Committee for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the Select Committee for. Giving way. What contribution to reducing the Crown. Court backlog does he believe? Curtailing the does he believe? Curtailing the right to jury trials will bring.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right to jury trials will bring. I think, first of all, we'll have to look at the the Leveson package, the two volumes, over 1000 package, the two volumes, over 1000 pages of the Prime has put together in 180 recommendations, a very small number of which deal with that issue. I think it's undeniable that that will be one factor that has an effect. Where I would agree with him is I think it's very difficult to calculate at this stage what effect that would have.

The changes to jury trials. It's not the abolition of jury trial. It's moving the line so that some more cases will be dealt with. At summary level. I prefer I think he knows to look at the practical problems that there may be in replacing some jury trials with additional pressures on the magistrates court. So as a matter of principle, we can differ as a matter of practice. I suspect he would agree with me. I would also ask him to perhaps agree with me that there will be some benefit, but I agree with him that that benefit has not been been calculated as yet.

Let me pick up from what I was saying. A malfunctioning court system is bad for victims. It's bad for defendants and bad for faith in our justice system, which has ramifications for our democracy. I will conclude by touching upon the legal aid agency, which of course affects several of our criminal legal aid, the legal aid agency. Spend, spend spending will rise 10% year on year. This is driven by government reforms that will result in higher billing in civil representation schemes, fee uplift in crime, lower schemes and additional operating costs.

As I said last year, I was surprised to see the spending review did not include a specific funding allocation for the legal aid agency, the only reference to it being in the context of potential efficiency savings. The MoJ will be making in the review period. Continuing investment in legal aid is essential to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system, and efforts to tackle the Crown Court backlog. Access to justice for those who rely upon legal aid is reliant upon well-funded and properly functioning legal aid agency, and we're all aware of the difficulties they've had over the past year.

The Justice Committee will soon be publishing a report focussed on legal aid as part of a wider access to justice inquiry. And so Madam Deputy Speaker, I would conclude by emphasising how important it is. We have a properly functioning criminal justice system. If the public are to continue to have faith in our institutions and political system, I would implore the incoming administration not to lose the focus on reforming the criminal justice system. The current system is not fit for purpose, and we cannot afford not to act.

20:31

Sir Ashley Fox MP (Bridgwater, Conservative)

- -

Ashley Fox thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Crown Court Deputy Speaker. The Crown Court backlog is the most significant challenge facing the Ministry of Justice. Long delays reaching trial undermine confidence in the whole justice system. I welcome the extra money the government has made available to increase the number of sitting days of the Crown Court. I also welcome the additional funding to improve the physical condition of our courts and to invest in improved IT systems, to make our courts run more efficiently.

While the government is right to take these steps, I am concerned that they are wasting time, effort and money in curtailing the rights of British citizens to a jury trial.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This reform has been presented as a necessary step to improve the efficiency of the courts. However.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

However. Evidence suggests. To the contrary, the government is aware of analysis from criminal justice researchers that indicates the entire package of government the entire package of government reforms will save no more than 8% of Crown Court time. More striking still, the introduction of judge only trials is likely to deliver a saving of just one and a half to 2.5%. This is a marginal efficiency gain compared with the curtailing of our citizens rights to a jury trial.

And it doesn't take into account the potential wasted time in determining whether a trial is held in the magistrate's or, indeed, by the new Crown Court Bench Division. I have previously asked the Lord Chancellor to set out the evidence to show how much of the backlog will be cut by his reduction of jury trials, and I have not received a meaningful reply. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I must conclude that he is either unwilling or unable to provide a response. Now, the Labour Party have proven of late that they are willing to dispense with the unpopular and the ineffectual.

So I hope they will take the same approach with unpopular and ineffectual policy as they do with personnel. I hope that the right hon. Member for Makerfield and his new Lord Chancellor will drop this dreadful policy. If the government is serious about reducing delays, perhaps their focus should be addressing why workers in the Ministry of Justice take more days off sick than any other Whitehall department. The average MoJ employee took 10.7 days sickness in 2020 425.

That is 30% higher than the civil service average and double the average in the private sector. The Minister needs to get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

her department in order. I will give way. Sarah Russell. Thank you very much for giving way. I was wondering if he has any way. I was wondering if he has any figures disaggregating the position in terms of prison officers and the remainder of MoJ staff, because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

obviously their working lives are very different. I don't believe that information was provided, or certainly not when was provided, or certainly not when it was presented to me. But if the hon. Lady has it, no doubt she'll hon. Lady has it, no doubt she'll send it to me. Jury trials and staff absence are not the only areas where the government is focusing on the wrong issue. A similar problem emerges in the management of our prisons. The government seems to believe that recklessly releasing many thousands of criminals early will address the crisis of overcrowding.

Instead of investing in measures to ensure that they don't reoffend. I fear that releasing so many criminals so early in their sentences risks a wave of reoffending in the future. Now it is well established that when prisoners engage in meaningful educational or vocational courses, there are sizeable reductions in reoffending. Over 50% of adult prisoners have a literary skills of an 11 year old or lower. Knowing this, you might think the government would seek to address the problem.

The earned progression model surely should ensure that participation in education and training is compulsory. To secure the very early releases that the government is proposing. Instead, this government is choosing to reduce the provision of prison education. Astonishing though that might seem. This is of huge concern because investment in prison education is cost effective. Research in 2018 showed that the economic benefits of lowering reoffending and higher levels of employment after release outweighed the costs of prisoner education by a ratio of 5 to 1.

Now, the problem in this instance is not that the Budget has been cut, but the cost of supplying it has risen so significantly that the volume of core education delivered this year will be cut by 20 to 25%. Now, instead of addressing why these costs are addressed or exploring more competitive and flexible commissioning models to incorporate smaller providers, the government's response has been to cut provision. This is short sighted. If the MoJ is so poor at entering into contracts, may I recommend to the Minister that this Budget is entirely devolved to prison governors? I believe they would be better at bringing together local businesses to provide the the education they need for the prisoners in their care.

Certainly better than paying Serco or Capita or whoever. 100 million a year to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deliver less education each year. I will give way. Jess Brown-Fuller. I thank the hon. Gentleman for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and he's making an excellent point about the ability for prison governors to spend money. When I was speaking to a prison When I was speaking to a prison governor recently, he reflected that because of the amount that they're allowed to spend when the they're allowed to spend when the washing machine breaks, he can't purchase a commercial washing machine. So he keeps buying ones from the high street, which naturally break after a week or so because of the level of washing that they're having to do.

Does he agree with me that giving them some more flexibility so that they can make decisions for the prison, that they know the best, would actually save the MoJ money in the long run?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Lady for intervention. I agree with her on the Justice Affairs Committee. We hear this all the time when we visit prisons, for example, security netting that is broken and security netting that is broken and can't be repaired or replaced until some very long, convoluted process some very long, convoluted process goes through Whitehall and comes back. And six months later, after. No doubt many drones have flown in No doubt many drones have flown in with however many packages of contraband goods.

It's absolutely hopeless. We have to devolve proper responsibility and financial management to prison governors. Now sitting on the justice committee, I have seen and heard first hand the realities of how reduced educational opportunities are putting rehabilitation at risk. Yet despite awareness of these dangers, the government only partially accepted our formal recommendation to prioritise the delivery of core education provision. Madam Deputy Speaker, these estimates debate allow the House to hold the government to account, not just for how much it spends, but how well it spends it.

Curtailing jury trials for marginal gain and cutting back on prison education are not the reforms of a system focussed on long term effectiveness. If we are serious about delivering justice that is timely, fair and sustainable, then we must prioritise the right kinds of investment investment that will deliver the reforms the justice system needs to protect victims as its number one priority, to deliver justice and get good value for money for the taxpayer. Thank you.

20:40

Sarah Russell MP (Congleton, Labour)

- -

Sarah Russell thank. rise today to thank the government very much for the considerable progress that has been made on criminal legal aid and other criminal legal aid and other matters within the estimates since we have taken government, the court system, as we have heard, was in the most dilapidated and decrepit state, and we had had an absolute dearth in judge recruitment between 2010 and 2018. The net result was that an entire justice system has been on its knees. So within that context, the 10% uplift within these two years in the legal aid expenditure is very, very much long overdue.

I would like to ask the Minister a couple of questions, though. There have been significant problems with the legal aid agencies, IT systems, which I know are increasingly in hand. It appears from the House of Commons library papers that there is a 75% reduction in the capital spend at the Legal Aid Agency over the. The coming period. It is not clear to me whether that's accurate or perhaps somehow not quite the right reporting, because I know that there is a proposal to spend significant money on the legal aid agency IT system, and I don't see how that wouldn't fit within the capital estimates, but it would be helpful if she's able to report back either today or to Justice Select Committee subsequently, on how this has come about.

The disparity does seem extremely large. The entire system is still creaking very heavily. And what I want to say, in an environment in which we know there may have to be further cuts to further departments to fund the defence spending investment that is required is that justice has been being cut as a department in this country, not since 2010 but actually since 1997. Legal aid rates have gone up by £1 per hour since 1997, with the exception of the areas that the government has put up.

But it is only some of them since we took government. The result is that legal aid in general is in hugely difficult circumstances, and we see the net effect of that in the number of people who are representing themselves in the courts. When I have asked the question at Justice Select Committee as to whether or not there has been an evaluation of what the impact is on the court, backlogs of unrepresented litigants in person, and what assessment has been made of the difference that that may make in terms of trial time in the criminal and civil courts, and therefore, the potential implications for the backlogs in those courts, which at the moment stand at £350,000 in the magistrates court, as well as the 80,000 that is commonly reported in the Crown courts, the MoJ has not been able to give us those figures and is not able to say that that assessment has been done.

It is speculative to suggest that because people do not have a lawyer and large numbers of them will not have a lawyer, that that is increasing the courts backlog because we just don't have the figures. But in an environment in which every penny counts and in which spending that money extremely efficiently is vital, it seems like a very significant omission not to have at least reviewed whether or not that additional investment might bring the courts in, in moving up the criteria for entitlement to legal aid significantly might change the the dimensions of the court backlog, which all of us want to see.

The nature of the. The current entitlement is that if you had a total household income of £37,000 or more in the Crown Court where you could be facing trial for rape or all kinds of really serious offences, you wouldn't be entitled to legal aid. And I think most members of the public would be quite shocked by that, that actually, if they were accused of a crime of that gravity, that if their household income both potentially both adults comes to more than more than that, that they would get no legal aid.

When I looked at the figures in 1970 in this country, about 28 million people were eligible for legal aid. The figures today would be infinitely smaller. So I completely accept that we cannot simply flood money into a system where we don't have that money, and it wouldn't be responsible. And B if you suddenly just intensely flush money into a system that is not set up to accommodate it, the risk is that you create waste. So I understand why the government is taking a staged approach, but what I would absolutely like us to make sure that we're doing is we're exploring all of the potential ways of reducing Crown Court backlog.

And rather than what I feel at the moment is that there are some very contentious proposals on the table, some of which I don't support. And I think it's pleasing to see that. Andy Burnham has suggested in December that he would have many thank yous. Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Makerfield has suggested in December that perhaps this would be worth looking at again, and there are many of us on all sides of the House who would be you.

20:45

Catherine McKinnell MP (Newcastle upon Tyne North, Labour)

- -

Catherine McKinnell, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's an honour to follow the hon. Member for Congleton and indeed all members who have contributed to, I members who have contributed to, I think, what is a very thoughtful debate on this issue, and I think there is a huge amount of cross-party consensus indicated by the two Secretary, two chairs of the Justice Select Committee and indeed, my colleague and the hon. Member for North Cotswolds, the chair of the Public Accounts Committee, and I want to commend him for the work that he does in championing sound public finances and also agree with so much of what he said in his speech about this being an issue across government and the Public Accounts Committee, therefore being well placed to contribute to the discussion and indeed the solutions on this issue as failure to address these issues really have significant effects, both on our public finances and on the most vulnerable people in our society.

Indeed, often these issues are reflected in our constituency mailboxes, and I was recently contacted by a young woman who had reported child sexual abuse to the police last year, but due to repeated delays and cancellations, she is still not had her achieving best evidence interview with the police. It's extremely distressing for her, as all can imagine, but I'm afraid it is symptomatic of the delays that do persist within our criminal justice system, and we know that young victims are significantly more likely to withdraw from the justice process where a case is dragging on.

And we know that in 2023, more than 1 in 4 rape investigations ended because the victim could no longer continue. So these long waiting times are a significant factor in achieving justice, not to mention the cost to the public purse. So with this in mind, I am pleased that the government has already lifted the cap on the number of days that courts can sit, and that will promote efficiency within the system, because we must use our court estate to its full capacity.

And we know that that is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happening at present. My hon. Friend. Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I had a meeting with a group of barristers at Wolverhampton Crown Court not long ago, and they were really grateful that this government had uncapped hearing days, trial dates, which hearing days, trial dates, which they said had made a significant difference to cutting the court backlogs. But one issue that they backlogs. But one issue that they raised was the the problem of prisoners not arriving at court on time, and they felt that that would make a significant impact on making sure that cases did proceed.

So does my hon. Friend agree that this is something that the government can perhaps take a greater look at?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree entirely, and he anticipates the point that I was anticipates the point that I was coming to. And because these increased court days are clearly increased court days are clearly vital for maintaining productivity and efficiency of the use of court and efficiency of the use of court time. But indeed, that only works if the court system itself is if the court system itself is working. We've seen the really good examples of where these additional days are already being used to clear backlogs and reduce outstanding cases.

And in the English courts, we've seen evidence of where domestic abuse cases, those involving vulnerable witnesses are prioritised. It can reduce waiting times, particularly for those sensitive cases. And yes, that makes a big difference to them individually, but it also makes an impact on our system as a whole. But you're my hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need a court estate that is fit for purpose in order to maximise the use of these additional days. And I indeed also visited my local court, Newcastle Crown Court, and it was very obvious, even on the day I was there, the consequence of some of these malfunctions within our system that cause problems with court cases proceeding, whether that's faulty infrastructure, whether it's flooded, flooded parts of the court building itself, whether it's dock alarms and door locks failing to operate, meaning that staff don't feel safe to operate and to maintain the security of the courtroom and therefore cannot go ahead.

And often it's the vulnerable victims that bear the brunt of delays and cancelled court hearings. And there was a case mentioned to me on the day I was there of a complainant in a rape case, along with her husband, who was also the victim of an assault by the defendant who had raped his wife. They were forced to wait for hours for the trial to begin. When they were eventually told that the defendant would arrive and the delay to the delivery of him was causing that delay for this couple.

But indeed, that had a knock on effect on additional days in court. And obviously that delay ensues right across the system. Court staff reported that, in large part, much of the issues around the court system, from a structural perspective, have been caused by the departure of a full time maintenance engineer dismissed due to the need to make savings. And in light of the many delays of trials and hearings, it would appear that that is a false economy, which is why I am pleased that the government has recognised these challenges to the court estate itself and is making these investments, and I am also really pleased to know how aware the Minister is and is acting on this huge problem of private contractors delivering defendants either to an incorrect court several hours late or just not at all.

And midway through a trial in April at Newcastle, a defendant left court in custody on Friday, only to fail to reappear the following Monday. With a jury ready and waiting. It's completely unacceptable and a total waste of taxpayers money and hugely offensive to those partaking in these crimes. So I know the Minister is aware of these issues and is keen to establish an oversight body to review that prisoner transfer process from end to end. And I will keep a very close eye, as I'm sure others contributing to this debate will also.

Finally, I know the government recognises the importance of providing free legal advice and indeed has set out very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton. It is so important and recognised by the Public Accounts Committee and the importance of investing in criminal aid, and up to £34 million more a year, which is welcome. So I conclude by asking if the Minister will join me in recognising the human, but also the financial benefit of timely justice, the absolute importance of maintaining our court estate, and also the improvements where we see good practice happening across our system that that is shared.

The number of times I hear good ideas and wonder why they're not being done elsewhere. And I think we need to have a system where good practice is shared and the best practice is rolled out for the benefit of justice right across the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

system. Which brings us. To. The front. Bench contributions. Liberal Democrat spokesperson Jess Brown-Fuller.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jess Brown-Fuller. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak. In today's estimates day debate on today's estimates day debate on criminal justice, and I'd like to put on record my thanks to the three chairs of the select committees that suggested this debate to the backbench Business Committee. The chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee the Home Affairs Select Committee and the chair of the Justice Select Committee, and also to all the hon. Members who have stuck it out in the chamber on a Monday evening, who clearly care about criminal justice.

Because politics is all about priorities. And so often the justice system falls a little bit short when we are talking to members of the public, unless they have had experience of the criminal justice system, unless they have been a victim of a crime, or unless they have a loved one who's had that experience of going through it, it doesn't necessarily appear in their top five priorities for government, but I thank all of those that work within the criminal

20:53

Jess Brown-Fuller MP (Chichester, Liberal Democrat)

- -

justice system to keep it working, to keep it functioning with a lack to keep it functioning with a lack of investment, often with crumbling infrastructure and a huge amount of pressure on them to make sure that justice is served. And the system as it stands, lets down victims and defendants alike. It fails to rehabilitate offenders, and so many rehabilitate offenders, and so many never see the justice that they deserve. To begin with, the criminal crown backlog is clearly unacceptably high, and that is opinion that is shared across the House.

It is the biggest challenge that the justice system faces, as said by the hon. Member for Bridgwater in his contribution, its exponential growth requires urgent action, but the fix does not lie within taking a sledgehammer to jury trials, jury trials provide a fundamental safeguard of fairness and liberty. They are also not the cause of this backlog, and we on these benches, do not fundamentally believe that the government has successfully made the case that its reforms will reduce it either or see any sort of cost saving to to the Department.

The modelling has still not been made available, and the estimates behind the claimed time savings have been widely questioned, and even accepting the government's own estimates, it will take a decade for the backlog to fall below current levels. Indeed, the backlog is currently predicted to continue increasing and surpass 100,000 cases by the end of next year, at what has now been proven to reduce the backlog across the country is the very welcome uncapping of sitting days, and we're pleased that Hmcts has been allocated £143.1 million uplift, including the funding for uncapped sitting days, with the previous increases in sitting days that the government announced in the last round.

Crown court backlogs are beginning to fall at the Old Bailey. In 2025, they reduced their backlog. In Chelmsford, it fell by 10% and Maidstone saw a 5% reduction in their backlog across the country. The overall Crown Court backlog in the last quarter fell for the first time in three years. So the truth is that proper funding for our courts and open sitting days are bringing down the backlog, and we're yet to see the result of the full uncapping sitting of days, which only came into place in April.

And given the scepticism that the right hon. Member for Makerfield has expressed about jury trial reform, I hope the government will give serious consideration to changing course, he told BBC Radio Manchester. The government should pause and take a step back and have proper consideration, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Congleton and just on another area of the criminal justice system. Madam Deputy Speaker, we in the Liberal Democrats have put forward several amendments, such as training for court staff, so that the victim experience is better because so often victims report feeling unsupported or unheard, and the government must do more to continue on the journey that they are on.

To ensure that the court system centres victims experience. And part of that experience is the processing. After a criminal case and access to those court transcripts for victims. So I acknowledge the government has made steps to improve access after a robust negotiations in both houses and on various bills since July 2024, most recently the Sentencing Act 2026. The Victims and Courts Bill and I also put on record the exemplary effort made by my hon. Friend, the Member for Richmond Park, who has been campaigning to ensure that court transcripts are made available for free for victims of crime.

After her constituent was quoted thousands of pounds to access the transcript of her own court case. Nobody should be priced out of seeing their own story in black and white after they have gone through a Crown Court experience, and Charlotte Mayor and the campaign open Justice for All have been campaigning incredibly, incredibly on this issue. They've published a letter calling on the Deputy Prime Minister to go further and faster, and that includes ensuring that magistrates courts are recorded and sentencing remarks are made available for free in all courts.

We're not here to discuss the Courts and Tribunals Bill, but it doesn't seem to be progressing currently or coming back to the House in any rush. I'd be quite happy for clauses one and 1 to 8 to never appear again, but the further clauses, which actually do really important things like introducing recording in magistrates courts, repealing the presumption against parental responsibility, are really key pieces of strengthening our justice system and our family courts system. We also repeatedly hear stories of failings in infrastructure, roofs collapsing, IT systems not working, evidence being shared via memory stick and then being lost during a hearing.

The Ministry of Justice must get a grip of the chance to change that and improve the environment for those working in those courts and then those attending them, I'll briefly move on to prisons, which continue to run very hot. They are overcrowded, understaffed and increasingly unable to rehabilitate offenders. Violence is rife with an average of 28 assaults on staff every day across the prison estate. I think that goes back to the hon. Member for Bridgewater's suggestion that the MoJ has much higher levels of sickness.

I think that is in large part due to the stress that is put on prison staff and the number of them that go off unwell. We also see the same when you when you reduce the numbers down and you look at the probation service, they also have a much higher level of sick rate than in other civil service departments. And I think that is largely in part to the stress that they experience within probation as well. The Liberal Democrats believe that rehabilitation must be at the heart of any approach within our prison system, and that means investing in better education.

Alongside introducing a Through the Gates mentoring programme to support prisoners as they transition back into society. Education is a key area and I recently raised this with the with the MoJ because government analysis is showing a significant decrease in core education hours in public sector prisons. This has been felt most acutely in women's prisons, where there has been a 30% fall in the number of hours that women can access prison education. The government urgently needs to set out a plan to reverse this trend.

Otherwise, the cycle of reoffending will simply continue for far too many people. Reoffending, as mentioned by the chair of the Public Accounts Committee, is estimated to cost taxpayers £20.9 billion every year. I sat down with a group of ex-offenders earlier this year, working with the organisation Revolving Doors. One of the ex-offenders that I was chatting to had been into prison 17 times on short sentences, and he explained that it was drug addiction that was ruining his life. When he was released from prison to fund a drug addiction that was costing him £250 per day, he would commit theft to the value of £750 per day to resell those items so he could afford his drug habit.

So the cost to our businesses as well, if we don't get the criminal justice system working and we don't invest in these people and stop them on that cycle of re-offending to fund their addictions, then they, they, they get trapped in the criminal justice system. So nowhere in our system is the invest to save principle stronger than in our criminal justice system. A well functioning probation service is indispensable to rehabilitating ex-offenders. A dysfunctional probation service fails victims. Probation officers are expected to manage ever larger caseloads while receiving less training.

Combined with poor pay, it is little wonder that many leave despite wanting to help. A probation officer said to me in one of my surgeries that when she first started in probation 30 years ago, she spent 30 minutes with a, with a, with an offender that she was managing. And when she came out of that meeting, her boss said, why on earth did you only spend 30 minutes with that person? How on earth would you get to know them in just 30 minutes? She said.

Now, if she spends 30 minutes with somebody, she's told she needs to speed up because she's spent far too long and she's got far too many people to get through, and she has stuck it out. She's still in the probation service, but so many people leave. We have a real retention crisis because nobody goes into probation to be risk averse. Nobody goes into probation to be box ticking. They go in because they truly believe that they can change people's lives. And in February this year, the Public Accounts Committee published a report on the efficiency and reliability of the probation service, and it concluded that the probation service in England and Wales is failing, that it is teetering on the brink of collapse and that its performance has significantly worsened since the MoJ and Hmps brought probation under full public control in 2018 2019, and the failure of that system is epitomised by record numbers of prisoners being recalled to custody at the end of March 2025, recalled prisoners accounted for 15% of the entire prison population, a 49% increase since 2021.

So I recognise that the government will have invested £700 million into probation by the year 2829, but we're yet to see that significant step change to show that this investment has stabilised the service. But also it's not just about the investment into probation, it's about the culture shift that is desperately needed within probation. And I've had many conversations with the prisons Minister in the other place on that topic, and I know it's something he feels passionately about. Keeping the public safe also requires improvements to policing, a return to visible neighbourhood policing, and an end to the scourge of officers being stuck behind desks completing administrative work.

Even though policing has received an uplift, cases are far more complex, as was said by the hon. Gentleman, and they require far more police time. Alongside the alarming reduction in police front counters and stations. This has left communities, especially mine, in my constituency of Chichester, feeling abandoned. I shouldn't have constituents turning around with shock when they see a police officer walking down the street with me in areas like Selsey, but they were acting like they've never seen a police officer before.

They are so not used to community policing. The government should commit, as part of its upcoming police force reorganisation, to embedding a dedicated rural and coastal crime team in every police

**** Possible New Speaker ****

force, ensuring that rural crime does not go unpunished. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Shadow Minister Kieran Mullan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shadow Minister Kieran Mullan. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'm grateful to be able to respond to this estimates day debate, considering the expenditure debate, considering the expenditure of the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office as it relates to criminal justice. I want to thank all members that contributed, and especially thank the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for opening debate. My hon. Friend the opening debate. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds and also for his sponsorship of the application for debate alongside the chairs of the Home and Justice Affairs Committee.

And I also want to begin by thanking all the prison officers, probation officers, police officers and and the staff that work in the relevant agencies. And actually also the very many workers and volunteers and associated charities that also work very hard in our justice system because whatever we debate, debate, and whatever the government decides around expenditure, it's them have to go out there and deliver the priorities of the government of the day. But I'm afraid whatever the topic, whatever part of the government's activities and spending plans we're debating now, we're debating a shadow government, a government in name only.

We're debating the spending plans of a government that lost its Prime Minister a week ago. We're scrutinising the priorities of a Ministry of Justice who's Lord Chancellor serves at the pleasure of a Labour Party that is, as we speak, sounding the fanfares and preparing a coronation for its newest MP to become Prime Minister.

21:05

Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)

- -

21:40

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP (North Cotswolds, Conservative)

- -

other hand, that is counter veiled by the increases in the backlog in by the increases in the backlog in the magistrates courts. But I do wish to to to echo my hon. Friends wish to to to echo my hon. Friends remarks, and I'm sure the Minister would echo this too. We should pay grateful thanks to those police officers, probation officers and officers, probation officers and court officers who often have to work in incredibly difficult conditions, delivering some of the most difficult tasks in society.

So we should thank them. I think the most worrying bit that I've heard tonight is this early release scheme, and the number of potentially very serious criminals that are going to be released. And if the government is determined to do that, and the honourable Minister has made it very clear government is about choices, and I think this is the wrong choice. But if she is absolutely determined to do that, let's be honest about it. And she didn't answer my question about the numbers.

But perhaps if I put a parliamentary question down, she will answer it anyway. I'm going to put it down and see whether she does answer it, because I think that is the wrong choice, and I would urge her again to think rethink that. I also echo comments that have been made by my colleagues. This re offending rate is far too high at around 50%. We do need to find a way in our prisons of giving prisoners meaningful education, meaningful training of skills, so that when they come out of prison, they hopefully will not reoffend.

Finally, she plays great play on measures that are going to be taken with these serious offenders when they come out of prisons, tagging and so on. Tagging has a part to play. But she knows and I know, and the rest of the House knows that if a serious prisoner is going to commit a crime, they'll commit that crime, whether they've got a tag on or not, because they'll probably take it off before they commit the crime. I don't wish to go too far down that line, so I'll just please just reconsider this.

We all want the criminal justice system to work. We all want people to have faith in it. My worry is that if one of these early released people commits a heinous crime, it will destabilise that society in a huge way. Otherwise, Madam Deputy Speaker, this has been a very constructive debate, and I thank the government and the Minister for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

her time. Order, order under Standing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order under Standing Order number 54. The question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion stands over until 7 on the motion stands over until 7 p.m. tomorrow. Which brings us to p.m. tomorrow. Which brings us to motion number two relating to the International Development Committee. International Development Committee. Jessica Morden. I beg to move. The

21:43

Motion on behalf of the Committee of Selection: International Development Committee; Northern Ireland Affairs Committee

question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion number three on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Jessica Ireland Affairs Committee. Jessica Morden, I beg to move. The question Morden, I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I beg to move that this House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now adjourn. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now adjourn. Jessica Toale. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker, and I'm grateful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker, and I'm grateful to have secured this important debate. I want to begin by asking the House to imagine a young woman

21:44

Adjournment: Intergenerational impacts of diethylstilbestrol on mothers and children

the House to imagine a young woman in Britain in the 1950s. She's pregnant. She may have struggled to conceive. She may already have experienced the heartbreak of miscarriage, but she is desperate

21:44

Adjournment: Intergenerational impacts of diethylstilbestrol on mothers and children Jessica Toale MP (Bournemouth West, Labour)

- -

to do everything she can to protect her baby. She goes to the doctor, as many of us would. She has prescribed a drug and told that it

21:44

Adjournment: Intergenerational impacts of diethylstilbestrol on mothers and children

prescribed a drug and told that it may help prevent miscarriage. It may help her carry that baby to term and even give her the healthy

21:44

Adjournment: Intergenerational impacts of diethylstilbestrol on mothers and children Jessica Toale MP (Bournemouth West, Labour)

- -

22:03

Preet Kaur Gill MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Birmingham Edgbaston, Labour )

- -

Minister Preet Kaur Gill. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. >> I'm grateful for the opportunity to to respond to this important debate on the intergenerational impact of diethyl stilboestrol, or Des on women. I want to begin by applauding the perseverance of my hon. Friend, the Member for Bournemouth West, and the courage of those affected by the impact of Des, including campaigners, many of them women and their families who have worked for many years to ensure that their experiences are heard and understood.

I was honoured to meet some of them earlier today and I thank them for being here in the gallery. Mothers, daughters on behalf of their sons and granddaughters. On the 5th of November 2025. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North, the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, issued a formal apology on behalf of the government to all those who have been affected by des. I wish to reiterate that apology today. At this stage, the government's focus is on carefully considering the available evidence and determining the most appropriate next steps, rather than just simply establishing a public inquiry.

Our current work includes ensuring that appropriate clinical pathways, professional awareness and sources of support are in place for those who may have been affected by Des exposure. We have taken action to raise awareness of Des among health professionals on the 12th of December 2025. Professor Peter Johnson, the national clinical Director for cancer, sent a letter to all Cancer Alliance leadership highlighting the effects of Des, asking them to cascade guidance through their clinical networks to help reach appropriate health professionals, including GPS.

We have taken steps to improve our knowledge about the impacts of Des. The Department has formally commissioned the University of Exeter through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, to undertake a systematic evidence review of the impacts of Des. That is because the current research into Des, as my hon. Friend stated, whilst useful, does not yet paint a coherent picture. For instance, existing systematic reviews on the physical impacts of Des across first, second and third generations are relatively dated and have reached differing conclusions.

There are also primary research studies that have not yet been incorporated into those reviews, and existing reviews have not fully considered psychosocial impacts, and the newly commissioned review is intended to address those gaps. Those gaps? My hon. Friend asked about screening. The research ensures that any future policy on local treatment pathways, clinical guidance and potential screening arrangements is informed by the latest available evidence. It will also be important in guiding decisions on whether a lifelong screening protocol should be developed for individuals affected by Des.

Those women affected by Des should, of course, be involved in this work, and that is why we have made sure that the University will engage members of Des justice UK so that it can learn from women and some men with lived experience of the effects of Des. I do recognise that the importance of trying to understand the scale of Des exposure and the number of people who may have been affected. The MHRA has taken a number of steps to identify what regulatory action was taken by its predecessor in relation to the risk associated with Des, and these include searches of agency archives, both digital and hard copy, for documentation relating to regulatory activity associated with the use of Des.

They have visits to the National Archives to attempt to locate records from the 1970s, including discussions on Des by the Committee on Safety of Medicines, a predecessor to the Commission on Human Medicines. Locating previous editions of the British National Formulary and Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. Data sheets, which may detail information on the use of Des. The mirror also contacted the General Medical Council to establish whether any direct communications on Des had been sent from the GMC direct to healthcare professionals.

The GMC could not find any records of communications. And finally, there have been searches of the yellow card database for any reports of the use of Des. However, given the time that has passed, I am sure the House will appreciate the significant challenges in relation to locating and retrieving records from the 1940s to the 1970s, alongside the steps I have just described, my officials are working to explore what can be done through NHS digital processes in relation to missing or destroyed medical records.

In closing, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to again thank members for raising this very important issue, and I want to pay tribute to all those affected by Des, who have continued to campaign for recognition, support and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

answers. I will. Be very grateful, the Minister for giving way. I'm here because my constituent, Helen from Romney, constituent, Helen from Romney, came to see me at my advice surgery on Saturday, and I was waiting till the Minister got close to concluding her remarks, because I concluding her remarks, because I want to understand what is being done and what the government, what more the government can do to give more the government can do to give information to people who think they may be a des daughter.

Her mum certainly took something during her pregnancy, but it's really difficult to interpret the GP's handwriting on the records that Helen has received. What can the Minister tell Helen and people like her, who think probably their health conditions suggest that they are a Des daughter, but they don't yet have the evidence to show that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they are Preet Kaur Gill. Can I thank the hon. Member for her question and pay tribute to Helen? Look, this is really important. My hon. Friend mentioned this issue because whilst there may this issue because whilst there may be 600 women out there, there are many, many more that just do not know. And I'm sure grandchildren know. And I'm sure grandchildren are too. And it's really important that there is information widely available and not just on NHS available and not just on NHS websites, but they should be able to go to their GP and their GP should be able to direct them to a screening service, but equally take seriously the issues that they raise.

I think there does need to be more done in this space, and it's certainly something I look forward to working with campaigners and my hon. Friend, as to what more we can do where we do identify gaps. Madam Deputy Speaker, I just want to pay tribute to some of the women that I met who are sitting in the gallery earlier today, just hearing directly from them their powerful testimonies really does put a lot of this into context for me, because it's not just about reading, you know, about people's stories, but actually that sense of lived experience of what that trauma has been like for many, many women and their grandchildren and, and so forth.

So can I just pay tribute to Claire Fletcher, Marilyn, Juliette, Heather and her two daughters, Liam, Charlie and Marie and her daughter and Julia. And apologies if I did miss someone, someone's name, but I just want to say thank you so much, you know, for sharing your exposure to Des and that the healthcare system just did not adequately address the recognised and multi-generational, multi-generational adverse effects of the drug. And we have got to continue to listen carefully to those affected, learn from their experiences, and take every appropriate step to safeguard people now and in the future.

This is not simply, as someone said, a historical medical issue. It is about women whose voices were dismissed, whose experiences were doubted, and whose families continue to live with the consequences. And it is just a reminder, Madam Deputy Speaker, that when women say something is wrong, we must listen. We cannot change the past, but we can ensure that they that their voices shape how we respond. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion say aye. The ayes have

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page