Commons Chamber

Wednesday 30th April 2025

(began 7 hours, 10 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:42
Mims Davies Portrait Mims Davies MP (East Grinstead and Uckfield, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I pay tribute to the organisation, as I do to my honourable friend. And the many organisations the length and breadth of Wales who help women fleeing of Wales who help women fleeing domestic violence. As she knows we work closely with the Welsh Government, indeed only yesterday I was speaking to the cabinet secretary, and as she would know, the Welsh Government Lord Stone Violence Against Women Act and domestic abuse and sexual violence strategy back in 2022. We are carefully monitoring progress on it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shadow Secretary of State. The House will be as horrified as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The House will be as horrified as I am after learning from that shocking report in 'The Times' that a Labour led local authority a Labour led local authority apparently was showing a PowerPoint to teenagers where they were urged to teenagers where they were urged to seek consent from their partner before choking them during sex. It before choking them during sex. It is abhorrent to even attempt to normalise strangling in a loving relationship, indeed any relationship, indeed any relationship. Mr Speaker, it is important to note that the council in question did not categorically deny this at first.

But did so after the rightful backlash. Does the the rightful backlash. Does the Minister agree, it is is such appalling content that is even considered to be shown to pupils in considered to be shown to pupils in Welsh schools and it should be totally unacceptable. She undertake totally unacceptable. She undertake to hold her colleagues to account on this part of the so-called Welsh curriculum?
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
12:00
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
weeks, we negotiated a better deal. Better terms and protections for the whole workforce at Port Talbot. No immediate compulsory redundancies, the best voluntary redundancy package ever offered I Tata to its UK workforce. We say 5,000 jobs and 385 acres of land are being released for development and regeneration and future opportunities at the site. All in all this was £1.3 billion investment deal, very different from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the situation in Scunthorpe. We now come to Prime Minister's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We now come to Prime Minister's Question number one Mr Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question number one Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, yesterday evening, Royal Air Force typhoons successfully conducted strikes against boutique military targets in Yemen in a joint operation without Yemen in a joint operation without US allies. This action was in line US allies. This action was in line with long-standing policy of the UK government to defend freedom of in the Red Sea. After Houthi attacks fuelled regional instability and risk economic security for families in the UK. Mr Speaker I'm pleased to say that all UK aircraft and personnel returned safely.

And I pay tribute to the professionalism and bravery of all our service men and servicewomen. The Defence Secretary is making a statement medially after PMQs. Mr Speaker can I Prime Minister Mark Rutte on his election in Canada. Our two countries are closer to the Commonwealth allies partners and friends. We will deepen economic partnership to help people in the UK. Can I everyone across the house including members of this House and the Press Gallery who ran
12:02
Clive Jones Portrait Clive Jones MP (Wokingham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
marathons in London and Manchester. In particular the honourable member In particular the honourable member for Gordon and Buckley for the fastest run of any female MP. And of course the Shadow Justice Secretary who I'm reliably informed is still who I'm reliably informed is still running. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and with ministerial colleagues and others, in addition to my duties of the house I have further such

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meetings later today. Thank you Mr Speaker. I would like to associate myself with the like to associate myself with the remarks of the prior Minister about the professionalism of our Armed the professionalism of our Armed Forces and also congratulate Mark Carney on his election as prior Carney on his election as prior Minister in Canada. And everyone who took part in the London Marathon. took part in the London Marathon. Both my daughters have done it it is something I cannot do any more sadly.

Later today, I'm introducing sadly. Later today, I'm introducing a bill to guarantee Parliament has the final say on any trade deal including any agreement with including any agreement with President Trump. This isn't new it is exactly what Labour promised to do in an official policy paper put forward in 2001. I'm asking this forward in 2001. I'm asking this government to keep its promise. Currently Members of Parliament have Currently Members of Parliament have no vote. They have no voice on trade deals, so will the prime minister...

deals, so will the prime minister...
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:06
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:37
John Healey Portrait Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)
-
-
to his country. He understands our national security and economic security go hand in hand. It is vital that defence investment creates more jobs and apprenticeships and opportunities in the Black Country across the United Kingdom. That is what we have launched a new hub to give up to 12,000 small firms are better access to defence contracts. Of course we are raising defence spending to the highest sustained increase since the highest sustained increase since the Cold War, the party opposite failed to do in 14 years in office.

 We will let the Front Benches We We now We now come We now come to We now come to the We now come to the first We now come to the first statement, Secretary of State for Defence John Healey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With permission Mr Speaker I wish to make a statement, to update the House on the action that we took House on the action that we took last night against a Houthi military target. We did so in collective target. We did so in collective self-defence and to uphold the freedom of that Britain has always freedom of that Britain has always done. Mr Speaker, yesterday UK forces conducted a joint operation forces conducted a joint operation with US allies against a Houthi with US allies against a Houthi military facility in Yemen.

Our intelligence analysis identified a cluster of buildings, 15 miles south of Sanaa used by the Houthis to Manufacturer drones of the type used to attack ships in the Red Sea in the Gulf of Aden. FGR4s And Typhoons struck a number of buildings with precision bombs last night. This action was limited. It was targeted. It was devised to minimise the risk of civilian life. Everyone involved in UK operation has returned to base safely. I want to thank on behalf of the house all members of our Armed Forces involved in this operation, and to pay tribute to them for their total professionalism and courage.

Mr Speaker, yesterday's operation was carried out alongside US, our closest security ally. It was conducted in line with both the UN Charter and the established UK policy of this government and the last. In opposition, Labour backed the government when it conducted five separate strikes with the US against Houthi targets. Yesterday's attack alliance with four broad objectives. Firstly, to restore freedom of in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Secondly to degrade Houthi capability and prevent future attacks.

Thirdly, to reinforce regional security alongside allies and partners. Fourthly, to protect our economic security at home. First thing this morning, the government reefed the shadow defence secretary and speakers of both houses, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson, and the chair of the House of Commons defence committee. I can tell the house this afternoon that our initial assessment is that the planned targets were all successfully hit. We have seen no evidence of civilian casualties. Since November Since November 2023, the Houthis have waged a campaign of aggression against international shipping in the Red Sea.

To date, they have been over 320 attacks. These attacks are illegal. They are deadly. And we totally condemn them. Maritime routes have been disrupted. Sailors have been killed, commercial ships have been hit. Houthis have even targeted vessels destined for Yemen itself, as well as military vessels of our partners. Both the Royal and US Navy's have been forced into action in the Red Sea. Last September I met the crew of HMS Diamond who shot down a ballistic missile and multiple drones in self defence bring their deployment in the Red Sea.

Make no mistake, Houthi's act as an agent of instability across the region. They continue to receive backing from Iran, both military and financial, and even Russia has attempted to support Houthi operations. The aggression in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden is yet another example of how our adversaries are increasingly working together against our interests. I want to be clear, this government rejects any Houthi claims that attacking ships in the Red Sea is somehow supporting Gaza. The Houthis were targeting tankers and seizing ships well before the war in Gaza began.

There attacks since have targeted vessels of all nations. So here at me when I say that these attacks do absolutely nothing for the Palestinian people or the push for a lasting peace. An estimated 12% of global trade, 30% of container traffic, passes through the Red Sea every year. But the Houthi threat has taken a drastic fall. Levels are 50% down of what they were in November 2023. The majority of ships now take a 5000 mark diversion around the Cape of Good Hope.

Adding a full fortnight to a journey between Asia and Europe, and pushing up prices of the goods that British people and others rely on. This cannot continue. In opposition I argued that the lions share of the responsibility for protecting the international freedom of navigation in the Red Sea is being shouldered by the Americans, just as the US has been doing across the world now for 80 years. Since last month, the US has been conducting a sustained campaign targeting the Houthis in Yemen to restore freedom of.

They moved two carriers into the region. The strikes have destroyed multiple command and control centres, the defence systems, advanced weapons Manufacturing site and advanced weapons storage sites. The US military say their operations have now degraded effectiveness of the Houthi attack. Reporting that ballistic missile launches have dropped by 69%, and one-way drone attacks are down by 55%. Mr Speaker the US continues to be the U.K.'s closest security ally. They are stepping up in the Red Sea.

We are alongside them. Yesterday's joint operation builds on the broader support that we have provided to the US in the region in recent months. It includes air to a refuelling, the use of an important military base in Diego Garcia for regional security operations. And RAF typhoons to support the defence of the US carrier strike group. It has been coming under near daily attacks now from Houthi insiders and drones. Mr Speaker this government will always act in the interests of our national and economic security.

The UK is now stepping up and encouraging allies to do more to protect our common security, just as we are with last week's deployment of our own carrier strike groups starting an eight- month deployment into the Mediterranean and Indo-Pacific. The UK has a long and proud history of taking action to protect freedom of. This illegal Houthi aggression does not just disrupt shipping, it does not just destabilise the region. It hits our economy here at home. That is why the government took this decision.

That is why the UK has taken this action. To help protect freedom of and, reinforce regional stability, strengthen economic security, for families across the country. Mr Speaker, we are country. Mr Speaker, we are determined that we will keep Britain determined that we will keep Britain I'm grateful to the Secretary of
12:46
James Cartlidge Portrait James Cartlidge MP (South Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
State for early sight of his statement and to the Minister for statement and to the Minister for the briefing he extended to myself and other parliamentarians earlier and other parliamentarians earlier today. As far as His Majesty's opposition are concerned, the rationale for these actions has not changed since we undertook similar operations in government in the months leading up to the general election, with the support of the election, with the support of the then opposition. We agree that this then opposition.

We agree that this is an act of self defence on behalf of ourselves and our closest allies. After all, with the main target for REF to -- RAF Typhoon Speaker Houthi drone factory, we should remember who the drones were used to target our own Navy ships, such as that on -- the attempted attack on HMS Diamond early this year. While able to take effective response on that occasion, we know this is a capability that can be produced in large numbers and the threat remains a clear and present danger.

We understand that the U.S. Navy continues to be subject to Houthi aggression, including from drones. Thus, in our view, it is entirely legitimate to support the defence of our close ally the US and to prevent future potential attacks on our own fleet and international shipping by attacking the Houthi drone threat at source. But the Houthi's actions are not just a threat to ourselves and our allies, as the Secretary of State said, they are illegal. And completely counter to international humanitarian priorities. Given that their attacks have imperilled aid deliveries to the Yemeni people, whilst undermining a crucial shipping route or grain en route to some of the poorest people in the world.

The Government therefore has our full support for this latest operation and we are grateful on this side to the brave and highly skilled personnel of the Royal Air Force who conducted the mission, including both the Typhoon cruise and those on the air to air... Mission. In particular, we welcome their safe return and completion of what appears to be a successful operation in terms of grading Houthi drone capability. Of course, the US had been undertaking their own self defence against Houthi attacks and we very much welcome the close working with US allies, as was the case when we were in government and under the previous administration of the US.

This underlines the continuity of our most important strategic military partnership and it is right we work as closely as possible with the US to address threats to freedom of navigation. That said, that freedom of navigation is vital to the ships of many nations. Not just the UK and the US. The whole world benefits from action taken to keep International Shipping Week low in, supporting the wider economy. Can the Secretary of State update us on what talks he has had with other allies, including NATO members, on providing direct military support against the Houthi threat in future? After all, this is not only a threat to many other nations, it involves other hostile states, notably Iran, with their own row my ongoing support not just the Houthis but Hezbollah, Hamas and other armed groups in Iran and elsewhere.

How with the UK. Into the approach being taken by the new US administration towards Iran? The Secretary of State also refer to Russian involvement. Can he confirm reports that the Houthis have received targeted assistance with potential ballistic missiles attacks from Russia? Does this not show why supporting Ukraine against Russia is about a much wider strategic picture that directly threatens the United Kingdom? He also referred to the use of our military base, Diego Garcia, for regional security operations. Soon it will not be asked.

And doesn't this action mean by -- soon it will not be ours and doesn't this indicate) it is so dangerous? Tend to SDR, it was disconcerting that the Ministry of Defence said yesterday, "It is a Strategic Defence Review that will need to be
12:50
John Healey Portrait Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)
-
-
translated into a set of specific investment decisions on individual capabilities and projects that will capabilities and projects that will be work for later in the summer and into the autumn." Knows there are urgent procurement decisions needed that relate directly to the Houthi that relate directly to the Houthi threat in the Red Sea, not least up-rates to the system which we up-rates to the system which we believe must be accelerated. He also knows that procurement is largely on hold awaiting the publication of the hold awaiting the publication of the SDR.

He promised to publish the SDR in the spring. Can he confirm it in the spring. Can he confirm it will definitely be published in May, the last month of spring, and most importantly, that in May we will see the full detail on all major individual procurement choices, so that the MoD can get on with them as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a matter of the utmost urgent? Can I welcome the honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I welcome the honourable gentlemen stone and the content of his response to the statement. -- Tone. Labour the previous government Tone. Labour the previous government strike against the Houthis. -- Labour backed. Pointed out that the Labour backed. Pointed out that the rational then was the same as now rational then was the same as now and that was a useful contribution to the discussion. He is right to say the clear and present threat the Houthis poster all nations, including two hours and our closest allies, is also the same.

-- Posed to all nations including two hours. I did so as he does to me today because this is bigger than politics, this is about freedom of navigation, regional stability and it is also about that most important security relationship the UK has with the US. He asked me about some specific capabilities. I have to say to him, we are now able to plan to provide the best possible kit for our Armed Forces because of the historic it meant to raising the level of defence spending to 2.5 % that the Prime Minister made to this House in February.

Three years earlier than his own unfunded plans. And moving into three % in the next Parliament. He asks about the capabilities on some of our naval ships. When I met the crew of HMS Diamond in the autumn, they demonstrated to me and talk to me in detail about just how exceptional their response to that multiple attack was. And just how effective the weaponry on HMS Diamond was at that time. Therefore we are upgrading the ships with a number of capabilities, including DragonFire, something that he first talked about.

And I say to him we are now doing not just one ship as he talked about for, we are doing it sooner
12:54
12:54
12:56
12:57
John Healey Portrait Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)
-
-
vital we fully understand operational goals behind the mission as well as the intelligence by the coordination of the strikes. Can the Minister outlined by the government has chosen on this occasion to join has chosen on this occasion to join the US forces on a joint strike rather than previous similar missions? The recent leaks from missions? The recent leaks from President Trump cabinet pertaining to military action against the Houthis raises concern questions about his skill US intelligence is about his skill US intelligence is and the possible impact on British service personnel.

In light of those leaks, the Minister reassure us it's leaks, the Minister reassure us it's intelligent showing the US is completely secure and whether the Government is undertaking an assessment of the security about intelligence sharing networks with the US? I was reassured the Minister that the government does not have evidence of any loss of civilian life. Can the Minister update the House and what steps to be taken ahead of mission to minimise civilian casualties?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I neglected to respond to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I neglected to respond to the honourable gentlemen on the SCR. I would say to him, it is published on would say to him, it is published on the spring and he will have more of his questions answered. Mike SDR. To the honourable lady, I welcome her recognition of the importance of degrading military capabilities of the Houthis. I welcome the support the Houthis. I welcome the support for the action we took last night. I say to her with confidence and reassurance that our own UK reassurance that our own UK intelligence, our own UK communication systems remain secure.

And in response to her question And in response to her question about right now,... First of all, it is action and the decision we took that is in line with long established policy. UK policy and
12:59
12:59
12:59
12:59
13:00
13:00
John Healey Portrait Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)
-
-
tribute to our exemplary Armed Forces. It is essential that we tackle the tentacles of Iran through all its proxies, whether it is the Houthis, Hamas or Hezbollah, that do so much damage to Israel, to the wider Middle East and not least to the people of Palestine. But I think one of the fundamental questions here, as he will know from the discussions we had when I was Deputy Prime Minister, is what is the long-term strategy to eliminate this threat of the Houthis to Red Sea shipping? I wonder whether from the benefit of the House, the Defence Secretary give some further indication of the new government thinking on that long-term strategy thinking on that long-term strategy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I pay tribute to the way that when he was debited by Mr he went out of his way, as we are doing now, out of his way, as we are doing now, to make sure that we were well briefed on such strikes and I appreciate that. He is right that military action against the Houthis can only take so far. Therefore the can only take so far. Therefore the wider strategy must be the UK doing what we can to work with allies what we can to work with allies especially in the region.

First of all to constrain the Houthis, as our action overnight was designed to do. action overnight was designed to do. Second, to bolster the strength and authority and capability of the government. Which is what the foreign office minister announced. And the third thing is to pursue with allies the importance of a negotiated settlement that gives Yemen a peaceful way forward. In the
13:02
13:02
13:03
13:04
13:05
13:05
13:06
13:06
13:07
13:08
13:09
13:09
13:10
13:11
13:11
13:12
13:13
13:13
13:14
13:15
13:15
13:16
13:16
13:17
13:17
John Healey Portrait Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Houthis are acting freely...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Houthis are acting freely... There is a crisis in Yemen, many are There is a crisis in Yemen, many are children desperate need of food, water and medical supplies. To defeat the Houthis permanently, will the Secretary of State give a commitment that his government will do all that is possible to deliver a roadmap for peace, along with allies, to make sure this happens now, otherwise it will be the last opportunity to?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr Speaker, I said to my honourable friend in the House honourable friend in the House earlier on, the responsibility I have as Defence Secretary is for the military component of a wider approach that must be pursued if we are going to be able to help lay an important role in securing peace and important role in securing peace and a settlement, settling the civil war a settlement, settling the civil war in Yemen. And lifting relief for those hundreds of thousands of Yemenis who are suffering so severely.

Constraining the Houthis direct as part of that. Reinforcing and bolstering the Yemeni government is also part of that, but working with allies, particularly regional allies in trying to force the pace of a negotiated settlement and peace in Yemen is absolutely crucial. in Yemen is absolutely crucial. I welcome the Secretary of State statement and add my thanks and appreciation to the Royal Air Force and all those involved in this successful operation. In his statement, the Defence Secretary said even Russia has attempted to support Houthi operations.

But isn't it a little bit deeper than that, as the Wall Street Journal has reported that targeting data provided by Russia has been utilised by the Houthis for their attacks against Western shipping, while Iran has arbitrated secret talks between the terror group and the Kremlin. So what steps is the Secretary of State taking to disrupt Russia's deepening ties to Iran and its proxies across ties to Iran and its proxies across the Middle East? the Middle East?
13:19
13:20
13:21
13:21
13:22
13:23
13:23
13:24
John Healey Portrait Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)
-
-
the Secretary of State talked about the devastation in Yemen, with 11 million people in desperate need of help and support and the Civil War conditions that pertain there. This armed intervention that was made yesterday, and I think we all need to know where it leads to, what the endgame is, are we involved in an internal war in Yemen? And what is the long-term implications of our involvement in this? Because ultimately there has to be some kind of peace process in Yemen, just as much as there has to be in Gaza and elsewhere within the region.

Does this actually bring peace nearer or does this actually exacerbate the danger of a widening conflict?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable gentlemen is right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable gentlemen is right to remind the House of the extreme hardship that many Yemenis, in what hardship that many Yemenis, in what is a wall tone country -- war-torn is a wall tone country -- war-torn country, has been for years. The strikes last night were designed to reduce and prevent the risk of reduce and prevent the risk of further Houthi attacks and were done because we were able to take out an important weapons manufacturing facility that the Houthis had.

Manufacturing very weapons that have been used to target international

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shipping and our own. I welcome the Secretary of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome the Secretary of State's statement today and add my own thanks to our service personnel own thanks to our service personnel for their action. I also would like to talk about the Houthis and what to talk about the Houthis and what they have been doing, alongside the other terrorist proxies in Belize, the Hamas and Hezbollah, who are controlled by Iran. Therefore I would ask my right honourable friend would ask my right honourable friend what is this country's policy in disrupting and containing this network and attacking the heart of, namely Iran itself?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend is right, Iran is a destabilising influence
13:26
13:27
13:27
13:28
13:28
13:29
13:29
13:30
13:31
13:31
13:32
13:32
13:33
Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)
-
-
That competes that statement. We We come to the next statement,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minister of state. Permission I would like to make a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Permission I would like to make a statement on the resilience of the U.K.'s energy grid in the context of the widespread power outages experienced across the Iberian peninsular over the past two days. First, my thanks with all those First, my thanks with all those First, my thanks with all those affected by the widespread disruption on Monday. I'm glad to hear power has not been fully restored across the region. I'd like restored across the region. I'd like to reassure the House that Great Britain has a highly resilient energy network in the incident in Iberia has not impacted Great Britain.

The safety of state has been in regular contact with the National Energy System Operator over the past two days, and they have provided reassurance that there is no increasing risk energy supplies or system stability from this incident. My department was informed on Monday that a power outage occurred across the Iberian Peninsula affecting mainland Spain, Portugal and Dora and parts of mainland France first while Powell mainland France first while Powell was restored to all affected areas yesterday, the cause of the outage is yet to be confirmed and it's likely to take some time for the Spanish network operator to carry out a thorough network investigation to determine the exact cause of the failure.

Various independent commissions have been commissioned by Spain, France and Portugal. They Great Britain is not directly connected to their grid, we are in" With European counterparts and offering support when needed. The government is closely monitoring the situation and are in contact with the Spanish and Portuguese authorities to ensure the safety and well-being of any British nationals in the affected regions. I would like to turn to our own grits resilience and our preparedness in the context of recent events on the Iberian peninsular.

An event similar and impact of this incident in Great Britain would be the equivalent of a national power outage, which is the total loss of power across the whole of GB. This risk is listed on the National risk register as a high impact below likelihood event. In its 75 year history, the Great Britain transmission system has never experienced a complete shutdown or anything of the scale of what has been in Spain over the past few days. The GP electricity system is highly resilient.

The National Energy System Operator continuously monitors the condition of the electricity system to ensure there is sufficient inertia and reserves in the system to manage large losses, therefore avoiding large- scale power outages. NISO have also introduced innovative new approaches to manage system stability as well as advanced safety systems to help prevent such incidents from happening in GB. The system is built, designed and operated in a way that can cope with the loss of key circuits or systems without causing custom impacts.

There are multiple redundant alternative routes for power to flow, should a fault occur, the minimising the risk of a single fault cascading across the entire system to cause a total or partial electricity system shutdown. However, as a responsible government we prepare for all eventualities, no matter how unlikely. I'd like to reassure the House that the government works closely within industry to continually maintain and improve the resilience of energy infrastructure networking assets to reduce vulnerabilities, including having robust emergency plans, summarised in the national emergency plan for downstream gas and electricity and regular exercising emergency plans with the energy system and Ofgem, including an exercise carried out by the previous government which we've taken forward the recommendations on.

This work is ongoing across government to make sure we are as resilient as possible as a nation to all eventualities. We also empower the independent National Energy
13:38
Andrew Bowie Portrait Andrew Bowie MP (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, Conservative)
-
-
System Operator to carry out resilience functions across the electricity and gas systems and will continue to work with industry and regulators to improve and maintain regulators to improve and maintain the resilience of old, new and future energy infrastructure. Switching fossil fuel generation for Switching fossil fuel generation for home-grown clean energy from renewables, nuclear and other clean technologies is the route to long- technologies is the route to long- term energy security, and I will be speaking more broadly about the U.K.'s energy resilience at U.K.'s energy resilience at Westminster Hall debates on Tuesday.

To conclude, Great Britain has a resilient energy network and we will resilient energy network and we will ensure that it continues to be the case, and I commend this statement

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the House. I would of course like to thank the honourable gentleman for advanced sight of his statement and advanced sight of his statement and echo his comments, of course thoughts on the side of the House with all those affected the blackouts in Spain and Portugal and blackouts in Spain and Portugal and more widely. He rightly addresses concerns on security of our own great and the context of the shutdown. Indeed am glad he confirmed he is carrying on and permitting the recommendations from exercise which I was involved to see what action would be required as what action would be required as such an event took place in GB.

The primary responsibility of the Minister's Department is to keep the lights on in this country. The images from Spain and Portugal are a simple reminder of what happens when the grid fails, extended blackouts are devastating and it's a relief that power was restored 19% of customers by 6 o'clock yesterday morning. The grid can in Iberia has demonstrated the fragility of the complex interconnected systems which support modern life, and the very real impacts on human life. It's the Minister's responsibility to make sure this does not happen in Great Britain because the price for our economy and communities across this country would be catastrophic.

We can get away from the fact that this government's plans to rush ahead to build a grid that is entirely dependent on the wind and sun in just five years time makes our electricity grid significantly less reliable. The stability of our illiteracy grid depends on what is called inertia, the ability for the system to resist destabilising fluctuations in frequency. That's the reason our grid has been so secure and resilient over the decades the Minister references. This inertia is provided by turbines, nuclear, hydro or crucially, gas, power stations.

But they aren't provided by solar farms or wind farms. If the grid doesn't have enough inertia to resist sudden changes in frequency, then it can become destabilised and cascading grid failure occur. That means blackouts. As the Spanish national system operator said in the latest annual report, the closure of conventional generation plants such as coal, gas and nuclear produced the firm power and balancing capacities of the grid as well as the strength and inertia. This is also happened here in Great Britain.

Data from NISO shows that the inertia number grid has been steadily decreasing over time as gas and coal have come of the system to be replaced with wind and solar. This comes with a hefty pricetag, and this is the problem with so much of the party opposites approach to energy security because from their imposed targets they are selling the British people with mountains of extra costs as they rush ahead to what is a power system depending on the weather rather than firm reliable baseload.

Tens of billions of pounds subsidising this and providing backup from reliable gas plants, they said their 2030 target and now they are trying to work out how they can achieve it, and they refuse to be honest with the British people. They refuse to do an open and honest assessment of the cost and risks that come with this approach. Want even Tony Blair has said that the present policy solutions are inadequate and doomed to fail. On the side of the House we believe in a system that delivers affordable and clean and you for the UK.

A cyber attack has been ruled out by the Spanish government as a cause of their great collapse but we know the threat of indifference by hostile states as Constance MIT update has more action he is taking to protect the grid from hostel activity and when he finally tellers which single minister is responsible for the safety and security of our offshore energy infrastructure? The lessons from the incident on the Iberian Peninsula are abundantly clear. We must retain inertia in our grids to keep it stable and resilient.

Nuclear power provides vital baseload power generation
13:42
Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)
-
-
along with inertia which would have helped to mitigate a cascading failure like that scene earlier this week. So the honourable gentleman of week. So the honourable gentleman of the nuclear industry these are to do the asking for uncommitted 24 GW of nuclear power like the previous nuclear power like the previous government did? Will he ask the NISO to provide this House with a full transparent update on the role of inertia in our power system, the consequences of declining inertia, consequences of declining inertia, the impact that hasn't grid stability and the costs associated.

And finally the Minister said the Great Britain has never experienced Great Britain has never experienced a complete shutdown like that seen on the continent so what assurances can the mist offer this House the work is being undertaken so NISO and National Grid are prepared for a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

black start if that is needed? I will start with the more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will start with the more serious elements of the honourable gentleman's questions and then might come back to gently reminding him he come back to gently reminding him he was in office not that long ago on some of the questions he raises. But some of the questions he raises. But just in the serious point, can I first agreed entirely with him on his opening point that the first priority of my department and the government is to ensure energy security to make sure that particular points he raises, which I think the last few days Spain and think the last few days Spain and Portugal have brought a real light is just how much of our day-to-day lives are dependent on the functioning electricity system, so it's right to make that point and we are very aware of the point.

In the detailed points he raises, I'm surprised in fact he didn't recognise some of the work the previous government did on building the renewable system and the inertia that they in fact introduced into the system because it started a number of years ago but he's not done that. And what I would say is that we have a resilient grid in this country, it's important to couldn't have that which means building new grid in the structure which the honourable gentleman quite often opposes along with a number of his colleagues.

It's important to build that and to invest in it. We will continue to work with the NISO and with others to make sure your understanding the full courses of this outage. I won't be drawn on
13:44
13:45
13:46
13:47
13:49
13:49
13:49
13:50
13:51
13:51
13:52
13:53
13:53
13:54
13:55
13:56
13:56
13:57
13:57
13:58
Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)
-
-
the Minister will be aware Peterhead gas station is the only high-power and high emotion gas station and the Acorn project is key to the future and he will be familiar with that. Can you confirm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the intention to fully fund that as part of the CSR. The honourable gentleman raised

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable gentleman raised this point yesterday, the honourable gentleman from Dumfriesshire, and the Secretary of State will take it away around the black star away around the black star capabilities around the UK but on capabilities around the UK but on the point of Acorn, we've made this a number of times and is an important project and the government supports the project and it is a supports the project and it is a question for the spending review which will come in June.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Energy resilience comes from the supply. The major cause of the financial crisis is the insecurity financial crisis is the insecurity supply of fossil fuel markets. Ukraine is the latest. The last Ukraine is the latest. The last government, in answer to a parliamentary question, admitted the parliamentary question, admitted the localised cost of gas was £114 per megawatt hour and offshore wind was megawatt hour and offshore wind was £44. The Minister may be aware that wind and solar are not known as wind and solar are not known as great emitters of greenhouse gas and so it is clean, cheap, secure Ash renewables and it'll just go

**** Possible New Speaker ****

together. My honourable friend has been a champion of these issues for a long champion of these issues for a long
14:00
14:00
14:01
14:01
14:02
14:02
14:03
14:03
14:05
14:05
14:06
14:07
14:08
14:09
14:09
14:11
14:11
14:12
14:14
Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)
-
-
because we've got to build a new because we've got to build a new network to deal with spikes and electricity. We have to build factory storage, which increases the factory storage, which increases the cost of electricity, and keep gas generators idling over expensively, generators idling over expensively, which is out of -- added to consumer bills, in order to bring them on grid when the wind drops. Some the Minister accept minor he has to Minister accept minor he has to defend the policy of his boss that they are going to get cheaper electricity, even though there is no electricity, even though there is no evidence of that, but will he accept that building inertia into the system is going to add considerably

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to consumers bills? I'm afraid I don't accept

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm afraid I don't accept anything gentle just said. He said in his first breath was right to wait the outcomes of the wait the outcomes of the investigation and then prejudged the investigation. I would wait for some actual evidence from the authorities and this was a piece wrong as well and this was a piece wrong as well about the cost and what people often forget is that Gastineau alleges the system doesn't appear out of thin system doesn't appear out of thin air, comes with a cost to build new gas power stations in the first place, which we would have to if we didn't move gas office -- of the system.

It comes with AE volatility of being an internationally traded thing. Gas is not free, comes at a thing. Gas is not free, comes at a cost, and so we will have to build infrastructure, even if we were building clean how infrastructure, the grid is still critical because you have to get alleges it into people's houses, so I think it's really important to say there were no zero cost options here. What we no zero cost options here. What we are doing is investing now in a clean power system that delivers considerably cheaper power in the long term.
14:15
14:15
14:15
14:17
Michael Shanks Portrait Michael Shanks MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Rutherglen, Labour)
-
-
eventualities but tell that to the customers left high and dry by his department. He says he has every department. He says he has every confidence in the operator but I did not have confidence on January 7 and not have confidence on January 7 and we could have had a difficult situation on the GP led without the situation on the GP led without the Viking Interceptor. Trying to instil Viking Interceptor. Trying to instil confidence in the public on GBE after an episode on March 21 at Heathrow which saw global consequences for a relatively localised disaster in the UK energy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

market, how does she have confidence after those events? The right honourable gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The right honourable gentleman brings his customary sunny demeanour to his questions and I'm grateful to his questions and I'm grateful for that. I am giving this statement for that. I am giving this statement to the House because a number of honourable members asked questions honourable members asked questions on this issue and it is right that they respond to the questions and I think I would be criticised if I did think I would be criticised if I did not offer a statement.

It was in response to honourable members across the House and different parties during the statement. The question he raises about the question he raises about the capacity questions in January, he is quite wrong and this is based on,
14:18
14:19
14:20
14:20
14:21
14:21
14:22
14:23
14:23
14:23
14:23
14:24
Richard Foord Portrait Richard Foord MP (Honiton and Sidmouth, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
response in due course. We are moving over to the presentation of moving over to the presentation of moving over to the presentation of Parliamentary scrutiny of trade agreements build. We are going onto agreements build. We are going onto the Ten Minute Rule Motion which is UK-USA Trade Agreements (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill. I called Richard Foord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that leave be brought in to ensure any trade agreements between the UK and USA which the government proposes to implement without the approval by resolution of each House to make resolution of each House to make provision for the amendment of such agreements by Parliament for these purposes. Let's cast our minds back four years to spring to 21. Liz four years to spring to 21. Liz Truss was Secretary of State for International Trade and Boris Johnson was Prime Minister and the export of British goods to the EU had fallen sharply and the end of the Brexit transition period with the amount.

The government was in a hurry. Boris Johnson sat down for dinner with the Australian Prime Minister in Westminster. After three hours of small talk and plenty more, Boris Johnson agreed to remove the tariffs on number of products including B. The government knew it would harm UK agriculture and food industries and the analysis predicted the deal would leave the predicted the deal would leave the UK sector £278 million worse off. The High Commissioner had been sitting at the table and moved quickly and scribbled down the generous pledge.

He excused himself to go to the toilet and the High Commissioner handed them the note. It was scanned within minutes and turned into a document and printed and put in a folder. The High Commissioner casually walked back in carrying the so-called deal. That was all it took to sell out UK farmers, a wine -soaked dinner, I hastily scribbled note and a Prime Minister prepared to ignore good advice. Without proper parliamentary scrutiny and a deal with the US, we risk adding pressure to farmers and stripping away safeguards on data and sidelining democratic scrutiny itself.

Currently, parliamentary scrutiny in the UK is inadequate and the government to negotiate with another country, even one as significant as the US, with cognitive powers without putting in to vote in Parliament. Under the existing constitutional reform government act, CRAG, it must be in place for 21 sitting days in Parliament can raise objections but there is no requirement for a vote. It is advisory and not binding. The evidence was provided in the other place last year and it showed how outdated the treaty scrutiny system is and trade agreements have evolved and become more competitive.

Modern trade deals which deep into domestic policy and shape the food standards and data rates and even the regulation of AI. If backbench MPs are shut out of the process, so are the people that we represent. Parliamentary scrutiny was demonstrably weak in the wake of UK trade deals with Australia and New Zealand. The International Trade to condemn the government approach and said it undermined scrutiny. The government of Boris Johnson did this by triggering a sitting period before evidence was received of reports on the trade deal.

This meant Parliament had little information with which to assess the agreements. When the deal was signed, Labour, then an Opposition, demanded a parliamentary vote and the government they would do well to heed previous calls for proper scrutiny. In Easter and Mid Devon, farmers represent happy hit hard by poorly negotiated trade deals with Australia and New Zealand on top of planned changes to inheritance tax and closure of the sustainable farming incentive. Even if a future deal upholds the food standards, West Country farmers and others could still be undermined and the government offers assurances about government offers assurances about shutting out 1-treated -- hormone- treated beef and chlorine chicken.

The government has assured us there will be no compromise on environmental and animal welfare standards in the UK. The securities count for little if imports from overseas are not produced to the same environmental standards and at the same high requirements for high animal welfare. The UK is already too reliant on imported food and it sees imports making up 40% of the food supply from 2033, down from 70% in 1984, when we had 70% self- sufficiency. I should say, we got to 60% self-sufficiency today.

There are those who say some sectors will always fall victim to trade negotiations and government has balanced the demands of various industries. Some of the factors being discussed currently by the negotiators are crosscutting and that includes matters of digital trade and data. The US wants a digital first deal which would mean locking in rules that protect the interests of Silicon Valley, not the British public. It has already speculated that the government is considering reducing or scrapping the Digital Services Tax, which could cut tax for some of the wealthiest and most powerful American companies at the expense of the users of public services here in the UK.

The OBR forecast this tax raised £700 million in 2024-25. Revenue that the Treasury can ill Revenue that the Treasury can ill Vice president JD Vance alleged, " Old entrenched interests are hiding behind ugly Soviet-era words like misinformation and disinformation." That sort of brand of free speech pays little heed to facts. Advance may be representing some altogether not transparent interests himself. The US is pushing to overcome data localisation which could allow the US to have its U.S.-based tech firms centred in the United States and all of the data storage in the UK for the flight to Mobarik and weaken the protection for British citizens data making it difficult to enforce UK privacy laws.

Take as an example the contract that Pelletier agreed with the NHS in 2023 to install their federated data system. If the US-UK trade deal was to restrict data localisation it could allow NHS medical records to be exported to the US. Handing them the power to exploit the enormous commercial value of British citizens data. Although they claim it will only act as a processor, it is rooted in a striking value from commercial data ends. With access to one of the world's richest health datasets, they could potentially package insights, sell predictive analytic services to private healthcare providers to insurers and pharmaceutical companies.

The cofounder Peter feel has called the NHS a system that makes people sick. He claims that freedom and democracy are no longer compatible. Parliament should have the means to ensure that this understanding of freedom cannot bypass British democracy. This isn't just about trade. It's about trust. The Leader of the Opposition should know the right honourable member for North West Essex was the secretary of state for international trade in 2023 when the Australia and New Zealand trade deals came into effect.

The price was paid last time and it could happen again. Additionally our digital freedoms pay the price too. This bill is simple, doesn't block a US deal, doesn't tie the governments hands. It requires that Parliament has a greater say first that is what democracy demands, and that's what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the public expect. The question is that the honourable member have leave to bring in the bill. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes contrary, "No." I think the ayes have it the, the ayes have it. He

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will prepare and bring the bill? Tim Farron, Karen Miller, Helen Morgan, Sarah Olney, Edward Morello and myself.
14:34
David Davis Portrait Points of Order Rt Hon David Davis MP (Goole and Pocklington, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second reading what day? Friday, 16 May 2025.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday, 16 May 2025. Friday, 16 May 2025. Point of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order said David. Thank you. Today's Telegraph,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Today's Telegraph, Daily Telegraph scissors being reprimanded by the Independent press standards Organisation for reporting on remarks made in this chamber by on remarks made in this chamber by the then community secretary Michael Gove. If so asserted that Telegraph Gove. If so asserted that Telegraph should not have reported without having first given the right of reply to the group who made the remarks related to. Press freedom is a cornerstone of democracy centuries, the right to freely report in the proceedings of this House have been protected in British law.

These freedoms allow the press to report without any hindrance or conditionality, secured as long ago as 1771 by John Wilkes. While IPSO may think they are being reasonable, the reference in the Telegraph undermines their fundamental rights. So will she speak with the press

**** Possible New Speaker ****

organisation to remind them that the British press has an absolute right to report on what is said here in this chamber without any hindrance or conditionality? Thank the right honourable member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the right honourable member for his point of order and the for his point of order and the notice of it. He's put his point on the record. Without commenting specifically on the IPSO ruling, because I understand the issue was not straightforwardly about the not straightforwardly about the reporting of what was said in this House, I do of course support the principle that being able to report
14:36
14:36
Jeremy Wright Portrait Rt Hon Sir Jeremy Wright KC MP (Kenilworth and Southam, Conservative)
-
-
madam chairman and also acceptable. We begin with Amendment one to clause 1 with which it will be convenient to consider amendments three, two and four. The questions that clauses 1 and two stand part of the bill and new clause 1. I call Sir Jeremy Wright to move Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one. Thank you very much. May I begin

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. May I begin by begging to move the amendment one removed in my name and speak to that removed in my name and speak to that amendment and did to amendment 2 which is consequential on it? And one of the other amendments in the one of the other amendments in the group. I think it's worthwhile at the outset of all debates on this the outset of all debates on this bill restating the bill is about presentence reports, which give information to sentences which may be used in sentencing decisions, not about the passing of sentences themselves.

Specifically, this bill is about the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council to sentences about the circumstances in which a presentence report should normally be asked for. And about the sort of information about an offender which such a report may provide and which it may be appropriate to consider and take into account before deciding on an appropriate sentence in that offenders case. There has been broad agreement. I see the mother of the House in her place. I will not say unanimity, broad agreement that a offenders ethnicity, race, culture or faith are on their own not that sort of information and that the Sentencing Council is wrong to suggest a presentence report should be ordered on that basis.

I would argue that is because even if there may be points to make about the treatment or experience of members of the ethnic faith or cultural group to which the offender in question happens to belong, what is relevant to the sentencing of that offender can only be the treatment or experience to which the particular offender has themselves been subject. Not whether they have arisen in the cases of other members of the same group who were not before the court. That is effectively the impact of amendment for in the name of my honourable friend the shadow Minister.

And that's why in my view the government is right to seek to exclude, even from the process of asking for a presentence report, let alone from passing sentence itself the making of decisions based only on membership of such a group, and that is after all what the governor has said this bill is for. These groups are described in the Explanatory Notes to the bill as particular demographic cohorts. And if I make my want to quote from paragraph 8 of those Explanatory Notes what paragraph 8 says that the bill is intended to ensure the sentencing are drafted in such a way as to prevent differential treatment and maintain equality before the law.

It does this by preventing the creation of a presumption regarding whether a presentence report should be obtained based on an offender's membership of a particular demographic cohort. Rather than the particular circumstances of that individual. But despite this explanation in the Explanatory Notes, the bill I think goes further than that. Prohibiting the Sentencing Council from including in a sentencing any provision, " Framed by reference to different personal characteristics of an offender." That's what clause 1 subclause two says, inserting language into the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009.

I think the language in the bill is significantly wider in impact then reference to membership of particular demographic cohorts, and my view undesirably so. And that's why if put forward amendment one which would adopt the language used in the Explanatory Notes. Let me explain why I think that would be preferable. My starting point is that I don't believe all personal characteristics of an offender are inappropriate to consider in a sentencing decision. There is of course much more to be considered in a sentencing decision than simply information about the offender.

In particular the seriousness of the offence and its consequences, but relevant information about the offender is needed as part of the process. It can't then surely therefore be right to prohibit the Sentencing Council from encouraging sentences to find out more about some of those personal characteristics which are relevant in reaching a more informed and therefore better sentencing decision. Example, a physical or learning disability or a brain injury from which an offender will not recover. The relevance of that information is not just informing a fuller picture of the offender to be sentenced but also in assisting a sentencer to know whether that offender is capable of carrying out aspects of a community order, including work in the community, which the sentencer may want to consider as a potential sentencing option.

And it's worth underlining of course that the ordering of a presentence report, whatever it says when it's produced, does not bind the hands of a sentencer to do as it recommends. But the reality is without one, a sentences options are often more limited, and that's why guidance on when to ask for a presentence report matters.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful to my honourable friend giving way, and I defer to friend giving way, and I defer to his experience, but there is an argument therefore if we are looking at individual cases for every at individual cases for every individual to have one of these presentencing reports to be able to then truly understand the significance of what they faced significance of what they faced whether any mitigating factors, I appreciate that could put a backlog on the services themselves but is that not one possible solution to solve the problem that the Sentencing Council were worried Sentencing Council were worried about about different cohorts having different sentencing outcomes at the end?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think it makes a fair point in relation to those offenders who hover on the border between community sentences and custodial community sentences and custodial sentences, but he will know that in the Crown Court at least the the Crown Court at least the majority of such offenders already do have a presentence report, but of course there are also offenders who come before the courts the sentencing where either its blinding obvious the custodial sentence will follow that neither a community sentence nor a coaster your sentence is realistically a prospect so it would be right to say that in every case we should have a presentence report.

But I do think that there is a presumption already in the law that presentence reports should be ordered unless it is unnecessary to do so. We are seeking to do here I think is responsibly very specific set of circumstances that have arisen as a result of Sentencing Council decision as he may have heard me say at second reading, getting the Sentencing Council handle this well and as a result I think we are having to do something which otherwise we would not have to do.

But sentencing offenders in all circumstances is a difficult business and the fact that different offenders receive different sentences, even for the same offence is not necessarily evidence of a defect in sentencing practice as a result of guidelines or otherwise, but is more likely a reflection of the reality that every case and every offender is different. We should not I suggest be trying to stop judges reaching the appropriate conclusion, assisted by Sentencing Council guidelines in each case for them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nobody is trying to stop judges sentencing in individual case. All sentencing in individual case. All the Sentencing Council was seeking to do was to make sure that judges and magistrates had the maximum and magistrates had the maximum amount of information before coming

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to a decision on the sentence. Yes will I think the right honourable lady is right that that honourable lady is right that that is what the sentencing were aiming at. I'm afraid however, the way in which they were phrased rather which they were phrased rather missed the mark in my view, and I think especially true to say that it is a good thing in most sentencing cases to get as much information as you can possibly have, but of course the sentencing guidelines as she will appreciate that particular influence on sentences because they are obliged to follow them unless it's not in the interest of justice to do so.

So the toner to separate the Sentencing Council in the guidelines they draft gives a good indication to sentences about the sorts of things they are to take into account in sentencing. She had me say, I think is an important point to make, we are talking about the ordering of presentence reports and not of sentencing itself, but nonetheless as I said, if you don't have a presentence report, you limit the number of options you can impose and similarly, if you do have a presentence report you give yourself more options as a sentencer so as not relevant whether or not someone is encouraging sentences to order a presentence report not.

My concern is that the way in which the Sentencing Council have gone about this is unhelpful, but I do also think and you will hear me expand on this, that it would be wrong to throw the baby out with the bathwater here and it's important also to recognise that some of the Sentencing Council guidelines are profoundly helpful to sentences and that they indicate that we should be getting in many many cases relevant information to consider individual I think for all of those reasons, we should fetter the sentencing process as much as we need to to make objections when questions of policy arise.

That is what the government has said it is trying to do. I met one would allow us to stop the Sentencing Council from recommending presentence reports for those who belong to a demographic group but not exclude them for those who have other personal characteristics clearly more relevant to the decision and do not give rise to the so-called two-tiered justice. The bill will still allow the Sentencing Council to issue guidelines recommending presentence reports in order to explore the personal circumstances of an offender to be sentenced, even though it would be prohibited in relation to personal characteristics and so the question arises, can all the information about an offender that should be properly taken into account in sentencing be justifiably described as personal circumstances? I will concede there is danger of getting into fairly fine semantic distinctions here, to me at least, characteristics are those things which are intrinsic to the offender themselves circumstances are the circumstances in which they find themselves and they are not the same.

Being pregnant, addicted, a primary carer, a victim of modern slavery, could all be described as personal circumstances but disabilities are life altering personal injuries feel more like characteristics. I suppose the point is that we don't need to get into all of this to do the job the government wants to do and ministers have made it clear they are seeking to target legislation carefully to avoid issues with the separation of power and because they are not seeking to undermine the independence of the Sentencing Council more than necessary to wrestle back control.

I would suggest to the Minister that the more precise wording in amendment one which is also government drafting, because it appears in the explanatory notes, better meets the government's own aims and the language currently in the bill and if you do not agree a copy can explain clearly why the government have taken the more expansive approach. Finally, to say something about amendment three and the name of the shadow minister and other right honourable friend, and I also have concerns about the bread of language in that amendment.

I recognise some middling to abolish a radically reform the Sentencing Council but the bill does neither of those things and that means that the scope does not allow for wider debate about the wider purpose and value and of course you would not allow that debate either. It is that as and when this bill passes, the Sentencing Council will continue to operate and so when we consider amending the bill further, we must have regard to the ability of the council to do so effectively and convincingly.

The role that the Sentencing Council plays can only be played effectively if the guideline started produces are authoritative and sentences are only likely to see them as such if the council itself is seen as clearly independent and makes its judgements from a legal not political perspective. The third amendment says of the guidelines involving presentence reports must be agreed by the Secretary of State and that the secretary of may rewrite those guidelines herself. I think that there are two problems with that.

Firstly, the Lord Chancellor has made it clear and make sensible distinctions between guidelines that relate to matters of policy and those which relate to matters of judicial discretion in specific sentencing cases, with the latter being matters for the judiciary alone. I am not convinced that all conceivable guidelines relating to presentence reports will qualify as matters of policy and so taking the call control of all such guidelines with not be appropriate I think. The second problem is that the approval of guidelines by the Secretary of State and even more so the capacity for her to rewrite them is totally incompatible with the independence of the Sentencing Council.

The Sentencing Council could be obliged to publish its name guideline of which is fundamentally disapproved. As it stands, they must consult the Lord Chancellor and Justice Select Committee to see the chairman in his place but that is not the same as requiring ministerial approval to property guideline but it is ministerial approval but is proposing the amendment, not Parliamentary, which are very different things. What we are engaged and is discussing a parliamentary decision about the guidelines, not allowing a minister to make the decision for him or herself.

As I have said at the second reading, I think by the handling of the issue, the Sentencing Council has brought on itself this legislation and a wider discussion about its own future. We are not having that discussion today. We are discussing legislation which is intended to allow the Sentencing Council to continue to operate and to fulfil what I believe is an important task. There is a big gap between legislation on one hand and individual sentencing decisions on the other.

The Sentencing Council fills that gap and offers help to sentences in the role and if the council were not fulfilling that function, someone or something else would have to do so and in that gap between legislation and individual cases, the closer we are to legislation, the more likely the involvement is to be at the closer we are to individual cases, the more danger that there is of trespassing on judicial independence and the separation of power. And so we should tread carefully and if we are to compromise the independence of the Sentencing Council in substantial ways, we should all be do with having considered all the implications of doing so.

That is not what this bill allows for. It is designed to do a specific job and I think that it could do it even more specifically. Hence the amendments I have proposed. I beg to move. have proposed. I beg to move.
14:53
Andy Slaughter Portrait Andy Slaughter MP (Hammersmith and Chiswick, Labour)
-
-
The question is that I -- amendment one be made.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to have this debate on this short bill and that debate on this short bill and that the second reading I discussed the merits or otherwise and in merits or otherwise and in particular how it affects the role of the Sentencing Council and the of the Sentencing Council and the council has conducted the consultation on this guideline and the response to that consultation by the then-government in particular the then-government in particular and the then-Select Committee through my predecessor has made.

I through my predecessor has made. I also regretted that it had been used as a mean to undermine independence and make attacks on judges under the guidance of belatedly objecting to guidance of belatedly objecting to the guideline and I agree entirely with this matter from last Thursday. I don't propose to bring any of these arguments and I do not need to spend a long time on the amendment. Those from the official opposition can do more than continue on another can do more than continue on another front.

They can assist the shadow Lord Chancellor in his quest for higher office. I am more sympathetic to the role of the Liberal Democrats spokesperson. There is a fractious nature of debate around this bill and the relationship between the Sentencing Council and the Minister of Justice and given that it would be sensible to review the effect of the bill. I'm not sure we have to go back to legislation. The sentencing landscape is about to shift fundamentally, with the imminent publication of the independent sentencing review which is swiftly followed by the Sentencing Bill.

I suspect this bill will be swallowed up in that process and the Lord Chancellor has indicated there may be a review of the role of the Sentencing Council and without wanting to stir the pot further, I have observed that if they were prepared to postpone the implementation without the thought of legislation, these matters might have been dealt with in one bill in the light of the recommendations. The amount of time, parliamentary and ministerial, it has been spent debating this could, in my view, be better spent on other matters better spent on other matters requiring urgent attention in our requiring urgent attention in our I am grateful to my honourable friend the giving way.

Would he accept the reason we are here today is an error of judgement by the Sentencing Council and that they have refused to back down on that until threatened with legislation and so does the amendment offer greater protection to the public from future errors of judgement by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Sentencing Council? I don't want to repeat what I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't want to repeat what I said at second reading but I've made said at second reading but I've made a case for why we have prepared a case for why we have prepared quite properly and they were complemented on the way that they conducted the consultation and I conducted the consultation and I have sympathy with the council and have sympathy with the council and the chair, albeit surprising, the reaction of the stage, and the redoubtable -- the members would redoubtable -- the members would have stuck when confronted with the review as well as other members of this House.

They could have acted differently to prevent us being here today. The are many other matters that need attention and my other interests relate to the right honourable member and as I would expect from a distinguished former Attorney-General, has amendments go to the separation of the bill and Twitter, as drafted, it does what the government intends to do. -- And weather. I hope we can look at the characteristics caught by clause 1 and I will take a few moments to add some related questions which I'm seeking the guidance of the Minister on.

Firstly, the effect of the bill on sentencing guidelines already in force. The legal effect of the bill is beyond community and custodial sentence and future guidelines and it will render unlawful provision framed by reference to different characteristics of an offender in all sentencing guidelines by the council that have already been issued as definitive guidelines and are currently in force. The potential retrospective effect of the bill upon the guidelines already in force could create legal uncertainty as to the lawfulness of particular guidance and guidance currently in force.

There are two main examples of existing overarching guidelines in force that could be caught by the bill. The guideline of sentencing children and young people at the Caitlin on sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders, or neurological impairments. A significant number of defence- specific guidelines are framed by characteristics which have expanded explanations referring to the need to a presentencing report including the mitigating factor of age or a lack of maturity in the aggravated burglary Caitlin.

Another example, mitigating factor of pregnancy, childbirth, postnatal care and then considering the community service, they should be asked to address the issues below at a suitable presentence report and if it is not available the centre should be adjourned until one is available. The Minister, in a letter to the chair of the Joint Committee On Human Rights on April 24, "One the bill is in force, any guidelines in subsection for a will cease to be lawful and cease to have effect.

-- 4A. The bill will affect new and existing guidelines and in practice this means some guidelines will be affected by the bill, including offence-specific guidelines relating to mitigating and aggravating factors which set a guidance on presentence reports for specific presentence reports for specific Has the government determined which existing guidelines will be rendered unlawful by the bill? Secondly why did the government decide to make the provision in the bill apply to all guidelines rather than just the imposition of community and custodial sentences guidelines, which was issued by the council as a definitive guideline on 24 March 25.

Thirdly with the government be willing to limit the effect of the bill so that it did not affect the legality of any guidelines currently taking force on these matters in the interest of clarity. Secondly, there is the matter of the characteristics. The bill states that guidelines produced by the council cannot include provision framed by reference to personal characteristics. The bill then specified that personal characteristics include in particular race, religion or belief and cultural background. The list is not exhaustive and therefore also covers other person characteristics, for example age, sex and sexual orientation.

Close one would therefore render unlawful the following which were included in the custodial sentence guideline. Adult female, the one we discussed I think minority, pregnant and postnatal, disclosing transgender or may have or has a serious chronic medical condition or physical disability. And there are others. Neither the bill nor the Explanatory Notes provide any further guidance on the intended meaning of characteristic, personal characteristics. The use of the term characteristics could mean that each of the protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010, maybe called by the provision.

Chair of the joint committee on human rights or wrote to the Lord Chancellor on 8 April and asked from the question, is the term personal characteristics in the bill intended to exclude pregnancy, motherhood and age to ensure guidelines that are consistent with case law? The reply from the Minister on 24th of April I refer to is, " The bill specified that personal characteristics including race, religion or belief or cultural background. However this is a nonexhaustive list and personal characteristics is also intended to cover a wide range of characteristics, including sex, gender identity, age, physical disbelief, and pregnancy status.

Pregnancy motherhood and age are therefore not excluded from the definition of personal characteristics." The Explanatory Notes the bill states that the bill does not affect Court of Appeal case law on the circumstances where a presentence report is either necessary or desirable, and it then cites three cases. Thompson, where a woman is pregnant or recently given birth, namely which involves young defendants -- meanly, and, cash where the defendant's dramatic upbringing as a victim of modern slavery meant a presentencing report should have been required.

The Explanatory Notes make clear that the government does not intend to prevent the Court of Appeal or any other body from issuing guidance relating to presentence reports from being framed by personal characteristics. Other than ethnic, cultural, faith and minority communities. And it would appear to indicate that it does not object in principle to such an approach. The Minister's letter makes it clear that government objection lies with the council taking such an approach. So again I ask the Minister the following questions, why does the bill take a nonexhaustive approach to the definition of personal characteristics? With the government be willing to narrow the effect of the bill so the only references to ethnic minority, cultural melody and faith in arty community would be deemed unlawful? Could the governor explain why wishes to make it unlawful for the Sentencing Council to produce guidance to require a presentence report for the defendant with a physical or mental disability.

And finally, why is the government willing to accept the Court of Appeal can provide guidance on whether a presentence report is needed by reference to personal circumstances my characteristics were not willing to accept the Sentencing Council doing the same thing? One final question, the effect of clause 1 to prevent the inclusion of guidance framed by reference to personal characteristics. With the bill prevent the council from making indirect reference to personal characteristics throughout the reference to Court of Appeal case law or mitigating factors in a guidelines relating to presentence reports? Those are the only matters relating to the amendments here today.

I am concerned that there are ramifications of the proposals in this bill which have not been covered here. Now there -- it may be able to be corrected in the other place, or we may have to wait until the sentencing bill in the autumn. While I entirely understand the government's frustration with the Sentencing Council, I do not feel that this particular bill is a solution to the problems that it has identified. And whereas I think the consequences have been exaggerated in many respects, I also think that if we want not only a fair and if we want not only a fair and robust system but one that is clear, robust system but one that is clear, in dealing with pre-sentences reports needed, we need to return to this in a future occasion.
15:07
Ashley Fox Portrait Sir Ashley Fox MP (Bridgwater, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. I thought he recorded my support for the principle of this bill, which is unfortunately necessary to uphold the principle of equal justice. I'd like to speak to day in support of amendments three and four which further strengthen this legislation. Amendment three gives the Justice Secretary the power to prevent future errors of judgement by the Sentencing Council. It would require the council to secure ministerial consent before issuing any sentencing guidelines concerning presentence reports.

We should be clear that this is not a measure aimed at politicising justice. We must ensure democratic oversight of a body that has shown itself capable of committing such a serious error of judgement. Which has led to the situation today. The reason we are legislating is because the sentencing Council's guidance proposed treating offenders differently based on their ethnic, cultural or religious identities. And that is wrong. Happily give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Sentencing Council at no point has suggested treating point has suggested treating defendants differently according to ethnicity or religion. All the ethnicity or religion. All the Sentencing Council has tried to do is to make sure that judges and is to make sure that judges and magistrates have the maximum

**** Possible New Speaker ****

information. I'm grateful to the right honourable lady for her intervention. But what the intervention. But what the Sentencing Council does say is that if for example, you are a white Christian male, you are less likely to benefit from a presentence report and if you are a member of a religious or ethnic minority. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

believe that is wrong. I appreciate the right honourable member giving way. But does the member giving way. But does the right honourable member know that right honourable member know that any defendant before the courts who has no previous convictions, despite has no previous convictions, despite the seriousness of the offence, that individual would be entitled to a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

presentence report? Grateful to the honourable member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to the honourable member for his intervention, and yes as a former solicitor, I'm familiar with that provision. And I agree that any defendant who hasn't yet received a custodial sentence should have the benefit of a presentence report. But imagine two criminals who both do have a criminal record, and one is a member of a religious or ethnic minority and one is not. These guidelines proposed treating them differently. And that is not justice. Chevron isn't the fact that the sentencing guidance said it would normally be considered necessary, and then went on to talk about race and religion? That is the fundamental problem making those distinctions immediately apparent when looking at sentencing guidance, which could mean that a white Christian male will be treated differently if they committed the same offence as someone from a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

different ethnicity. Indeed engraved my honourable friend for making the point. And the point I wish to make the House is point I wish to make the House is that all defendants should be treated equally. And it shouldn't be treated equally. And it shouldn't be a matter of whether they are a member or not often ethnic or member or not often ethnic or religious minority. Now the council did not withdraw this guidance on did not withdraw this guidance on principle.

It didn't acknowledge its error. It was forced to backtrack only after public and political pressure. Largely from my right honourable friend the shadow Justice Secretary. Even then the council continued to defend the policy's rationale in private communications to the judiciary. Now that's not to the judiciary. Now that's not accountability, that is a ratio, and that's precisely why amendment 2 are so vital. We cannot allow this to happen again. And Parliament must have something to say when guidance threatens the equality of our system.

Amendment for equally addresses the content of sentencing guidance itself. This amendment would make it illegal for sentencing decisions to consider a defendants group identity, particularly in relation to historical discrimination that has no bearing on their individual case. Current bail guidance from Ministry of Justice already advises courts to consider the trauma suffered by individuals whose relatives experienced racism or cultural discrimination. It even refers to important historical events and their supposed differential impact on specific ethnic or cultural groups. That approach undermines the principle that people should be judged as individuals, not as members of a group.

Amendment for withdraw a clear legal line. Mitigating factors in sentencing must relate directly to an individual's actions and individual's actions and circumstances. Inherited identity or injustices not experienced by a particular convicted criminal should not be relevant to the sentence passed by the court. Race, religion or cultural background should not determine whether someone is sent to prison. And it should not determine whether someone should benefit or not from a presentence report. The Lord Chancellor has argued that the current bill allows her to move it pays to reduce the worst aspects of
15:14
Diane Abbott Portrait Rt Hon Diane Abbott MP (Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Labour)
-
-
the Sentencing Council's abuse. This is not just about moving fast, is also about ensuring we never face the situation again. These the situation again. These amendments are essential if we are serious about protecting the most serious about protecting the most basic principle of a free society, equality before the law. Without them, the bill addresses the symptoms but not the cause. Swear symptoms but not the cause. Swear urge the House to support amendments three and four and to reaffirm our commitment to equality before the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

law. Diane Abbott.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I entirely agree with members

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I entirely agree with members that are making the case that we should all be equal before the law. The problem is that the statistics, The problem is that the statistics, the figures show that that is not the case. And it's not been the case the case. And it's not been the case for decades. If you look at the figures for the numbers of people in prison, black people make up 12% of prison, black people make up 12% of the prison population and yet we only make up 4% of the general population.

That tends to point to population. That tends to point to the concern that we are not being treated in the whole custodial criminal system, that we are not equal before the law. I can remember years ago before perhaps some members were in the House, you couldn't say anything about institutional racism in the police force. And how black people are treated by the police. It took Stephen Lawrence and the Macpherson enquiry to get people, politicians and people that speak for the state to even acknowledge there was such an issue as institutional racism.

In an issue as institutional racism. In On the question of the debate we have had, my concern is that for short-term political advantage, we are putting forward a hurried bill which carries the risk of undermining the Sentencing Council and undermining the Judiciary and I don't believe that it is in the interests of our legal system. I would remind the House that these guidelines were put up for a consultation. There were 100 and respondents and only four made any reference to the guidelines for minorities which is upsetting for members on both sides of the House.

Since then, 20 organisations, including the Centre for Justice, Amnesty International and more have written to the Lord Chancellor saying that the consequences of pitching the guidelines could be pitching the guidelines could be dire. Amongst other things, these guidelines could affect pregnant women and the parents of young children and I repeat the guidelines are not dictating the sentence but saying that there are instances saying that there are instances where the maximum is in play.

My view is that what is problematic about this debate and this legislation is that it has been framed as if to fuel conflict is between politics and the role of the criminal justice system. I would saying that the real issue, and I do not know if this view is shared, but I would say the real issue is how seriously this House and ministers in particular are prepared to take the proven history of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system and not just pay lip service but do something about it.

They are scarcely young radicals. They are a group of very senior judges. They know, as anyone in contact with the criminal justice system knows, that there is an issue with institutional racism in the courts and in the mildest possible way they will try to make a suggestion in the guidelines about something which might help to make sure everybody is treated the same sure everybody is treated the same and it is because they -- I said at the beginning that everybody is not treated the same and people outside the chamber will not understand how so many members including so many ministers are trying to claim that we are all treated the same, I think if we want to halt the criminal justice system up to the light and sure people that is a house we are concerned to make sure that the system is fair and seemed to be fair then my view is that we should then my view is that we should accept the guidelines that have been accept the guidelines that have been put forward by the Sentencing Council.

Thank you.
15:19
Siân Berry Portrait Siân Berry MP (Brighton Pavilion, Green Party)
-
-
Can I start by associating myself with everything the honourable member has just said. I genuinely believe the bill is undermining efforts to make equality a reality. It flies in the face of expertise and the painstaking work of the Sentencing Council. I think it is a change in -- strange and populist bill and it could have made the justice system more fair not less and I want to start with objections to this by commenting on the process and we have a single-page bill that, in specificity and intent, brings to my mind the way which the current President of the USA is making use of executive orders to interfere in independent decision-making going on by other bodies and this is a microbial and it micromanage is and I worry what else we might see if such an example is set today.

At the second reading, the Shadow Justice Secretary was not shy of telling us about the next targets and the honourable member for Hammersmith and Chiswick outlined other guidelines which might be immediately effective if we pass the bill today. My second objection is about the substance of the bill, primarily Class 1. I can't believe ministers and shadow ministers are not aware that achieving fair and equal outcomes does not mean treating everyone the same. That principle is so fundamental that I think I learned it through the round window.

I cannot believe they are unaware that systemic racism and unconscious bias are real things that affect people at every stage of the system still in the UK in 2025 or that the good practice must mitigate against this are it will compounded. I don't believe the government thinks the findings of government thinks the findings of the independent lab -- Lammy Review are untrue or did not rule on this against legislation against prejudice but yet here we are being asked about these principles from being part of a dependent judicial guidelines.

I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My concern is and I think this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My concern is and I think this Opera House's concern is that Gayton says it is normally necessary and it says it is normally necessary and it says it is normally necessary and it picked out a minority and entrenches racism back into the system which is the very aim they do not want to see the very aim they do not want to see and that is the fundamental argument the government and the state of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the government and the state of the House are putting forward. We do not want to see this get worse. This is... Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just in response to the point that has been made, these guidelines that has been made, these guidelines did not pick out race and ethnicity. In fact, they listed a number of circumstances in which a pre- sentence report might be considered sentence report might be considered appropriate. Someone on the first custodial sentence, under 25, a custodial sentence, under 25, a women, pregnant, primary care of relative, transgender, may have addiction issues. Far from the council picking out race, it was one in a long list of circumstances that the Sentencing Council was suggesting the pre-sentencing report

**** Possible New Speaker ****

might be appropriate for. Thank you. To return to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. To return to the question, it is difficult for some to realise what has gone on the definition of normal has slipped definition of normal has slipped away from the mill, but white, the Christian, the majority, to shine a light on people who might have experienced discrimination and that is a point of the guidelines and that is why we have put together this which mitigates against these very great problems which have been outlined and that we know about very well.

In contrast to this rushed bill, the process that led to the now-suspended new Sentencing Council guidelines was excellent and was consulted upon widely. The justice committee looked at it and it was given the green light by another Conservative government of which the shadow justice minister was a member and I know that a small change was made by the same document improbabilities in principles enshrined. There was basically consensus that more use pre- sentencing report should be made for people suffering from systemic injustices and the particular groups might be in need of time and that judges should be encouraged to ask for them in what circumstances for these groups.

I wanted to also talk Which, by the delay which has happened as a result of suspending the guidelines coming forward from the bill, I don't know pain we will get the guidelines. I think there will be more harm to people of a particular group than what I could about a lot and that is women, families, children who were all a more specific focus of the guidelines and I've worked for us all long on problems and injustices facing women in the system and I'm concerned any delay to log the long overdue changes to make this easier overdue changes to make this easier for these groups will have serious consequences for too many people with these characteristics or circumstances, however we define it, but also on by the society.

I would ask the ministers to tell us about the impact of the delay on women, families, pregnant people, and the other groups named and when we will get guidelines that include them and how many people will be harmed in the meantime because this delay has already taken some weeks. Some members of the House will be familiar with the seminal report about women the particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system and incidentally this document reminds us that the quality does not mean treating everyone the same in the introduction.

The guidelines from the sentencing Council to help plug a gap which remains as a consequence of the recommendations in the report at the Sentencing Council rightly points to deeply concerning evidence of this problem. I'm aware of difficulties judges have had justifying delays and adjournments to get pre-sentence reports when the old guidance pushed for reporting on the same day from the service and cautioned against the service and cautioned against this. Will this delay be until 2037, 20 years later, until the all guidelines are removed.

How many women might be harmed in the women might be harmed in the meantime? As far as I can see, the shadow justice secretary has scored a major win today from seizing the issue and starting a culture war against another minority and we found that about these principles for a long time and instead of allowing the guidelines to be trialled with concerns being addressed calmly, instead they have good this Executive Order-style bill before us for the third reading and there was not time to point this out.

I am sorry but I believe that this bill represents nothing less than a rushed and extraordinary capitulation by the government to hydrate propaganda and that people are suffering injustice as a result. It is profoundly worrying to see the government led to sitting in this area to micromanage justice in ways that are led by dog whistles, roaming slogans, disingenuous Slogans. I hope members will join me Slogans. I hope members will join me in voting against the bill and show respect for the independence of judges, magistrates on this matter.

It is vital to do something today to stand up for evidence I can let policy, judicial independence, and policy, judicial independence, and equality before the law. equality before the law.
15:29
Ayoub Khan Portrait Ayoub Khan MP (Birmingham Perry Barr, Independent)
-
-
Thank you. I would like to draw the attention of members to my register of interest. I am a member of the bar. I would like to allay my comments made by the Mother of the House, the honourable member for Brighton Pavilion. This bill and the amendments, in reality, do not tackle the two-tier justice in this country. In fact, they risk entrenching it. The justice system is founded on the principle we all claim to uphold, fairness and equality before the law.

And yet today we are being asked to support legislation that fundamentally undermines that principle. Let me be absolutely clear, this is not a matter of opinion. Lord Justice William Davies, the Chair of the Sentencing Council, has written candidly on the matter and stated, for example, defendants for minority ethnic backgrounds are statistically more likely to receive harsher sentences than white counterparts for a similar offence. That is not the opinion of politicians or pressure groups, that is a warning from within the senior judiciary itself.

And yet this bill ignores itself. And yet this bill ignores that reality. Is still, it undermines -- worse still, it undermines the tools created to protect, the pre-sentencing report. Let's remind ourselves what that is It is not the sentence itself. Sentencing decisions are rightly governed by separate judicial guidance, based on culpability, hard calls, and established sentencing ranges. Those guidelines remain in place. What the pre-sentence reports does is help the court understand the background and circumstances of the offender.

Information which is needed to establish effective pathways to rehabilitation. Particularly when they have had issues such as mental health challenges, learning difficulties, or lifelong trauma. The current guidelines for pre-sentence reports were very carefully provided with the input of not just senior judges but also leading academics. And practitioners. Experts in criminal justice, you understand complexities and systemic disadvantages many face. In this house, we routinely rely on expert testimony to shape policy. Whether it is the NHS, Education, or the environment, and rightly so.

But in this case, we are doing the precise opposite. Rejecting expert opinion, dismissing data, and ignoring lived experiences. Let me offer an analogy, parallel that speaks to health disparities. According to Public Health England and an association, black African and Caribbean men over the age of 55 are almost twice as likely to suffer a stroke compared to white men of the same age. This isn't speculation, to the clinical fact. If the NHS were to implement a targeted program to deliver early stroke prevention for this group not a single person in the chamber would call it a two tier system.

We recorded evidence-based care, we would call it a fair and proportionate response to known

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disparity. So why when it comes to justice are we so afraid to apply the same logic? From a medical perspective that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From a medical perspective that would be a genetic predisposition to that full stop is he seriously suggesting when it comes to this case that someone genetically would case that someone genetically would find themselves in the law merely find themselves in the law merely because they are a black person? The comparison he has made it exactly that from a medical standpoint was I don't think you really would suggest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

don't think you really would suggest that. I certainly would be against that position. The honourable member makes his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable member makes his point. As a criminal code to who has, a criminal practitioner who has been to court over the years, I have seen sentencing that in my view was not fair. So these are lived experiences from certain communities which is just as important as other minorities from from whatever background they have. It is important because ultimately who have we got that has decided that this is an important feature that needs to be counted within the sentencing guidelines? This is something that went through all the consultation was to and people had seen this, people agreed to this and did not raise a concern back then.

So why now? Addressing inequality is not the same as creating inequality. It is in fact the only way to ensure real equality. To ensure justice is not just blind in theory but fair in practice. I know some will argue that we need to understand the root causes of disparity, and they are right. That work is essential. But while that longer term work is ongoing, we must act in the present. We must allow the experts to do their jobs and supports the guidance that they, not we, have developed through years of experience, research, and consultation.

Madame Chair, this bill is not just misguided, it is regressive. I cannot and will not support legislation that sidelined expert insight, ignores data, and compromises the principles of fairness that we all claim to defend in the name of political convenience. This must not only be done but it must be seen to be done. And right now, the communities that faced this disparity were no longer be concerned with this government's approach.
15:35
Dan Tomlinson Portrait Dan Tomlinson MP (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Chair. First of all I want to acknowledge that the question of disparities in outcomes in our judicial system is a real issue and one that merits serious attention. I recognise the work of the Lammy Review of 2017 as well as the provisions of the Ministry of Justice report in 2020 tackling racial disparity in the Criminal Justice Bill. It found disparities in how people from minority ethnic groups are treated in the judicial system. It is important that these issues to need to be given the focus that they merit.

However, I'm glad that this bill has passed its second reading, and that we are progressing through the stages of the bill today. I am firmly of the view it is not for the Sentencing Council to make political decisions, policy decisions, on this matter. For those are the domain of politicians, and must remain so. Government should be able to make political decisions and implement them, and the ballot box is the right place for us to be held to account. What I find refreshing about the continued passage of this bill today is that we are showing that politicians don't have to be jelly like in the face of blockages to their desire to make good decisions.

About the same time, I support the unamended passage of this bill because I think it finds a way to thread the needle with a targeted intervention, the amendment from the shadow Secretary of State for justice I think goes too far and would undermine the independence of the Sentencing Council.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend has referred

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend has referred to blockages. How can he describe members of this house, people in the community, who are trying to stand community, who are trying to stand up for a fair and just terminal justice system is blockages?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

justice system is blockages? I thank you for your intervention. I do not think that intervention. I do not think that anyone in this house is a blockage, far from it. The point I am making here is that I believe that this house should be the place where political decisions are made, and politicians should be the people who decide the important things that matter to people in this country. It is my view that the Sentencing Council is an important body, but crucially, it is not a political one.

And I think that if these guidelines would have gone through, it would have undermined the important principle of the equality before the law. Of course that is a political decision, there are differences across and within different sides of this house, but that is for us to contest here in this place. I'm glad that this government is making sure that we can make progress on the things that we believe need to be pushed forward for the British people. I hope that the bill will pass unamended today.

Because the precise changes proposed allow for sentencing guidance cannot allow for sentencing guidance cannot be changed in a way that undermines equality before the law. I don't the amendments proposed by the opposition unnecessary, I think they take things too far. With this and with much else besides, it is time for us to show that moderate politics, the politics of this government, does not have to be like soup, weak and watery, and a possible to hold onto. Instead it can be a politics of action and delivery.

So I welcome the passage

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of this bill, the continued passage of this bill, and urge members to vote for it today. I now call the Liberal Democrat

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spokesperson. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I made Liberal Democrat position on made Liberal Democrat position on this very short bill on this issue more widely abundantly clear in the more widely abundantly clear in the last debate that we had on this matter. We believe in equality before the law. We believe in the before the law. We believe in the rule of law, and we believe that no one is above the law. That is why we one is above the law.

That is why we believe the matter of pre-sentence reports that anyone facing the prospect of a custodial sentence should be the subject of a pre- sentence report. We believe the state has this duty before dispensing its power to deprive someone of their liberty. There is
15:40
Josh Babarinde Portrait Josh Babarinde MP (Eastbourne, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
no world in which judges and magistrates have more information about an offender and their about an offender and their circumstances, whoever they are, it's a bad thing. That is why it is an injustice that the use of pre- sentence report has fallen from 160,000 in 2015 to just 90,000 x 20 160,000 in 2015 to just 90,000 x 20 23. A cut of 42%. This has left judges and magistrates with fewer judges and magistrates with fewer resources and insights than ever to go about their work.

Less informed sentencing means less satisfactory sentencing outcomes. It means more reoffending, it means more victims, it means more turmoil, and that is unacceptable. That is not justice. This is a product of underinvestment in our probation service which compiles the reports, which was gutted under the Conservative government. I welcome therefore that the Minister has agreed with me in his closing speech at second reading that this debate should be about how we move to the universality of pre- sentence reports and not about ration.

I will come to that new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause one shortly. I am grateful to my noble Friend for Divin way. He will be aware that for Divin way. He will be aware that any sentencing magistrate or judge

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can request a pre-sentence report, so to use the word rationing I would say is inappropriate. I thank remember Foyth intervention. I don't know whether intervention. I don't know whether he has read the Sentencing Council's he has read the Sentencing Council's summary of the responses to the draft guidance that was in consultation under the Conservative consultation under the Conservative government? But what was paraphrased from magistrates and judges is that they felt that driving a universality of pre-sentence reports would be challenging in light of the limited resource the service has, and in light of the court backlogs that exist.

I would suggest that he consult that document to see those faces that have been used by those legal professionals.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. How much would that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful. How much would that cost, universality. The Lib Dems

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Collated how much it would cost? As the honourable men they just intervened is making his point, that these reports should exist come what these reports should exist come what may, this cash should be ring fenced. It should be earmarked for fenced. It should be earmarked for the use of judges and magistrates to request. Both members cannot have it request. Both members cannot have it both ways. What we also know is that if we best tailor a sentence to whether it will best result in somebody reoffending or not, we best match the sentence to an offender, we can spend to save.

If we can reduce reoffending by ensuring that people get the appropriate sentence, keeping people out of our prisons that are crumbling, and that don't need to be there because they have not offended or reoffended in the first place. We can spend to save. But I regret this issue has become a political football. And one that is sowing seeds of division. Plainly and simply, this is about the Shadow Justice Secretary attempting to hijack our criminal justice system for his own political ends.

So desperate is he to school little points that he uses his platform in this house to undermine judges, to undermine judges by name in the full knowledge that they cannot respond. And in the full knowledge that there is a formal process by which judicial complaints can be investigated and addressed. So desperate are they to score political points that they paint judges as activist villains, working to undermine public confidence, just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because he does not agree. I would expect him to at least acknowledge that the reference to acknowledge that the reference to judges in their capacity as members of the Sentencing Council not as judges hearing the educators was not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

judges hearing the educators was not that is an important distinction to make. I would refer the honourable member to comments that the Shadow member to comments that the Shadow Justice Secretary made I think at the last justice questions that he the last justice questions that he was not in attendance for. Where the Shadow Justice Secretary named a Shadow Justice Secretary named a specific judge made a critique of them, a complete of them outside the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

formal process. I thank him for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way. Judges have been vilified, as have other members that sit on that Sentencing Council, by members of Sentencing Council, by members of this house. Does the honourable member agree with me, if there is to member agree with me, if there is to be any vilification, it is the members that sit, which formed the members that sit, which formed the previous government, that had the cultural attention given to them and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed it? I thank the member for his intervention. I don't agree that vilification is the right approach from any side of this argument. This debate should be conducted with respect and with good courtesy. But I feel that that was missing from some of the comments that I referred to in what I just suggested. But absolutely, there must be accountability. Indeed the last government was held accountable in huge respect at the last general election where they suffered the election where they suffered the So desperate thirdly is the shadow justice secretary to rise to the top of our democracy that he is prepared in the ways I have described to undermine our democracy itself.

And turning to the specifics of this bill, it has been referred to already by other honourable members, but this bill and its amendments are rushed, knee-jerk, and not the way to make policy about people's liberty, nor our constitution. As I have said before, why not negotiate with the sentencing Council now, the immediate emergency has subsided. Based on my engagement with MoJ ministers and workers, the question hasn't been answered as to how they would implement this.

Why not wait for the review to report and ensure that this issue is explored comprehensively and ensure that wider consultation takes place, and as I have said before, why not address what is already a two-tiered justice system as it has been referred to by some members behind me and the mother of the house where, for example, people from ethnic minority background are more likely to serve longer sentences for the same crimes as people who are not from ethnic minority backgrounds.

It is disappointing that there is no provision in this bill to look at this. And if the government does insist on passing this bill, we urge the government to embrace our calls for an independent review of presentence reports to be conducted within two years as per new clause 1.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope the member was listening to my speech when I talked about the to my speech when I talked about the harm may be caused from the delay in bringing an excellent parts of the bringing an excellent parts of the new guidelines that might help women and families. Are the Lib Dems asking for a delay or would they asking for a delay or would they like to support bringing in the parts of the guidance that are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

parts of the guidance that are agreed as soon as possible? As I've said, one of the problems

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I've said, one of the problems with the proposals as consultation has been minimal. These come from a rushed place of responding to a culture war. We are making decisions here about people's liberties, and we don't want to respond in a knee- jerk way, what I absolutely can say and what I have discussed with and what I have discussed with members of this House is that the provision around victims of domestic violence, modern slavery et cetera, their circumstances should be considered, and as I have looked at, presentence reports, we should lean towards the presumption of universe ala T rather than anything else, so those groups can access a presentence report on those individuals.

Not only because we have grade impacts of those changes but because we remain steadfastly committed to evidence taste policymakers. Against the back of cynical culture wars and leadership manoeuvres, it is more important than ever for the government to assess the outcomes of this policy, assessment based on statistics, data and evidence as opposed to dogma and ideology. To conclude, we must not dance to the tune of the populists or the culture war fanatics, nor undermine our legal institutions. As such, our position has not changed since last time and we will act accordingly.

We will defend our judicial system and its independence, but we reject short- term reforms that failed to address

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the disproportionate nature at play. I rise to speak for amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak for amendments three and four on my name in the name the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice and colleagues. From MPs and across the house of already made clear, the draft guidelines produced clear, the draft guidelines produced by the council will have led to an unacceptable 22 justice system. One where defendants were treated where defendants were treated different in not based on their crimes but based on cultural or religious identity. The record will religious identity.

The record will show for several hours to 2 justice did exist because this is so shambolic lean managed that the guidance came into effect ahead of its withdrawal formally. That is not justice but a betrayal of the law, and it would have happen from the Lord Chancellor but for the intervention of these opposition benches and in particular, the shadow Secretary of State for Justice. This bill is necessary but not sufficient. It said of acting decisively to restore public confidence after the Labour government has been dragged to act at all, it now brings forward half measure, Omega response that full short of what it should do.

That is where we have table to important amendments. First, Amendment three. This would ensure that sentencing guidelines concerning presentence reports cannot simply be issued by the sentencing Council without oversight. They would require the Secretary of State for Coming into force. Why is that necessary? Because the sentencing Council has proven itself not just in initial measures proposed but in its attitude in response to public scrutiny unable to sustain public
15:52
Kieran Mullan Portrait Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
-
-
confidence in its work in this area. It is one thing for a public body to seek to exercise independence on a day-to-day basis. It is something day-to-day basis. It is something else when a public body chooses not to exercise good judgement to make use of that independence to act with restraint in the face of widespread government opposition, Parliamentary government opposition, Parliamentary and public concern. Whilst it can have their merits, the sentencing Council brought to life with potential pitfalls of unelected quangos that are deaf to the concerns of the people who pay their concerns of the people who pay their wages and the politicians who represent those people.

While this whole affair has no doubt been a humiliating one for the Lord Chancellor and the government, the damage to public confidence is just as great. Despite what the Lib Dems spoke person has said in his remarks earlier in the second reading, it did not agree to pause in fermentation of the guidelines to allow for a period of reflection. It refused to do so and he has misunderstood the sequence of events. He only paused because otherwise we would have entered into a constitutionally unsustainable situation where people being sentenced with guidelines being legislated against in Parliament for emergency legislation.

That caused us to dedicate a lack of judgement, so we must act more broadly to constrain the sentencing Council pending any wholesale changes that may be forthcoming. That is why the shadow Secretary of State brought forward a bill that would have taken a necessary step to return accountability of the body through the Lord Chancellor whilst wholesale reform could be undertaken. Labour chose to oppose that bill. Today, it is out of scope for us to seek a wide amendment and we are restricted to restore accountability in this field.

Where we draft reports, they must be proposed by the Secretary of State before they come into force as guidelines. There is a basic safeguard of accountability ensuring ministerial oversight and sensitive matters of sentencing. Without that amendment, history can repeat itself. The same counsel will bring forward ideological frameworks before the damage is done. These guidelines gone unchallenged, we would have tilted sentencing on identity politics undermining public confidence in entire systems. Our amendment would create safeguarding ensuring that no future guidelines would pass accountability.

I would encourage ministers who want to see accountability restored across the work of the sentencing Council to support the amendment today. To do otherwise will make clear that they are unwilling to follow through on their concerns with action. Our second amendment would make clear that sentencing guidelines must not include consideration of defendant status as part of the group that has experienced intergenerational trauma. Why is this necessary? Because it would be deeply wrong to allow collective historical grievances to influence the sentencing of an individual today.

This area is the latest frontier in politics when the public in all sorts of domains is being told what should be given disproportionate focus that what matters more than what is happening today in a whole variety of challenges facing people of all creeds and colours is in fact the past. Sentencing must focus on actions, culpability and the direct personal circumstances of the defendant before the court, not on sweeping assumptions based on historical events. We are not aping this bill to legislate across the workings of the common justice system as much as we might like to.

The events of the last few months have shown that what is happened with these guidelines is not a one- off. There is a systemic attempt to put things into training materials. If we do not confront it now, it will embed itself deeper and deeper into the foundations of our system. It is fundamental to the rule of law that justice looks to the individual and not to the group. It is fundamental that we deal with evidence and not ideology. Our amendments are attempting to strengthen this bill to make sure it is not just a reactive measure but in this area must be blind and must be seen to be blind.

The public expects justice to be equal and not preferential. Our amendments will go further in helping to secure this. We are here today because the Lord Chancellor was not paying attention and was then humiliated by the recalcitrant leadership of an unelected body turning their face against Parliamentary and public concern. They should have acted decisively, immediately, and we provided an opportunity for them to do so and they failed to take it. Even now, we are faced with a bill that doesn't do the full job.

Our amendments are closing the gap between what the Lord Chancellor is offering and what is necessary. Decisiveness in place of timidity. And I urge the whole house on the government to support them. I call the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to serve with you. I would like to thank the you. I would like to thank the honourable and right honourable members present here today for the points they have raised and the amendments which have been discussed which I will respond to intern. First I will speak briefly to each First I will speak briefly to each clause of the bell and remind us of why we are here debating this bill. In the last Parliament sentencing In the last Parliament sentencing Council talked about a guideline which was due to come into effect on 1 April this year.

The reversed guideline contains additional guidelines on when courts should request sentencing reports. It will normally be considered from a minority. Nor will it be considered to replace important, which the government very much welcomed. This government notes that presentencing court is necessary. This covenant agrees that disparities exist in the coming of justice system, however, the reason for this is unclear and this is a matter for government accountable to Parliament and to the ballot box to address.

Which members have noted during this debate. In effect, the revised guideline could have left judges deciding whether to request a presentence report based on an offender's faith of the colour of their skin. The Lord Chancellor has been clear that this would be unacceptable as it risks differential treatment. Singling out one group over another undermines the idea that we all stand equal before the law. A principle that has been in the foundations of our justice system for centuries, and that is why she acted immediately and quickly.

By presenting the sentencing Council making guidance on presentence reports with reference to personal characteristics, this helps ensure equality before the law. Clause 1 amends section 120 of the coroners and Justice act 2009. It provides that sentencing guidelines may not include provision framed by reference to different personal characteristics including race, religion or belief or cultural background. Therefore, any existing guidelines that make reference to different personal characteristics will cease to have effect and the sentence counsel is prevented from making such provisions in guidelines in the future.

The changes made by this clause prevent the sentencing Council making policy about when presentence reports should be obtained but risks differential treatment before, which could undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system. The
15:59
Nicholas Dakin Portrait Sir Nicholas Dakin MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Scunthorpe, Labour)
-
-
criminal justice system. The sentencing code is clear that court should obtain presentence reports and lessen the circumstances of the case it is unnecessary. This clause case it is unnecessary. This clause does not affect the independent judiciary's ability to make decisions based on the personal characteristics of an individual characteristics of an individual offender or determined where presentence reports are necessary or desirable. Nor does it stop the desirable. Nor does it stop the sentencing Council from advising in general terms the presentence general terms the presentence reports are sought in cases where the court would benefit from an assessment of an offender's personal circumstance.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Presentence reports are really important in considering punishments important in considering punishments that can address offending behaviour and help reduce the likelihood of reoffending but very often, reoffending but very often, probation is stretched so thin that officers don't have time to complete officers don't have time to complete them. So, what is the Minister doing them. So, what is the Minister doing to ensure that wearer presentencing report is required, probation has the capacity to do that important work?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

work? She echoes much of what the spokesperson for the Lib Dems picked up earlier. Probation is a very significant part of the landscape and that is why we are on boarding 1300 more probation officers over The chair of the select committee raised issues about the impact of these guidelines on existing guidelines. We expect there will be other guidelines will be affected by the bill. And these are offence specific guidelines relating to mitigating and aggravating factors which set out guidance about pre- sentence reports for specific cohorts.

We will continue working with the Sentencing Council on the implementation of the bill. We have had constructive discussions and will continue to do so. As he referenced, the Bills Explanatory Notes point out that it does not change existing precedent when the courts have determined that pre- sentence reports are necessary or desirable, in cases such as Thomson, the Court of Appeal recently emphasised their important and sentencing pregnant women or women who have recently given birth. When the court referenced the value of pre-sentence reports for young defendants or in another case where the defendant was a victim of modern slavery.

Instead the bill narrowly focuses on the issue at hand, putting beyond doubt the principle that we all stand equal before the law. Clause two is concerned with details about how the bill will be enacted. The bill will apply only to England and Wales, and its measures will come into force the day after it passes. The bill may become the pre-sentencing port Acts 2025 once elected. I would like to thank the right honourable Member from Kenilworth and Southam for tabling amendments and for the thoughtful and compressive way in which he dealt with them.

I will deal with them together. Amendments one and two replace the term "Personal characteristics" with demographic cohorts, to describe the type of provision that pre-sentence reports in sentencing guidelines that the bill will prohibit. The government has considered the proposed change to the wording very carefully, I would like to take this opportunity to briefly explain the government's approach. The government's objective is to help ensure equality before the law, so that offenders are treated according to their own particular circumstances, and not by virtue of their membership of a particular group.

To ensure the bill includes provision framed by reference to any specific personal characteristics of an offender, we have used the term personal characteristics. The bill sets out that personal characteristics include race, religion, or belief, or cultural background. But this is not an exhaustive list. We accept personal characteristics and personal circumstances have, over the years, been interpreted in different court judgements. We are clear it is intended to include a wider range of counter-attacks including sex, gender identity, physical disabilities, and pregnancy status.

The right honourable Member has rightly noted that the term demographic cohort is used in the Bills Explanatory Notes. But the use of the demographic cohort was not intended to, and I believe does not narrow, the definition of personal characteristics, though I know that he believes it might do. Rather it is a different term used to describe individuals who share certain

**** Possible New Speaker ****

personal characteristics. I'm grateful to him for giving way. The purposes of clarity, and I way. The purposes of clarity, and I accept he is trying to give us clarity, can he help us with this. clarity, can he help us with this. Is it the government's view that all personal characteristics can also be described as personal circumstances?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

described as personal circumstances? No. That is not the government's view. Personal characteristics is a view. Personal characteristics is a term that is understood and applied in other contexts. Whereas demographic cohort is not. It is a demographic cohort is not. It is a term that, on balance, the government feels is more precise, and would ultimately need to be defined with reference to a group with shared personal characteristics. It is therefore from the government's point of view, though I understand where the honourable member is coming from, from the government's point of view, it does not add anything to the drafting of the current bill.

And it risks causing further confusion. As he pointed out in his very helpful contribution, there is a danger of getting into detailed semantics here which probably does not help any of us.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not sure this is going to make it any better. I think what he is saying then, is that the question is saying then, is that the question is saying then, is that the question of the term demographic cohort is a subset of personal circumstances. Sorry, subset of personal Sorry, subset of personal characteristics. But personal characteristics are not the same as personal circumstances, I think that is what he is saying, is that right?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is what he is saying, is that right? I think what I'm saying is we use the phrase demographic cohorts, we have to define what demographic cohorts means. Whereas personal characteristics is a phrase that already has a level of definition. It is therefore one that is preferred by the government. If I turn to the member for Hammersmith and Chiswick about the similar issue that he raised. We carefully considered whether the bill could and should be narrower than referring to personal characteristics, for example offender and being from a cultural minority.

In the end we felt that was not helpful. As such, while I am very grateful to the right honourable Member for suggesting alternative wording, the government remains of the view that, having considered it very carefully, the term personal characteristics is the most appropriate way of capturing the issues raised by the guideline.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I clarify the point, for example in relation to pregnancy. It example in relation to pregnancy. It is in the Explanatory Notes that it is in the Explanatory Notes that it would be right for Thomson to be followed, and a sentencing report to followed, and a sentencing report to be ordered. But he is correct for the Sentencing Council to make the Sentencing Council to make recommendations along those lines, if we follow the passage of this bill.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

As he says, it is right to follow Thomson in those circumstances. While I'm grateful to the right While I'm grateful to the right honourable Member for exploring this issue on the Floor of the House, I issue on the Floor of the House, I hope that he does not push the amendment to a vote. Moving on, amendment to a vote. Moving on, amendment three tabled by the Official Opposition would require Official Opposition would require the Sentencing Council to obtain the secretary of state's approval before issuing any sentencing guidance about pre-sentence reports.

I reference the helpful words of the right honourable Member when he said we should tread very carefully in this territory. And that the separation of powers needs to be very much respected. So whilst carefully considering the case for mandating the Sentencing Council obtained the Secretary of State's approval, I'm not persuaded that this is appropriate at this particular time. As the Lord Chancellor set out, this case has highlighted that there is potentially a democratic deficit here. That is why we are currently assessing Sentencing Council's wider role and powers for developing sentencing guidelines and recent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

developments in guidelines. Can I gently suggest to the Minister if there is a risk of democratic deficit, surely the thing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

democratic deficit, surely the thing to do is to act now in the short- term and unpick it later if you feel is overreach? We certainly don't feel we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We certainly don't feel we have overreached. And we have acted in a overreached. And we have acted in a timely way. As the debate is demonstrated there are issues of details need to be properly explored. The Lord Chancellor has done the right thing in announcing a review of what, of looking at the review of what, of looking at the thing in the proper time and that will take place. Given the special role of the Sentencing Council and policy on constitutional issues involved, it is rightly take the time to consider whether more fundamental reform is needed alongside considering wider recommendations that come out of the Independent Sentencing Review.

I'm not convinced it would be proper to do with the issue now for this fast-track legislation. Nor am I convinced that legislating a piecemeal way would be helpful. Noting that the amendment just applies to sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports, and then a the other things you need to look at. We are keeping all options on the table and willing to further legislate on this in a more competitive way if necessary. I therefore urge the right honourable Member to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment four was, also tabled in his name would prevent the Sentencing Council from framing sentencing guidelines about pre- sentence reports with reference to groups that may have experienced trauma from historical racism or discrimination. Whilst we have carefully considered the case for adding this restriction on the face of the bill, we are not persuaded that it is necessary. Within the bill we have taken a general approach to preventing sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports from being framed by reference to any personal characteristic of an offender.

The bill specifies that personal characteristics include race, religion, or cultural background. But this is not an exhaustive list. More widely, I appreciate the right honourable Member has taken a keen interest in wider guidance access across business and probation that touched on different experiences, including that specified within the text of the amendment. The government is clear of the need to ensure equality before the law, and wider work is going on to review relevant policy and guidance. We will update this when necessary.

I urge the right honourable Member to withdraw this amendment. I want to turn to new clause 1. New clause 1 would require the Secretary of state to have an independent review into the restrictions the bill places on the Sentencing Council's ability about pre-sentence reports which are framed by reference to offenders different personal characteristics. I would like to thank the honourable men before Eastbourne for tabling this amendment. Thus we have carefully considered the case for such a review, and I have course agree that it is important to carefully think through what the effects of the bill will be, I am not persuaded that a review is necessary because the direct changes made by the bill are limited in nature.

To recap, the bill helps protect equality before the law by ensuring no offender receives differential treatment regarding pre-sentence reports based on their personal characteristics. That reflects a fundamental principle does not need to be reviewed. The bill does this by restricting the powers of the Sentencing Council to issues of sentencing guidelines on reports. It will prevent guidelines for example creating a presumption around whether a pre-sentencing report should be obtained based on an offender's personal characteristics rather than all circumstances of the offender before the court.

For the avoidance of doubt, this government supports the use of pre-sentence reports, and we have publicly committed to creating more capacity in the probation service to ensure it is able to do fallible work including preparing pre-sentence reports. We will also be very happy to continue to work with your member going forward regarding disparities in the Criminal Justice Bill. And the use of pre-sentence reports more generally. We fully support the increased use of PSRs in our court system. PSRs include an assessment of the offender's behaviour and the risk they pose and the recommendations for sentencing options stop it is a valuable tool, as many members have said, in helping to ensure the sentences tailored to an individual offender and their circumstances.

Equality before the law is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system. It is the governments policy and believe that this should be protected. I welcome again the contribution from the Mother of the House supported by both the member for Brighton Pavilion and the member for Birmingham Perry Barr. Two keep our feet to the fire on tackling disproportionality. I can confirm again that this government takes very seriously tackling disproportionality in the criminal justice system. That is why the Lord Chancellor has commissioned a review of the data on disparities in the justice system, in order to better understand the drivers of the problem.

I know that my right honourable friend does not need my encouragement to keep going on this one, and so I look forward to her keeping us to account as we continue to move forward. I should also be clear on what the bill does not do. To underscore its limited changes, nothing in the bill restricts the courts, the pre-existing ability to request pre-sentence reports. All the Sentencing Council from advising in general terms that a pre-sentence report should be sought where further assessment of the offender's personal circumstances would be an official to the court.

The bill also does not affect Court of Appeal case law about the types of cases where pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable. As we have covered previously for the there is a recent relevant case law covering vulnerable defenders, pregnant women, and women who have recently given birth, and young defenders. The bill will also not prevent judges from requesting pre-sentence reports in cases where they ordinarily would, pleading in appropriate cases involving for example pregnant women, as well as those involving young people, and I welcome the comments from the member for Chipping Barnet on these issues.

With these considerations in mind, the government does not consider the proposed review to be necessary, but as the Lord Chancellor has set out, she is now carried out a review into a wider role and so I can reassure the honourable Member that there will be further opportunities to discuss issues surrounding the Sentencing Council in this house. I hope that he will therefore withdraw the amendment, thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So Jeremy Wright to wind up. Thank you. I think gratitude to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I think gratitude to all those who have spoken, that we have got to a place where the Minister has told the House that Minister has told the House that there is some territory which at the moment is being described as moment is being described as personal characteristics, into which sentencing guidelines may not trust sentencing guidelines may not trust us. That is not the same as specifically referring to someone's specifically referring to someone's personal circumstances. It is a broader area.

Broader area then the question whether they are a member of a particular demographic group. The recipe says the Minister, before this will complete his progress, as he may want in, to clarify which territory specifically now sentencing Council cannot construct guidelines about so we all understand including the Sentencing Council, where we stand. But I'm grateful to him for the exhalation he has been able to give today. And in consequence I'm content to in consequence I'm content to
16:16
None Portrait Division
-

The amendment by leave withdrawn. We now come to Amendment three We now come to Amendment 3 to clause 1 which has been convenient to be selected for a separate decision. The question is that Amendment three The question is that Amendment three The The question The question is The question is as The question is as on The question is as on the The question is as on the order paper. Tellers for the eyes, Rebecca

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The eyes to the right, 86. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nose to the left, 222. The eyes are 86, the nose were

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The eyes are 86, the nose were 222, so the nose have it, the nose 222, so the nose have it, the nose We now come to Amendment four We now come to Amendment four We We now come to Amendment four We now come to Amendment 4 to clause 1

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which has been selected for a separate decision. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is that Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that Amendment for the maid. Division, clear the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is on Is on the Is on the order Is on the order paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is on the order paper. Tellers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lock Lock the Lock the doors.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. The ayes to the right 88. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 226. The ayes to the right 88. The noes to the left 226. The noes have noes to the left 226. The noes have noes to the left 226. The noes have it. The noes have it. Unlock. With the leave of the house, I support the question clause is one two together. The question is that these clauses stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it.

The ayes have it. Order. Order. The question is that I do report the bill to the house. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Water, whip to report. I beg to report that the committee has gone through the bell committee has gone through the bell and directed me to report the same without amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister to move third reading. Let me first take this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me first take this opportunity to thank all members of this House who have spoken in support of this important bill. I am support of this important bill. I am grateful for the support expressed at second reading as well as all the honourable and right honourable honourable and right honourable members who have contributed to this afternoons committee proceedings. It is not yet a month since the sentencing guideline was set to come into effect. Following up, the Lord Chancellor followed up concerns with action as members from both sides of this house have acknowledged that the government not acted quickly to introduce this bill, the guideline would have risks differential treatment before the law in this country.

I would like to put on the sentencing Council and their chair for the constructive conversations on this issue and for pausing the guideline while Parliament had its say as it is doing today. I would also like to thank officials who also like to thank officials who This This government This government strongly This government strongly supports the use of presentence reports which judges are required by law to obtain except in circumstances where they consider such a report to be unnecessary. We also acknowledge that there are disparities within the criminal justice system which must be addressed.

However, these are matters of policy and it is right for the government to seek a policy response for these issues. That is why we bought this bill issue today. I therefore commend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this bill to the house. It is a pleasure to speak on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the opposition in the third reading debate following on from the committee of the whole from the committee of the whole house government MPs rejected to strengthen this legislation. We want strengthen this legislation. We want to tackle this challenge proper incomprehensible here and now. We now know there isn't one. In truth, now know there isn't one. In truth, we knew this already. They have an opportunity weeks ago to restore democratic accountability to the sentencing Council with the shadow sentencing Council with the shadow Secretary of State Justice Bill.
16:48
16:48
Kieran Mullan Portrait Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
-
-
because the legislation before the house today is a figleaf to hide the truth. We have to tackle judicial activism that he has long championed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The shadow minister must be heard. They don't want to hear it. This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They don't want to hear it. This issue has at its root cause the appointment of an Atty Gen who was steeped in activism, the prime minister himself practising a chamber that relished it and wholeheartedly supported to expand it case-by-case. Anyone interested in treaties*this approach from someone much more qualified than I am, I would encourage you to listen am, I would encourage you to listen to the reflections. His analysis between matters that should properly be the domain of politics and matters for law could not be more pertinent as he says this.

The advice is that we talk about law as it was a self-contained subject like a lavatory subject, but law does not occupy a world of its own. It is part of a larger system of public decision-making. The rest is politics, the politics of ministers and political party of pressure groups and the wider electorate. He goes on to say the courts have developed a broader contract of the law which greatly enlarges their own constitutional role. They have claimed a wider supervisory authority over the other organs of the state.

They have inched their way towards the notion of fundamental raw political decision- making and these things have inevitably carried them into the realms of legislative and ministerial policy to adopt the dictum about war, law is now the continuation of politics by other means. Be in no doubt that this whole sorry episode has been an exquisite further example of this mentality. This time by the sentencing Council and its members as part of the wider establishment. The Lord Chancellor has failed to act decisively today.

If she continues to refrain from taking action, we will be here again and again with opposition making sure that each and every step of the way that voters know whether some of these are the Labour Party and its leader live. Not with the ordinary law-abiding citizens who expect equal treatment under the law and the democratically elected politicians of this country deciding on policy, but with activists and campaigning lawyers who want to wrestle control from them. The legislation from us today is barely adequate.

We won't oppose it as it is better than nothing but at least it tells the public everything they need to know about who sits on the opposite benches and the mentality of the man leading them.
16:51
17:03
17:03
Diana Johnson Portrait Rt Hon Dame Diana Johnson MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham, Labour)
-
-
Next week marks the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. It was of course a hugely significant and consequential moment in the history of our country. After more than five long years, the first of which we stood alone, on 8 May 1945, Prime Minister Churchill proclaimed to cheering crowds in Whitehall just a few hundred yards from this chamber, "This is your victory. It is the victory of the cause of freedom in every land. " With that 75th anniversary commemorations involving public gatherings sadly cancelled in 2020 due to the COVID outbreak, the upcoming milestone is a precious chance to pay tribute to that greatest generation, and hear the stories of those who lived through the war.

At this point I wanted to make reference to my own father, Eric Johnson, who served in the Royal Navy in the Second World War, and my mother, Ruth Johnson, who worked in munitions factories. Many people will want to come together with friends and family to mark the occasion, and raise a glass to those who fought for our freedoms, soldiers, sailors, and airmen from the United Kingdom and across the Commonwealth. As well as our allies in Europe. And also those who contributed to the war effort at home.

Including civilians working in the emergency services, transport, the home guard, the wardens. Those working in the factories and on the land. And 23 members of this house and 20 members of the other place gave their lives in World War II. I know that Mr Speaker is working to mark this. We should celebrate the role of this place and our wartime coalition, in saving democracy aeons our shores from what Winston Churchill called the abyss of a new dark age.

Merits of events will be held in many locations during the week of the anniversary. Including a military procession from Whitehall to Buckingham Palace, street parties across the country on the bank holiday, Evensong at Manchester Cathedral followed by celebrate ringing of bells. A celebratory picnic at Cardiff Castle. A living history event at Sterling Castle in Scotland. As series of commemorations at Belfast City All. The service at Westminster Abbey which will serve as an act of shared remembrance and celebration of the end of the war.

VE Day falls within the annual Commonwealth War Graves Commission's war graves week. And the commission is marking the 80th anniversary of VE Day with the forevermore tour, a mobile expedition travelling UK sharing stories of those who died in World War II. The Commonwealth is also holding a special VE Day concert on May 2 in the historic Coventry Cathedral which was rebuilt after being destroyed by bombing in 1940. A concert will also take place at Horse Guards Parade to mark the end of commemorations on 8 May.

As a member of Parliament who represents Kingston upon Hull, a city which was routinely referred to anonymously in the Second World War as the north- east coastal town, despite bombing comparable to the East End of London, our celebrations in a hole for VE Day will be accompanied by a desire to see greater national recognition of the effects of the blitz on my city than we have had over the course of the last 80 years. In whole we will have a number of events.

We will show the celebrations that took place in the city. And there will be a 1940s music singalong at Cottingham City Hall. So promises to be a special atmosphere in many communities, and this order will allow people to celebrate for longer should they so wish. Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to make a licensing order to allow licensed premises to open for specified extended hours on occasions of exceptional international, national, or local significance.

By way of background, past occasions where the then Home Secretary has exercised this power to extend licensing have included, the King's coronation, Her late Majesty The Queen's platinum and Diamond Jubilee celebrations. The Royal weddings in 2011, 2018, and most recently, the semi-final and final of the men's UEFA European championship last year. The government considers the 80th anniversary of VE Day to be an occasion of national significance. And as such, worthy of the proposed extension before the house today.

Turning to the practical details, this order makes provision to relax licensing arrangements in England and Wales but allow licensed premises to extend their opening hours on Thursday, 8 May for a further two hours from 11 PM until 1 AM the following morning. A truncated consultation was conducted with key stakeholders who were supportive of the extension. And we take the view that this order will not bring about any significant crime and disorder due to the nature of the events.

However, we recognise that there may be implications for police resource in, and we will continue to work with stakeholders to mitigate any concerns around the impact. As well as enabling celebrations, the extension has the added potential benefit of providing a welcome boost to the hospitality said. I hope that members on all sides of the house will agree that this order represents an appropriate use of the powers conferred on the Home Secretary by the Licensing Act 2003. To conclude, this extension reflects our commitment to remembering what was a truly momentous event, our finest hour.

To celebrate those who defended our country, liberated Europe, and secured piece. With that, I commend this order to the house.
17:10
Harriet Cross Portrait Harriet Cross MP (Gordon and Buchan, Conservative)
-
-
The question is as on the Order Paper. Shadow Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Hope it will be apparent that all members of the house strongly support this motion, and certainly us on the bench agrees. We welcome us on the bench agrees. We welcome the opportunity for pubs and other licensed venues across the country to stay open late to commemorate VE Day without incurring any costs to Day without incurring any costs to extend their licences. As time extend their licences. As time passes, and as direct memories of this momentous day grow older, it is critical that we continue to commemorate and remember the commemorate and remember the experiences of those who sacrificed so much, and it's only cases, he gave everything for our nation and for others freedom.

We must celebrate the fact that their sacrifice was not in vain but led to a great achievement. Recognise the efforts and insurance that they overcame immense struggle. I hope I speak for all members when I say that we are incredibly honoured to represent those who served in World War II, and their family, friends, and loved ones who survived to this day. VE Day is rightly a date for us all to share and celebration. As Churchill said on 8 May 1945, "Dear friends, this is your hour.

This is not a victory of a party or of any class, it is a victory for the Great British nation as a whole. It is only appropriate that we continue to reflect the evergreen truth celebrate VE Day as we should unify the country, proud of our history, of determination, and of sacrifice. " The motion today to extend licensing our peers exceptionally appropriate. Not only was a national holiday declared in Britain on 8 May 1945, but it is said that on that morning, Churchill, with his focus very much on the very real priorities, gained assurances from the Ministry of Food that there would be sufficient beer available in the capital.

Meanwhile the board of trade announced that people could purchase red, white, and blue bunting without using national bunting without using national coupons. We share that same spirit today, by proving this motion. I hope it will allow people to fully commemorate is truly historic day

**** Possible New Speaker ****

memorably. I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I speak on behalf of my party Lasse Bjorn everyone in supporting this Bjorn everyone in supporting this order today. The order will of course provide community opportunities to celebrate in many different ways across the country, with street parties or private with street parties or private gatherings or indeed going down the pub. People will want to mark the pub. People will want to mark the occasion in their own way. And ultimately honour those who gave such sacrifices towards our country.

For our democracy, for our freedom, and for our way of life, 80 years ago, and should never be forgotten. It will also provide a boost to our local hospitality industry. Many great pubs in my constituency, I will try and attempts to name them all. We have the Railway Tavern, the Hope, the Sun, the Racehorse, the Greyhounds, the Coaching Horses, the Woodman, we have the Genes Head, the Whispering Booth, the Staff, and the Dog House, and Jack and Jill.

And others. I'm not going to go to all of them but I will try and go to many of them. And finally I would like to remark on a personal thank you for happening to occur on this day, the Prime Minister will be particularly pleased to know that Tottenham are playing that night. And if they get victory in Europe of their own it will be through to the Europa League final. I think many Spurs fans will appreciate the opportunity to stay out longer that evening.

So thank you very much to the government for putting this forward. It is lushly appropriate and in the national interest. And in my personal interest too.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Ways and means motion, minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moved formally. The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper. Shadow Minister. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker..

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.. As an asset we will support measures which improve policing and ensure that those who commit crimes face the full weight of the law. As such, we will support this finance motion. There are a great number of things in the Crime and Policing Bill that we agree with, indeed, as we have pointed out in a number of occasions, significant elements of the legislation effectively carried over from the Criminal Justice Bill in the last Parliament. While there are areas that we have disagreements on, we must ensure that, following the passage of this legislation, the police have the resources they need.

That said there are two elements that should be acknowledged. Firstly, given that this is a matter of finance, the settlement for policing we have seen from the government is clearly causing challenges for police. We have already seen the Met announced cuts to officer numbers. We are warned that 1800 officers may be at risk. I'm concerned the number might be higher. Therefore the government must ensure we do not see a decrease in officer numbers that many have been concerned about. It would undermine measures in this bill.

And separately, on the matter of the bill itself, while it is not an issue in today's vote, I would ask members of this House to carefully consider proposals that were put in front of them in future. Clearly at report stage. I hope that members will have the opportunity to vote on the sensible amendments, and indeed on the side of the house we also believe they are firmly in the best interest of the country. Rather than merely following the rooms of the party I ask members to consider what is right and wrong bra country in law enforcement and victims.

When there have been decades of historical abuse, particularly in the form of rate gangs, these must be investigated thoroughly leaving no stone unturned. Therefore I hope this motion will not only cover what is currently in the bill but also provide resources for a national statutory inquiry into rate gangs.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful for the support that the shadow minister but I do that the shadow minister but I do think it is worth just saying to the shadow minister but in terms of the financial settlement to police forces this year, there is up to 19.6 billion going into policing and 19.6 billion going into policing and the Minister will be very aware of the additional funding that is going into support neighbourhood policing
17:17
17:18
None Portrait Adjournment: Government support for people in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is on the order paper. I think the eyes have it. We now come to motion number five on
17:18
17:18
Chi Onwurah Portrait Chi Onwurah MP (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is is on the order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

paper. I think the eyes have it. I beg to move that the house do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now adjourn. The question is that the house do now adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now adjourn. Thank you. It is a great privilege to have secured this privilege to have secured this adjournment debates on government support for the people in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Occupied Palestinian Territories. But I regret immensely the need to But I regret immensely the need to do so. Like most of the world, I was horrified by the killing and horrified by the killing and kidnapping of Israeli citizens by Hamas. I continue to support Israel's right to self-defence in response to that attack.

And also, I know that today or at least when the sunsets will be Israel Independence Day, when many Israelis will be celebrating their country. I am here to ask three principal questions of to ask three principal questions of As individuals and as a community to support the people of Palestine, and thirdly, if the government believes that there is nothing more we can do to support the Palestinians, could the Minister please inform the house so we can still inform our constituents.

I say three questions but I want to tell my honourable friend that I have 12 questions and I will be counting them as I ask them and I will be counting them as she replies. So, this is a very important subject, and there is a lot to cover. The north-east of England may seem far away from Gaza and the West Bank, and it may even seem far away from London to some, but the consequences of Israel's humanitarian blockade and use of weapons of modern welfare against civilians plays out on family televisions and social media platforms in the north-east.

As it should. My constituents watch as the body of a five-year-old girl is pulled from beneath the wreckage of a car she was riding in with her family, a car the Israeli defence attacked with the most powerful weapons of modern warfare. My constituents watched a 20 day-year- old baby in Gaza wrapped in a blanket by that baby is hysterical relatives frozen to death in a subtropical country, the fifth child death from hypothermia in Gaza in six days last winter.

My constituents watched one by one of a hundred Palestinian children killed or maimed every day in the 10 days from the 21st to 31 March. I know this because constituents stopped me in the street in Newcastle in Grainger market when I am buying my vegetables, on the west world when I am visiting local businesses, playing bingo in Blakelaw, visiting cultural centres, supporting community centres in Fulham, knocking on gates in Lymington. They ask me what can we do to support the suffering we see? I know this because the right to leave means that I request that we please advocate for the people of Gaza in Parliament as they have the right to defend themselves.

They have the right to feel safe, to live in peace and enjoy freedom and liberty without occupation or terrorism. And I quote, as a Jewish constituents of yours, I am very concerned with the relative silence regarding Israel's abandonment of this Gaza ceasefire agreement brokered by Egypt. It is utterly deplorable that Israel is once again slaughtering Gazan civilians. And I quote, what is the government doing to help Palestinian people? We are witnessing the most horrific of nightmares unfold, bombed by Israeli forces who try to free being shot at.

Alistair means in North Gaza are living under a suffocating siege. Children are being bombed. In central Gaza, people are being burnt alive in tents that were made to protect tents that were made to protect them. The UK must act. And I quote, a new UN report had reconstructive violence like the killing of women, male D to knees, the destruction of an IVF clinic with its 4000 embryos waging war on Palestinians ability to reproduce genocidal acts.

The environment minister declared the only solution for the Gaza Strip is to empty it of Gazans. I could go on to empty it of Gazans. I could go on as it seems there are limitless examples of such acts. How can these actions so documented evidence and confess to facilitated by weapons and support continue. No one in UK politics or media circles can plausibly state I did not know what was really happening. That is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

quote from my constituent. I am grateful for my honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful for my honourable friend for giving way. I felt that I had to stand up because my honour friends experiences are the same friends experiences are the same experiences that I am having with my constituents in Wolverhampton west. They are continuously asking me what are we doing to stop this bloodshed, the killing of women and children that is carrying on. Does my that is carrying on. Does my honourable friend degree that the honourable friend degree that the has to, point where our diplomacy, our negotiations are not having any effect on Israel, and I have to say, on the United States as well.

They are our allies, but for how long will we continue to wait to get Israel to act to stop this bloodshed before we take some further action that can have some affect in cutting out this bloodshed?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you for the intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you for the intervention. The people of Wolverhampton west and Newcastle Central, and indeed, Newcastle Central, and indeed, people across our country have a similar response to the horrific acts and suffering that they are acts and suffering that they are seeing, and as I will set out as I proceed in my remarks, I do think proceed in my remarks, I do think that my objective is to ask, indeed to demand what more we can do and to demand what more we can do and will do to ensure that we see the suffering coming to an end.

Because the examples that I have read out their I just minute sample of what my constituents right and say to me. I have had hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of emails, letters, exchanges on the streets of Newcastle. I want to emphasise also that whilst many of the constituents who raise issues are Muslim or have a Muslim heritage, many more are not. Many Christians were particularly appalled by the Israeli government's Palm Sunday attack on the hospital in Gaza run by the Anglican diocese of Jerusalem as a statement from the house supported by the Right Rev The Lord Bishop of by the Right Rev The Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

That is why I am here. To address and demand action in relation to the horror and despair my constituents feel over the consequences of the Israeli governments blockade, on humanitarian aid to Gaza, and the Israel Defence Forces killing of Palestinian civilians and particularly children in Gaza and the West Bank. My constituents simply do not believe that we as a nation, as a people, as a leading voice in the world community are helpless to affect the behaviour of the government of Israel.

A nation we have enjoyed friendly relations with and strong diplomatic ties with four decades, and nation that many of us believe shared our values, our commitment to human rights and democracy, our principal commitment to racism. We are all aware of the extremely and complex history of what is now the state of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories the Occupied Palestinian Territories of the West Bank and Gaza. This is part of the British Empire and the Holocaust.

I do not wish to try to re-tell that story but I think this adjournment will go on longer than was anticipated. It will not be long enough to fully do justice to that. Instead, I start from October 7, 2023. On that day, Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups based in Gaza launched their sickening attack on Israel which killed over 1200 Israeli men, women, and children in horrific circumstances. Hamas and its allies kidnapped 251 Israelis and other nationalities and then held them as hostages.

My constituents were, as I was, absolutely horrified by these events, supporting the Israelis as victims of horrible crimes and as a nation like ours, entitled to enact its right of self defence. The stories of the experiences of Israelis, some facing the last moments inspired huge sympathy and understanding amongst the people of the north-east, and we stood with Israel that the hostages immediately be released and recognised that Israel has a right to defend itself and are right to strike against and are right to strike against Hamas.

571 days of violence have followed with two periods of ceasefire. Seemingly endless days of the use of the world's most powerful weapons against civilians by one of the world's most powerful militaries. I just want to emphasise that Israel is the 15th most powerful nation in total firepower powerful nation in total firepower The high -- Amata- control forces have confirmed that they have killed 50,000 Palestinians and injured over 100,000 Palestinians. -- Hamas. The numbers include 166 journalists, 120 academics, more than 224 humanitarian it workers.

Estimates of the proportion of the dead in Gaza that are civilians range from 61% to the estimate that 90% are civilians. I detailed studies of bodies found in Gaza residential buildings by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights find 54% were children and a further 27% were women, 71% in total, suggesting the total, when civilian men are included, is likely to be closer to included, is likely to be closer to 91% than 61% and the joint report by Oxfam in October 2024 found the Israeli military had killed more women and children in Gaza than in any other conflict around the world in the past two decades.

These numbers do not include deaths from disease and malnutrition. Israel has contested some numbers provided by the Health Ministry in Gaza but the IDF officials early in the war 'The Times' at 63% of casualties were civilians and given they do not have their own numbers nor permit you in fact finders or international journalists are the BBC to enter Gaza, we must go with other sources. In January 2025, there was a peer reviewed study 'The Lancet' which suggested the Ministry of Health in Gaza was undercounting the death total by 41%.

If that study is accurate, it is likely the death toll in Gaza as a result of the Israeli military operations is over 19,000 today. In addition, 70,000 of... 70% of all structures in Gaza have been destroyed by the Israeli. They were audible sighs of relief across the country and indeed the world other ceasefire in January 19 but then Israel launched extensive strikes in Gaza. Early in March, the government stop humanitarian aid from entering Gaza. There were no supplies, and that includes food and medicine, have entered Gaza in over seven weeks and 95% of aid operations in Gaza have been suspended automatically cut back.

I joined state issued on April 17 issued on April 17 x 12 aid organisations based in multiple countries including Oxfam, save the children, confirmed they had all the means necessary to deliver aid but were being denied access by Israeli authorities. Of course, infectious disease, particularly those that infect children, are on the rise. The World Food Programme islands three days ago that despite more than 116,000 tons being ready at the border, 91% of the population of Gaza, 2 million, that is 1,802,000 human beings, face higher levels of food insecurity which is basically international aid jargon that means actual starvation.

This is my fourth question. Could the Minister confirm that is the understanding of the situation in Gaza today. And moving on to what can be done to support Palestinians in Palestine and I know that the government is taking action and pressing for an immediate and pressing for an immediate ceasefire and increasing funding to UNRWA and sanctioning settler groups involved in violence. They are undertaking a comprehensive review of arms sales to Israel which has resulted in the suspension of some arms transfers and I've been advised that pressure on Israel would be more effective if the High Commissioner in Jerusalem and the UK ambassador to Israel and Tel Aviv were able to work more closely together.

Could the Minister tell me if that is happening or if it is the case? And I welcome greatly that the Prime Minister of the UK has stated the Israeli decision to block aid is completely wrong and should not supported. And yet, the Israeli government continues to kill Palestinian civilians, particularly children, and continues to prevent the floor of food, medicine, other supplies into Gaza and my constituents asked me for what the government is doing to and that and that is the question that I repeat to my honourable friend, the Minister.

Specifically, question Minister. Specifically, question six, will the UK respond to the International Court of Justice application and will they support the current case on humanitarian access in order to hold the Israeli government better to account. Turning to what my constituents can do directly to support the government in supporting Palestine and supporting Palestine directly, Newcastle has a long history of support for social justice and international solidarity and the people of Newcastle central and west want to know how they can support the people of Palestine.

Can the the people of Palestine. Can the Minister tell me if the support the rate of my constituents to protest and show horror at the death and destruction in Palestine and if so, how? Money matters - can my constituents support the people of Palestine in the way in which they do not spend money? Are they are goods and services that they can buy? Is it clear what goods are from the illegally occupied territories and which are from Israel? How can and which are from Israel? How can my constituents distinguish the two? Geordies are famously generous so my constituents want to know how to help was the news with charitable giving without helping Hamas.

There giving without helping Hamas. There is a aid rotting at the border so does the Minister recognised that it must give through? Regular calls to help victims of military strikes for the blockade individually. Does the Minister recommend that they provide funding to these appeals and, if not, how can constituents provide support to people that they are watching? Alternatively, are there other organisations to support advocacy efforts, legal aid, other forms of assistance do not rely on physical access to Gaza? The UN Human Rights Council has identified clear evidence of war crimes being committed by Israel in the conflict with the Palestinians and so my 11th question is that the International Criminal Court intense to investigate this clear evidence of war crimes but what can constituents do to support survivors of war crimes on the ground? Finally, how can my constituents support constructive engagement between Palestinians and the Israeli people? The people of Newcastle expressed to me every day how intensely they want the government to act and how the government to act and how intensely they wish to personally support the people of Palestine and help to end their suffering.

In the future, I believe that we will all be asked what we did in the face of be asked what we did in the face of this horror and I urge the Minister to advise the people of Newcastle for the government is doing to stop the killing of civilians and particularly children and the blockade on food and medicine reaching the people of the Gaza Strip and to advise us on what we can do as individuals and as a community and if there is nothing more that can be done by the British Government, nothing more in addition to what the Minister and the Department have talked about and the actions which have been and not resulted in change in the situation of the lifting of the blockade are the ending of Israeli strikes on Gaza and can the Minister be clear about that? If my constituents are condemned to watch the government used tanks and military against apartment buildings and tent encampments and family cars and watch that toddlers be pulled from the rubble of their homes on the 10 o'clock news every night, please tell us.

Speak I think we have three colleagues who wish to contribute. colleagues who wish to contribute.
17:42
Andy Slaughter Portrait Andy Slaughter MP (Hammersmith and Chiswick, Labour)
-
-
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am speaking briefly to congratulate my honourable friend, the member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West on her speech and particularly the questions that she has brought to the Minister. It has brought to the Minister. It means I can speak. I wanted, firstly, to agree with her. In my constituency, there is a huge outpouring of sympathy and there is the wish to help constituents.

I've had thousands of emails and letters and calls from constituents about I easily had the largest postbag I have ever had in the 20 years that I have been here. It shows, I think, the level of empathy and support that there is. Unfortunately, there is very little good news for guards are part I start with one small piece of good news which is admitted to London of the Palestinian Prime Minister to meet with the Prime Minister here and to sign the memorandum of understanding to reaffirm the commitment to the two- state solution and announce a further aid package of £100 million and, importantly, to show solidarity between our two countries.

I met the Prime Minister briefly at the all- party Parliamentary group and he spoke fluently and clearly and calmly under the circumstances of the demands and he was asked by one of my colleagues, of the things that were named, and I think there were eight, which is most important. The answer is the recognition of Palestinians and that might seem strange given the immediate humanitarian disaster on the ground but in reality, without recognition not Palestine having a diplomatic and constitutional terms the same status as Israel, the situation is never going to be moved forward.

It is disappointing, therefore, that is disappointing, therefore, that the government... I do not expect my honourable friend to announce any major changes in policy today but I hope that we are moving more quickly towards that and I hope perhaps later this year when, in addition to the European countries which have already recognised the state of Palestine, there are strong hints that further countries will follow through, perhaps France. I do not think there has been a better nor more necessary time over the past few years for that step to be taken.

It is very difficult, and am speaking on behalf of my constituents, to see fine we did not do this many years ago like we did Just briefly on the issue of aid, the situation we know is dire. And perhaps we repeated that so often now that it has lost some of its impact. But it's absolutely true that, not just the bakery has run out and food not available in much of Gaza, but because of the blockade, which I think in any one's terms is a breach of international humanitarian law.

There is no food left in Gaza, and therefore people will starve and people will die as a consequence of that. And that is consequence of that. And that is horrific. An assessment humans ago, in February this year by the UN, EU and World Bank estimated 95% of hospitals are non-functional, 91% of the population has high levels of acute food insecurity. That's got worse. And 100% of education facilities were fully destroyed or partially damaged. It estimated reconstruction and recovery costs are $53 billion, including $20 billion needed in the next three years.

And yes, UK has been historically a generous donor of aid to Gaza and continues to be so, but with that level of need, and importantly, the violence continuing and the destruction continuing, so yes my honourable friend was quite right to emphasise the horrific number of deaths, particularly of civilian deaths, the majority of those killed have been civilians in Gaza. But the problems go beyond that. They go to the actual destruction of the whole civil society if they built environment, and of an economy there.

And that again is clearly deliberate policy. And that is something which we should not just locally in this House but at government level be calling out. More profoundly. Yes, I won't repeat the points she made in relation to the ICJ judgement, it's long overdue we respond to that. It's long overdue that we look at again our trading relationship with illegal settlements. It's a waste puzzled me as to why, given the clear government policy that quite rightly those are illegal under international law, we continue to trade with them.

I would like to see in conclusion, that the government takes lead from the British people who have made clear their sympathy with the people of Gaza and the people of Palestine in the West Bank and the other occupied territories and that we do take some more positive steps because without that, we can only see a continuation of the death and destruction.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I start by congratulating my honourable friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West for securing this important debate
17:49
Oliver Ryan Portrait Oliver Ryan MP (Burnley, Independent)
-
-
for securing this important debate on Palestine. Much like my honourable friends to my left and in front of me, I've had many many constituents, many hundreds of constituents get in touch really since the election and throughout my period as the Member of Parliament talking about the occupied Palestinian territories, talking about the death they have witnessed on social media and television from families and friends, people that they know perhaps from the region that have shared stories of the way lives are being lived over there, and I promise those people that I would raise my voice as part of that, and that's what I'm doing today.

As my honourable friend said, I think I can choose better words, there has been such outpouring of emotion and sympathy and desire to help and see peace in the region, and that's why we're all here speaking today. As we boyhood, the situation of the Palestinians is desperate. It's harrowing. It's hell on earth. It's estimated that 40 to 50,000 people have been killed since October 7, so say the United Nations, including as we heard over 250 aid workers and over 100,000 people have been injured.

90% of Gazans face hunger, immediate hunger and the prospect of starvation, and death. 70% of buildings on the Gaza Strip in particular have been destroyed. In Israeli bombing. Very few education facilities, no outstanding hospitals. In March this year Israel stopped all the continuing humanitarian aid and cut off power completely to the strip. No food, no medicine, no aid, only death. So I say to Israel, we must have peace, must have a return to the ceasefire now, and in the long term a two-state solution.

I think that something a lot of members on that something a lot of members on this site agree with. At the same time, we can't forget what talking about the context of the occupied Palestinian territories that 59 abducted hostages still remain held by Hamas by terrorists in Gaza, so I say to mass, Palestinians are suffering. Stop this, bring the hostages home, disband, and end this now. A massive killed thousands of innocents, women, children and took over 200 hostages on that day, on October 7.

These people are not freedom fighters. These people are monsters. And I will not count any defence of Hamas other actions. But, in talking about the actions of the Israeli government are moving into the West Bank, last month Israeli tanks moved in to the West Bank for the first time in decades. 40,000 Palestinians have been displaced from areas of the West Bank and 916 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank since October 2023. I have met Palestinians living in the West Bank.

A woman from the tenant nations farm, and I can only describe their experiences as daily harassment, terror, bullying, by Israeli troops. And settlers. To an unreasonable and unnecessary level, and that's before we talk about the actions specifically of some of these very aggressive settlers in these illegal settlements who do one complete annexation of the West Bank and the utter destruction of the possibility of a two-state solution and thereby a Palestinian state. I'm glad this government has consistently called for a ceasefire and the release of all hostages and deed on my first week in parliament, I raised this with the Prime Minister and was glad to hear him recommit after the election to not only a two-state solution but a ceasefire in the region.

It's also worth remembering it was this government that restored and increased funding to the United Nations relief and Works agency for Palestinian refugees to more than ever before. Now I complete you condemn the awful violence in settlements we've seen in the West Bank and I'm glad this government has strongly sanctioned settler groups, although I agree with the comments made previously that these sanctions need to go further. It's important to say though that the settlers don't represent all Israelis and do represent a very niche extreme group of Israelis and there is a wider context here for bringing about peace that can't be seen as a battle of nations or creeds.

This is between encases extremists on either side. This Government has to spend a large number of arms transfers to Israel, -- they have where they have been known to be used and this is under constant review. We want to get a din commander glad to see the Prime Minister set out another further £100 million Palestinian authority yesterday. Got to end Israel's blocks are made and electricity in the strip. And we must make the steps we promised in the election and supporting the creation of the plasticine state.

Which will not only allow us as was mentioned by the Member for me, legal protection, legal security for Palestinians it also for the wider region and self- determination for the occupied areas, which they don't currently enjoy, have enjoyed for some time. Their own clear and will carry all of that with a desire certainly from my part that Hamas plays no part in the Palestinian state. Justice for Palestinians and Israelis who have lost loved ones is within our grasp.

Bernie and Penny Byfield want to see peace and want to stop the death,
17:55
17:55
17:55
Warinder Juss Portrait Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West, Labour)
-
-
Saudi Arabia to progress estate hood for Palestinians. Recognition or to be a serious consideration from the be a serious consideration from the UK. A political solution, a two- state solution is the only solution, state solution is the only solution, and I thank the member who brought

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this debate today. I want to thank first of all my honourable friend from Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West for bringing this debate and also for the solutions that she has put forward. Just following on from the statements made by my honourable friends, I do have to agree with my honourable friend from Hammersmith and Chiswick that the time is now for us to recognise the state of Palestine. I think that will go some way in trying to make some improvement to this situation.

I also agree with my honourable friend from Bernie that what Hamas did is unforgivable, but as I've said in this House before, the actions of the mass can in no way justify what is happening to the Palestinians in Gaza. We don't have any control over her mass, but Israel is Allied, and we should have more of an influence with what's happening in Israel. Gaza has a population of more than two people who mostly depend upon aid, but since second of March no humanitarian or commercial supplies have gone into Gaza because of the blockade that Israel have imposed on the territory.

Since ninth of March, no electricity has gone to Gaza because of Israel cutting off the supply. Since January this year, there have been 10,000 cases of acute malnutrition among children, and 1,600 cases of severe acute malnutrition, and these are just the reported figures. UN World Food Programme have said that as of April 25, all feedstocks in Gaza have been depleted. -- Food stocks. My constituents continuously say to me we need to be on the right side of we need to be on the right side of history.

And we cannot stand by just waiting for the Israeli government to listen to us. I do have a lot of faith in this government. I am very pleased that this government has repeatedly stated the urgent need for a return to a ceasefire in Gaza and for the hostages to be released, but also for the aid to be unblocked. And I'm very pleased that this government has continuously condemned the Israeli settlements and have stated that under international law, the settlements are illegal.

And the settlements are harmful to the prospects of a future Palestinian state, but we must call for and recognise the state of Palestine now. It was very good to have the Prime Minister from the Palestinian Authority, Prime Minister Mustafa in this country and the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed between the two countries is a good step forward. And I'm also very very pleased that we have announced the £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

But I do have this question. It's all very well pledging their support, but if Israel continues behaving in the way that it has so far, what effect will that aid have? Will it actually stop the killing, the bloodshed, the malnutrition, that is now being suffered by the Palestinians in Gaza. And although my honourable friend from Newcastle upon Tyne West and Central went a lot further than I am going in coming up with solutions, as I said earlier, I do have faith in this government, and I do want the government now and the Minister at some point to actually come to some kind of a conclusion as to the further steps that this government can take for the situation to be improved.

I have to confess my frustration. That although we are making all the right comments, we are making all the right statements, nothing is improving. People are continuing to die, women and children and others are continuing to die in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian How much longer are we going to tolerate this?
18:01
Catherine West Portrait Catherine West MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Hornsey and Friern Barnet, Labour)
-
-
I call on the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to see you in the chair for this very important debate and to thank my honourable friend, the member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central West for securing upon Tyne Central West for securing the debate. She is an active campaigner on this topic and on other foreign policy matters. I other foreign policy matters. I thank for the thoughtful way in which she put the debate into context. Tomorrow is a national holiday and it is a national holiday in Israel and also emphasising the suffering from the dreadful attacks in October 2023 and the horrific header attacks and her support for the people of Israel following that terrible moment.

She is quite right to ask how she cancelled for it the situation in the Middle East and how can she respond to their compassion and concern? The Minister for the Middle East, the member for Lincoln, would usually be here in this place and will watch this debate later on and will be happy to reply to any bits I missed out or any questions which are half answered. When you are the Minister for the Indo- Pacific you might answer half of the question rather than the fullness that can be provided by the Minister for the Middle East.

I'm grateful and I will attempt to answer some questions and points raised. The government is steadfast in friendship and support for the Palestinian people because she asks what support we can do and what we can do more and several members have mentioned the visit to London yesterday for high-level meetings with both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick and the Member for Wolverhampton West, we support the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination including an independent state at the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister signed a memorandum of understanding yesterday with Minister Mustafa in training you could commitment to advancing Palestinian statehood as part of the two-state solution and the memorandum of understanding underscored the commit of the Palestinian authority to deliver the reform agenda as a matter of priority.

Turning to UK support for guys of which is the main question that the constituents in Newcastle upon Tyne want to know, is the UK doing all that we can to alleviate the humanitarian situation? In the last financial year the UK provided hundred £20 million -- £120 million in funding and the Speaker package of £401 million for this financial year and this will increase substantial funding for the humanitarian response in Gaza and support for Palestinian economic development and strengthening the Palestinian authority's governance and reform.

Support is making a real difference to those who need it most and UK support has provided a central healthcare to -- essential healthcare and food to a 650,000 people and improved access to water and sanitation and hygiene services and sanitation and hygiene services

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for close to 380,000 people. I thank my honourable friend for a giving way and I thank the Minister for her comments and the context she is giving but, to be clear, in terms of the funding for clear, in terms of the funding for humanitarian aid provided Gaza, is that getting through into Gaza right now?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now? She is right to say that the funding is one thing and the access is another and that is why it is crucial that we are pressing the government in Israel to ensure vital it can reach Gaza and humanitarian partners including the UN can deliver work effectively and I'm grateful to the Member for Burnley for remaining the House under this government we reintroduce the funding and I thank you for pointing that out and emphasised that since July of last year, UNRWA has been at the centre.

We know that they are critical in terms of infrastructure on the ground to provide assistance and, in addition, jerky funding has helped sustain the field hospital operations. She asks which organisations can be trusted to organisations can be trusted to deliver and UK Med have facilitated thousands of operations 2024 per critical and life-saving surgeries and also providing the world health agency to make sure vital supplies reach those being treated in Egypt. She asks who can help - our government through international organisations which public funds put money towards such as the WHO and they are providing this vital trip because the experts always say it is best to work through those big funding organisations because they do the enormously helpful work.

For example, the delivery of polio vaccination campaigns protecting over 600,000 vulnerable children across Gaza. She mentioned the diseases and the risk of further illness but that polio vaccination cabin protected over 600,000 vulnerable children across Gaza and with the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. We know this is crucial and that is why we continue to support the vital work of UNRWA, including essential services, education, healthcare to civilians in Gaza and the West Bank and Palestinian refugees across the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

region. Of course. I apologise I could not be here

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise I could not be here at the beginning. The honourable member and my constituents were both there. It's important for the things is the medical help but what is is the medical help but what is important for young children is education. Could the Minister give education. Could the Minister give some more information? Educationally, not just what they Educationally, not just what they are missing out on but the opportunities that are changing their lives. Important to have that as well.

I thank the Member for Strangford from entering education. This is so crucial. We don't want children to go and educated and then recreate through perhaps a sense of recreate through perhaps a sense of a well of suffering, recreated the next generation less education, less understanding of the world. Sadly, some other members who spoke earlier in the debate mentioned the destruction of schools and it is important UNRWA is able to gain access to Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories so schools can be built and classrooms can be developed and we can give you help that many families need.

People may ask and members have asked what the government is doing and if we can do government is doing and if we can do more and the Foreign Secretary has intervened time and time again and most recently he spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister on April 15 and raised urgent concerns about the deteriorating humanitarian situation and the urgent need to restore the flow of aid in the UK it should a statement last week calling on the government to restart immediately government to restart immediately the rapid and unimpeded flow of aid to Gaza and we've raised concerns at the UN Security Council including on the safety of aid workers.

And there was an intervention at the Security Council this week expressing outrage at recent attacks including the killing of Palestinian workers and the straight in a UN compound one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

March 19. I'm grateful to my right honourable friend for a giving way. honourable friend for a giving way. Could she have some indication as to what response we have had that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what response we have had that Israel might make a change? As my right honourable friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As my right honourable friend will appreciate, for many of the will appreciate, for many of the Israelis they say people do not understand the desire for security understand the desire for security and equality Palestinian communities saying that those outside the region cannot possibly understand the extent of their suffering. In a nutshell, that is the depth of what we are facing here and we must redouble our efforts to make the case to the senior people involved and the decision-makers in the conflict but to impress upon them the importance for our constituents and that the reply must be true and must come with action attached.

I just returned safely to the straight on March 19 because it has been subject of debates here and Israel admitted this is caused by one of the attacks, despite the compound being used as a humanitarian facility and this is inexcusable and we urge Israel to ensure accurate public statements on these incidents and there must be full and transparent investigations and they must hold offenders to account with a deconstruction system to prevent such terrible tragedies re- occurring.

Members have mentioned the International Court Of Justice and I wanted to remind what the Foreign Secretary has said in the past that the UK is committed to international law and respecting independence of the International Court of Justice and they are continuing to consider the advisory committee seriously and to reassure members across the House that we are committed to a two-state solution and back to and is unwavering and we and back to and is unwavering and we The opinion that this should bring an end to this as rapidly as possible.

This must be done in a way that creates conditions for negotiations towards a two-state solution and I know this issue, my honourable friend for Hammersmith and Chiswick has raised this on a number of occasions on this important subject. The Member Properly mentioned settlements and settler violence and I wanted to respond specifically on those points. The UK government's decision is Israeli settlements in the West
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page