Live Debate: Commons Chamber

Q3. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the UK's membership of the European Convention on Human Rights on the Belfast Agreement. (907065)

>> With permission. Mr. speaker, I will answer question three, five, seven and 11 together the European

11:47

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

- -

Convention on Human Rights underpins not only the Good Friday Agreement, but also key international agreements on trade, security and migration. The government is committed to the. We government is committed to the. We also remain determined to uphold the Good Friday Agreement and human rights in Northern Ireland.

11:47

Ruth Jones MP (Newport West and Islwyn, Labour)

- -

Ruth Jones. response. The Good Friday Agreement was indeed a proud legacy of the last Labour government. So does the Secretary of State agree that the reckless approach adopted by the parties opposite towards the risk undermining the huge progress made since 1998?

11:48

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

- -

Well, I do agree with my hon. Friend, and it is clear that those advocating leaving the Echr have not given any serious consideration to the implications for the Good Friday Agreement. Indeed. When pressed on this in the summer, the hon. Member for Clacton noted that it could, and I quote, take years and years to solve, so that will not be at the forefront of what we do. Mr. speaker, I would simply say that is not good enough. And those who are advocating leaving the need to reflect on what they're arguing for.

11:48

Peter Lamb MP (Crawley, Labour)

- -

Peter Lamb thank you, Mr. >> Peter Lamb thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given the chaos around the world is being experienced by politicians playing fast and loose with international law, it is deeply concerning how Conservatives and Reform MPs are speaking so flippantly of the risks of violating the Good Friday Agreement by leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. Could the Minister give his assessment of the risk of this?

11:48

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

- -

Well, as I've told the House before, I think it would be before, I think it would be extremely irresponsible. The Good Friday Agreement was very carefully negotiated, as the House needs no reminding between several parties, and it would be reckless for one party to march in and seek to remove one of its founding pillars.

11:49

Jacob Collier MP (Burton and Uttoxeter, Labour)

- -

Jacob Collier. >> Jacob Collier. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The European Convention on Human Rights is foundational to the Good Friday is foundational to the Good Friday Agreement. And given that reform and the conservatives want to crash us out of that convention, does the Secretary of State agree that this is risking the Good Friday Agreement and that they really ought to think again? Yeah.

11:49

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

- -

I do agree with my hon. Friend, and we need to remember that it is and we need to remember that it is the Human Rights Act which gives all of us access to the rights and protections contained in the European Convention on Human Rights, and to leave it would put us alone in Europe, in the company of Russia and Belarus. Is that really where the opposition want to be welcomed with a pat on the back by President Putin?

11:49

Tonia Antoniazzi MP (Gower, Labour)

- -

Chair of the Select committee? Tony Antoniazzi. Tony Antoniazzi. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now, my predecessor, Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, took evidence that leaving the Echr evidence that leaving the Echr would have implications for policing in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that calls to leave the Echr would add to the challenges faced by the PSNI? And what assessment has he made of this potential impact?

11:50

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

- -

Yeah, yeah. >> Well, I do agree that it could have very wide ranging implications for Northern Ireland in particular, as well as for the rest of the as well as for the rest of the country. I have not made such an assessment because it's not a policy which the government is advocating. It's for those who are proposing to leave the Echr. To answer the very fair question. She's just raised.

11:50

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

- -

Jim Allister with Mr Speaker. survival of the Belfast Agreement is dependent on the Echr. But why is the Secretary of State so selective in his Belfast Agreement allegiance? Because it was he who implemented the jettisoning of the agreement's cornerstone of cross-community consent. When he invited the Northern Ireland Assembly to continue the imposition of the West of the Windsor framework without cross-community consent. To the Secretary of State, is it only nationalist consent that matters to him under the Belfast Agreement?

11:51

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

- -

Well, I would say to him that >> Well, I would say to him that the steps that I took in relation to the vote on the renewal of the to the vote on the renewal of the Windsor framework arrangements were absolutely in line with the with the provisions that have been put in place by this House. And as a result, Lord Murphy produced his report, and the hon. Gentleman will have seen the practical steps that the government is taking in response to the very sensible recommendations that he made.

Andrew Murrison Mr Speaker how will the Secretary of State be

11:51

responding to troubles stakeholders, groups that say that their members rights under article six and eight of the EC are being impugned by his of the EC are being impugned by his maladroit troubles? Bill. Well, it is for for all those who wish to,

11:52

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

- -

is for for all those who wish to, to argue about the rights that they feel that the Echr and the Human feel that the Echr and the Human Rights Act gives them. I would simply say to the hon. Gentleman that in bringing the Bill forward, I have certified as the Minister responsible, that the bill complies with the European Convention.

11:52

Alex Easton MP (North Down, Independent)

- -

Alex Easton. >> Secretary of State, is it not the case, as a matter of international law, that the United Kingdom could withdraw from the EC, Kingdom could withdraw from the EC, while at the same time ensuring that equivalent rights and protections are preserved in our domestic law? Come on.

11:52

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

- -

The hon. Gentleman is, of course, correct to say that it is possible correct to say that it is possible for signatories to the convention to withdraw. It's a very bad idea and the government doesn't support it.

11:53

John Cooper speaker. agree with expert opinion that says that while we remain signatories to the Echr, we will not be able to protect our veterans from vexatious litigation. I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I've said many times in the past, there is no such thing as vexatious prosecutions and the EC protects the rights of all of EC protects the rights of all of our citizens, including the veterans who served with such distinction in Operation Banner. distinction in Operation Banner.

11:53

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

- -

Jerome Mayhew.

11:53

Q6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Government policies on the economy in Northern Ireland. (907068)

Continuing cost of living crisis. Sorry. Number six.

11:53

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

- -

Sorry. Northern Ireland's economy is one of the strongest of any part of the United Kingdom. It has the lowest United Kingdom. It has the lowest unemployment and economic growth outpaced the UK in the year ending quarter two 2025. This performance is being supported by this government's policies, including significant investment in economic development and a record settlement for the executive Jerome Mayhew.

11:54

Jerome Mayhew MP (Broadland and Fakenham, Conservative)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. fail to support workers, families and businesses in a meaningful way. Now, it's not often that I agree with the First Minister, but with absolutely no action to address lagging productivity. She's right, isn't she?

11:54

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

- -

Well, the Northern Ireland Executive has very considerable Executive has very considerable responsibilities in respect of the Northern Ireland economy. I note the fact that the finance Ministers published a draft three year budget. It is the fact that we had a three year spending review that has now given the Northern Ireland Executive the opportunity to do the same for the first time in a number of years. As the Minister said, there are choices that the executive has got to make. It's true of all governments around the world, and I look forward to seeing them coming forward with a proposal for a balanced budget.

11:55

Q8. What recent engagement he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive. (907070)

Harlow thank you. Minister will be aware that for a number of months I've been raising questions six eight.

11:55

Matthew Patrick MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Northern Ireland Office) (Wirral West, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since becoming a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, I have met with executive Ministers on the state of executive Ministers on the state of engagement of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State. Our discussions have been wide ranging, including around economic growth and transforming public services.

11:55

Claire Hanna MP (Belfast South and Mid Down, Social Democratic & Labour Party)

- -

The Minister will be aware that >> The Minister will be aware that for a number of months I've been raising concerns about the Local Growth Fund and its impact in Northern Ireland. Just before Christmas, organisations got the devastating news of a large cut to the Local Growth Fund, which will devastate a number of support jobs and work helping vulnerable people into meaningful employment. Will the Minister outline what steps the NaOH will take to prevent the loss of those crucial support jobs, and help place those services to tackle our low productivity?

11:56

Matthew Patrick MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Northern Ireland Office) (Wirral West, Labour)

- -

Er. >> I just pay tribute to the great work done by the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland. I do know this has been a difficult time, which is has been a difficult time, which is why our engagement has been so important with the sector. That engagement, I can assure my hon. Friend, will continue to be important, especially as we launch the Local Growth Fund, £45.5 million a year Mr Speaker to support growth in Northern Ireland eastward.

11:56

Sorcha Eastwood MP (Lagan Valley, Alliance)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As we've. >> Just heard, Minister, Northern Ireland is operating in a considerable budgetary constraint. The Local Growth Fund has The Local Growth Fund has highlighted is going to cause huge damage. What can you do to assure my constituents in Lagan Valley and across Northern Ireland that you will listen to our concerns and act on them?

11:56

Matthew Patrick MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Northern Ireland Office) (Wirral West, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have put a record settlement into Northern Ireland, £19.3 billion, obviously, that can be used to support people. The Local Growth Fund has been built for a year, has been set aside to make sure that we can support those groups, and I'll continue to engage with them during that period.

11:57

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

- -

Catherine Fookes question number ten, Mr. Speaker. >> This budget provided Northern

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This budget provided Northern Ireland with an additional £370 million on top of the record settlement of 19.3 billion each settlement of 19.3 billion each year on average over the spending review period. The decisions we have taken will ease trade within the UK and ensure families across Northern Ireland benefit from help with the cost of living through policies like cutting energy bills and lifting the two child benefit cap.

11:57

Catherine Fookes MP (Monmouthshire, Labour)

- -

Catherine Fookes you and as the Secretary of State said, 370 million for the Northern Ireland million for the Northern Ireland Executive at this year's budget and 505 million for Wales, on top of the settlements announced at the Spending Review, shows that this government takes supporting the devolved nations seriously. So does the Secretary of State agree with me that cooperation between the UK government and the Northern Ireland Executive, like the other devolved nations, is crucial to pulling children out of poverty, improving public services and kickstarting growth across the UK.

11:58

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

- -

I do agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why the government's decision to lift the two child decision to lift the two child benefit. Cap was widely welcomed in Northern Ireland. I would also point out that Northern Ireland is being funded slightly above its level of need. It gets 24% more than equivalent spending in England, and that means that the executive has more money to make its decisions with Robin Swann.

11:58

Robin Swann MP (South Antrim, Ulster Unionist Party)

- -

Mr. speaker, when the executive was restored two years ago, there was restored two years ago, there was a transformation fund put in place to allow the transformation of public services. As of yet, that money hasn't been fully allocated. Will the Secretary of State use his offices to encourage the executive to actually implement that transformation fund to transform Northern Ireland public services?

11:59

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

- -

Well, the Public Services Transformation Fund is a very important demonstration of the partnership between the UK government and the Northern Ireland Executive. As the hon. Member will be well aware, the first six projects were funded and they're making good progress. The Transformation Board is currently considering bids that are coming in for the next phase of funding. We are, of course, as is the executive keen to see that money spent to support the process of transformation, which is hugely needed in the way in which public services are delivered in Northern

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ireland. Sarah Pochin. Thank you.

11:59

Q12. What steps he is taking to support Northern Ireland veterans. (907074)

>> Mr. Speaker. Question number 12.

11:59

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

- -

>> Secretary of State. >> The whole House will agree that we owe our operation banner we owe our operation banner veterans an enormous debt of gratitude. That is why the government is introducing six government is introducing six protections for veterans involved in legal processes relating to their service. We are confident that this will change their experience, ensuring that the process is fair and balanced.

12:00

Sarah Pochin MP (Runcorn and Helsby, Reform UK)

- -

Sarah Pochin for the answer. agree with the Northern Ireland Veteran Commissioner that this troubles Bill treats our brave veterans more harshly than terrorists are?

12:00

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

- -

I do not agree with that assessment. I have had many assessment. I have had many discussions with the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, and I think if one looks at the facts, including the prosecutions that have taken place, there have been executions of paramilitary terrorists than there have been of any soldiers at all. Indeed, one conviction of a soldier for a troubles related offence in the last 27.5 years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before we come to Prime Minister's Questions, may extend a warm welcome to the president of warm welcome to the president of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands and his delegation, who are with us in the gallery today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are with us in the gallery today. Prime Minister's Questions Ruth Cadbury. Question number. One, Mr. Speaker. Prime Minister.

12:01

Prime Minister's Question Time: Prime Minister

>> Prime Minister. >> Mr. speaker, can I begin by saying I hope all colleagues had a happy Christmas? It probably feels

12:01

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

happy Christmas? It probably feels quite a long time ago now, but not for reform, of course, because today is the day that they celebrate Christmas in Russia. Mr. speaker, on Monday I visited reading, where I met with people who will benefit from the first freeze on rail fares for 30 years. Mr. speaker, that's on top of other measures we're taking to tackle the cost of living. £150 off energy bills, more free breakfast clubs and raising the minimum wage.

And there's much more to come this year. Mr. Speaker, as we turn the corner, Mr. speaker, yesterday I stood side by side with our European and American allies and President Zelensky and the coalition of the willing meeting in Paris. Mr. speaker, we made real progress on security guarantees, which are vital for securing a just and lasting peace, along with President Macron and President Zelensky, we agreed a declaration of intent on the deployment of forces in the event of a peace deal.

Mr. speaker, we will set out the details in a statement at the earliest opportunity. I will keep the house updated as the situation develops. And were troops to be deployed under the declaration signed, I would put that matter to the House for a vote. Mr. speaker, this morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others in addition to my duties in the House. I had further such meetings later today.

12:02

Ruth Cadbury MP (Brentford and Isleworth, Labour)

- -

Ruth Cadbury. Leaseholders in my constituency and across the country are being fleeced by freeholders and managing agents, and they need relief from both. And we need to end the feudal leasehold system. So could the Prime Minister confirm when the leasehold and commonhold reform bill will be coming to Parliament?

12:03

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

May I thank her for raising this important issue? We are taking serious action to deliver homes the country needs and provide homeowners with greater rights, powers and protections. We will publish the draft bill as soon as possible and I will update the House. More predictions, of course, are already coming this year because we passed the Renters Rights Bill. Strong protection for 9 million renters, abolishing no fault evictions. That's the change we are delivering. And who voted against it? Tories and Reform.

12:03

Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)

- -

Leader of the Opposition Kemi Badenoch. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And Mr. Speaker, may I welcome the Prime Minister's efforts to advance peace in Ukraine and his joint statement on Greenland. The last few days have seen significant international events. The US operation in Venezuela, threats towards Greenland and an agreement to put British troops on the ground in Ukraine. So it is frankly astonishing that the Prime Minister is not making a full statement to Parliament today.

No Prime Minister, Labour or Conservative, has failed to make a statement to the House in person after committing to the deployment of British troops. His comments about making a statement in due course, quite frankly, are not good enough. It shows a fundamental lack of respect for all of us here and the people we represent. Mr. speaker, the US is Britain's closest military ally. However, we are clear that the sovereignty of Greenland is sacrosanct. So can the Prime Minister tell us what influence is he bringing to bear with the US administration to ensure that is respected?

12:05

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

The Prime Minister. yesterday because military plans were drawn up some months ago, and I've updated the House in relation to that. Yesterday was a political declaration that sits under those military plans. If there were to be, if there were to be deployment, there would have to be a legal instrument. Mr Speaker deployment would only be after a ceasefire to support Ukraines capabilities, to conduct deterrent operations, and to construct and protect military hubs. Mr. speaker, there will be a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity.

That could hardly be an opportunity. They claim they want to know about this and they're trying to shout me down. Mr. speaker, in relation to the House, if there were a decision to deploy under the agreement that was signed yesterday, then I would put that matter to this House for a debate beforehand and for a vote on that deployment. That is consistent with recent practice, and I'll adhere to that.

12:06

Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)

- -

Mr. speaker, why is today not >> Mr. speaker, why is today not the earliest opportunity? The truth is, the Prime Minister does not want everybody in this House to be able to ask him questions. So he leaves it just to Prime Minister's questions half an hour on Monday. On Monday. At least his Foreign Secretary stood up for two hours and 15 minutes. You know, it was a non-event. But at least she did that. He is scared. He is scared of us being able to ask him questions.

Yes, yes, yes six questions. Yes. He's here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Please. I've also requested that we do need an early statement. This House should always be informed first. So I don't like the chanting.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

first. So I don't like the chanting. Let the questions continue. Yeah, well. One of them asked that he is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One of them asked that he is here. He's got no choice but to be here for Prime Minister's questions. That's why he's here. If he could skip this, we know he would do. But back to the matter at hand, Mr. Speaker. We all agree. We all agree. Speaker. We all agree. We all agree. All of us here agree. I think most of us here agree that NATO is the bedrock of our security. The future of Greenland is of fundamental importance to the future of the alliance.

And I am sure that the Prime Minister agrees that it is essential for NATO leaders, including and especially the US, to meet. Will the Prime Minister call for an urgent meeting of NATO leaders?

12:07

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

Prime Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

speaker, in relation. Sorry, sorry. Can I help the Prime Minister? You don't need to worry about the responsibility of worry about the responsibility of the questions of the opposition. That's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's. Mr. Speaker. NATO is the single most important and effective military alliance the world has ever seen. In the 18 months we've ever seen. In the 18 months we've been in power, I've done everything within my ability to strengthen NATO. We had one of the strongest NATO meetings last year, the summit, where we had more members of NATO and more unity. When I arrived back to the House to make a statement, which of course she asked for her position, her position was, I shouldn't have missed PMQs.

I should have empty chaired the NATO summit. That's how serious she is about NATO. Mr. speaker.

12:08

Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)

- -

They're not. >> He didn't. >> Answer the question. Mr. speaker, I asked him if he would call for an urgent meeting of NATO leaders. We urgent meeting of NATO leaders. We can all see that the situation is moving rapidly. I also note that he has still not had a call with President Trump. That is concerning. Four days after the events in Venezuela. But yesterday he announced that Britain and France had signed a political agreement to put troops on the ground in the event of a peace deal in Ukraine.

So, given the Prime Minister is not making a statement about that deployment of British troops abroad, one of the most serious decisions a government and a parliament can take, irrespective of what he says, irrespective of what he says, can he at least confirm? Can he at least confirm how many troops would be sent to Ukraine, and whether they would be in a combat role?

12:09

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

Prime Minister. >> Mr. Speaker, I was with NATO allies yesterday all day in which allies yesterday all day in which we were discussing security in Europe, in particular security guarantees for Ukraine. And we made significant progress. And I'm glad that she has welcomed that. Of course, I will speak to President Trump. I spoke to his senior advisers yesterday. We were with them. We were with them all day. But, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, she asks me she asked me about the deployment.

We released the statement yesterday. It's clear from that. But I will be clear with the House that there would only be deployment after a ceasefire. It would be to support Ukraine's capabilities, would be to conduct deterrence operations and to construct and protect military hubs. The number the number will be determined in accordance with our military plans, which we are drawing up and looking to other members to support. So the number I will put before the House before we were to deploy.

But I'll do more than that if we went as far as a legal instrument to deploy, which would be necessary, I would then have a debate in this House so all members could know exactly what we're doing, make their points of view, and then we would have a vote in this House on the issue, which to my mind, is the proper procedure in a situation such as this.

12:10

Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)

- -

Kevin, they're not. the Prime Minister either does not have the detail or does not want to give us the detail. Yes, but this is important. He should be calling. He should be calling an urgent meeting of NATO leaders. He should have spoken to President Trump by now. This is important because if any such peace deal is breached, we would be in direct conflict with Russia. If the Prime Minister is committing troops, he must give more detail on how he intends to ensure our armed forces are fully resourced before the budget.

The Prime Minister said it was his ambition to spend 3% on defence in the next parliament. That could be as late as 2034. It is time to move from ambition to commitment. We have now had the budget, so can the Prime Minister now tell us in what year will the UK spend 3% of GDP on defence?

12:11

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

Prime Minister. >> Prime Minister. >> Mr. Speaker, just on the serious issue she puts to me in relation to issue she puts to me in relation to in relation to security guarantees and the American role and our dialogue with the Americans, I can assure the House I spoke to President Trump twice over the Christmas period in relation to this specific issue, along with members of the E3, along with European allies. That has been a constant course of our discussion.

There's no question of acting on this without full discussion with the Americans and their senior negotiators were there at President Trump's request yesterday and on his instructions, and they were talking to him during the course of yesterday as we negotiated. So to assure the House, because it is a serious position she's putting to me on the question of security guarantees, there is nothing between the UK and the US, and we've been constantly discussing this over many, many weeks and months. We've made huge progress.

I have personally spoken to President Trump about it on two occasions since we were last in this House. I do want to reassure her and the House in relation to that really important issue in relation to defence spending. I'm proud that we're investing to keep our country safe, that we have we have increased the defence spend that's provided for in the budget. It's the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War, and that means Mr Speaker better kit, better housing for our forces and better defence as an engine for growth.

Mr. speaker, that does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

compare to their record. Ben. Ben. Ben Wallace, who was on the radio this morning the longest radio this morning the longest serve a conservative defence secretary, admitted that on their watch the armed services had been, watch the armed services had been, in his words, hollowed out. And our defence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

defence. Chris Coghlan you expect a lot. I expect something back. And that's silent, Prime Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, the shame. I'll pass that on to Ben Wallace. Mr. speaker, the defence spending that speaker, the defence spending that we've put in place is three years earlier than the unfunded plan that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they left behind at the last election. They're not.

12:14

Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)

- -

>> They're not. >> Mr. speaker, I heard what I wait for it, wait for it, wait for it. What Ben Wallace said, what Ben Wallace said was that spending had fallen under all governments. 3%. The last time. The last time, Mr. Speaker, the last time spending was at 3% was under a conservative government. And yes, while we welcome, while we welcome the increase, something that we supported. Can I remind the House that this is a man who sat in the shadow Cabinet and tried to make Prime Minister a man who said we shouldn't even be in NATO at all, so I don't need to take any lectures from him.

The world is changing. We need to spend more on defence. He did not answer the question about whether when we would get to 3%, yet he knows up until 2031 how much he's going to be spending on welfare. He doesn't know that's in the Red book. The Red book has no money allocated for defence. We need to move from ambition to commitment. And Mr. Speaker, this is important because this isn't just about money. If the Prime Minister is deploying troops to Ukraine, those troops need to know that we have their backs.

Last week, seven former SAS commanders, seven former SAS commanders warned that Labour's Northern Ireland Troubles bill will wreck our special forces, not me, that's the SAS. In November, nine retired four star generals warned that his bill was a direct threat to national security, and even his own Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner has said our veterans are being treated worse than terrorists. So, Mr. Speaker, is it not madness to be putting veterans in the dock for serving their country? At the same time, he is deploying today's soldiers into Ukraine?

12:16

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

Mr. speaker, that was embarrassing. She said. That Ben embarrassing. She said. That Ben Wallace talking about all they were in power for four years, and they hollowed out our armed forces. Copyright Ben Wallace. Secondly, she talks about the shadow Cabinet. She has in her shadow Cabinet a shadow attorney general who is advising Abramovich at the same time as we are imposing sanctions on Russia and trying to use that money to support Ukraine. How can someone sit in her shadow Cabinet advising someone, trying to escape sanctions and pretend that their policy is to support us on sanctions? Mr.

speaker, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Northern Ireland, they are the party that gave immunity to IRA terrorists, terrorists who killed British soldiers. Their flawed act was struck down by the courts, which left our veterans with no legal protection whatsoever. We are introducing a fair and transparent process with a package of rights and protections for our veterans. Mr. speaker, there is no equivalence between our armed forces who fought bravely in Northern Ireland and terrorist groups. And if the if the Leader of the Opposition wants to go back to their old, flawed legislation and give immunity to the IRA, she should stand up now and say so.

12:17

Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)

- -

Mr. speaker, let me start by talking about the shadow attorney talking about the shadow attorney general. Yes. Yeah, yeah. Do they know what the shadow attorney general is doing? He is defending veterans pro bono against the actions of this government on this on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker. We will defend those who defended us. But why don't we talk about the actual attorney general who is sitting in Cabinet, the man who defended Gerry Adams, the man who is trying to bring Shamima Begum back into the country, the man who is helping to surrender the Chagos Islands.

I will take our shadow attorney general every day of the week against his Attorney general. Mr. Speaker. We protect our veterans. I want the Prime Minister to know we protect our veterans. What he is doing to veterans is disgraceful. But this is serious. Mr. speaker, I do not want the House to be under any illusions. I do not want the House to be under any illusions. The Prime Minister should know that we will absolutely support any efforts to help bring peace to Ukraine.

We will work with him to ensure NATO remains the bedrock of our security. But we cannot write a blank check when he is also surrendering the Chagos Islands, surrendering our veterans to lawfare and surrendering to his backbenchers by prioritising welfare handouts over defence spending as if the world has not become more dangerous. So, Mr. Speaker, isn't it time the Prime Minister changed course and for once put the British national interest first?

12:19

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

Mr. speaker, she talks about the shadow attorney general. Of course, I accept that lawyers have to represent all sorts. Of course I accept that principle. The question is whether the shadow attorney general can sit in the shadow Cabinet when the party opposite says it supports us on sanctions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We want the money from Chelsea Football Club to go to Ukraine. Yeah. I'm not sure whether that's her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not sure whether that's her position. If it is her position, presumably it's something they discuss in the shadow Cabinet, discuss in the shadow Cabinet, advised by a shadow attorney general who is representing the general who is representing the very man whose money we want to send to Ukraine. If she can't see, send to Ukraine. If she can't see, if she can't see, she can't see the conflict of interest in that, then she shows no judgement and no leadership at all.

Kate Osamor it's a new year, but the Leader of the Opposition has got absolutely nothing to offer the country. She is totally irrelevant. Nobody is listening to her. Mr. speaker, this is the year when on this side we turn a corner. People benefit from the decisions we made £150 off energy bills, freezing rail fares and lifting half a million children out of poverty. We're turning the corner and there's much more to come.

12:20

Well, the Prime Minister can keep the good news going because he's rightly made housebuilding and economic growth key priority. >> For this government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For this government. By giving the go ahead today to the Chesterfield Staveley regeneration route. He'll help us regeneration route. He'll help us to deliver 1500 houses and 5700 jobs on land that was previously coal mining and brownfield industrial land. It's not just a road, it is a growth project. So will the Prime Minister keep the good news coming and tell us that he'll support the Chesterfield Staveley regeneration route?

12:21

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

Can I thank him for that question? I know that he's working hard on this scheme as he knows land investigation investigation land investigation investigation works are currently taking place to help establish the final costs. The road Minister is looking closely at the scheme alongside about 40 others. We will prioritise schemes that deliver faster journeys and new homes and jobs.

12:21

Rt Hon Ed Davey MP (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Leader of the Liberal Democrats are Ed Davey. are Ed Davey. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I wish you a happy New Year and everyone in this House? And can I welcome the progress made on security guarantees for Ukraine? Yesterday, Mr Speaker. Geoffrey Robertson QC is a respected authority on international law. He's also the head of the Prime minister's barrister chambers. And he couldn't be clearer. President Trump's actions in Venezuela are illegal. He says the United States, and I quote, is in breach of the United Nations Charter and has committed the crime of aggression, which the court at Nuremberg described as the supreme crime.

Does the Prime Minister agree with his old mentor, or has he got it wrong?

12:22

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

The 20 things that Geoffrey and >> The 20 things that Geoffrey and I have agreed on or disagree with over the years. But let me set out our position. It is our long our position. It is our long standing position that Maduro was not a legitimate president in Venezuela. And so nobody, I think, shed any tears at his removal. And what we need, what we were saying before the weekend, and we say again, is there needs to be a peaceful transition to democracy in Venezuela.

Now, the benchmark of all actions of all countries is, of course, international law. And it is for the US to justify its actions accordingly. My focus is on the defence and security of the United Kingdom, and yesterday we were working with NATO allies, including the US, on security guarantees for Ukraine. And it's only with security guarantees that we'll have a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, which is vitally important for Ukraine, for Europe and for the United Kingdom.

12:23

Rt Hon Ed Davey MP (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Sir Ed Davey. >> Sir Ed Davey. >> Mr. speaker, the Prime Minister just looks ridiculous when he won't tell the truth that Trump has broken international law. But turning to Donald Trump's next target, the Prime Minister was right to give the Danish Prime Minister his backing over Trump's threats to annexe Greenland. And I welcome his joint statement with other European leaders. But does he also agree that if Trump does attack Greenland, it will be the end of NATO? And given that frightening possibility, does he accept that the UK needs to increase defence spending more quickly than currently planned and build new alliances with reliable nations?

12:24

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

Mr. speaker, let me be. The Greenland issue is obviously very, very important. I thank him for raising it. The future of Greenland raising it. The future of Greenland is for Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark, and for Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone. And yesterday he will have seen that. I put out a statement to that effect, along with fellow allies in Europe. And of course, NATO is hugely important. The single most effective and important military alliance the world has ever known.

He keeps encouraging me to sort of tug away at parts of NATO and to choose between Europe and the US.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That would be a strategic mistake for our country. Exactly. Yes. Yesterday we were working

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Yesterday we were working with our NATO allies, including the US and NATO ally, on a just and US and NATO ally, on a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. That will not happen without security guarantees from the coalition of guarantees from the coalition of the willing backed by the United States. That's a vitally important issue. And we made progress on that. And there won't be a just and lasting peace in Ukraine without those security guarantees and not achieving a just and lasting peace in Ukraine is not in our national interest.

And that's why I'm applying so much time and energy to seeking to get that outcome.

12:25

Claire Hanna MP (Belfast South and Mid Down, Social Democratic & Labour Party)

- -

East Ham Prime Minister, even its strongest advocates acknowledge that Northern Ireland is trapped in that Northern Ireland is trapped in dysfunction, and not because reform is impossible, but because the DUP and Sinn FÃ©in haven't allowed it. We've become a political hotel California, where the past is always around, but the future never arrives. There's growing public consensus that some of Solomon's procedures simply aren't working, and the SDLP has found slivers of common ground across the political parties, too. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that now is the time for a structured conversation which protects power sharing, but which addresses the culture of veto and decline? So Stormont might finally take responsibility and start to deliver for the people?

12:26

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

Well. The Belfast Good Friday Agreement is one of the greatest achievements of the last Labour government, and it enshrined Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom and set out, as she well knows. I know clear principles and processes under that framework. I'm aware of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee inquiry into institutional reform, but I can indicate that we're always happy to discuss any proposals for reform which would lead to a consensus.

12:26

Rt Hon Gavin Robinson MP (Belfast East, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

Gavin Robinson. >> Gavin Robinson. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Prime Minister, you will be aware of the grave concerns that abound of the grave concerns that abound around the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, particularly amongst veterans and particularly among those who stand up for and speak out for the interests of those who defend our nation. And they have read the six protections in the bill, and they don't see them as such. They offer no protection. They are procedural and they apply to terrorists, too.

They do. So will the Prime Minister confirm that what we have heard is true, that the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office intend to bring forward government amendments that will specifically and particularly protect veterans, and that they will offer protection.

12:27

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

Can I thank him for his question? >> Can I thank him for his question? And I know how deeply he feels about these issues. The Bill, as he knows, will put in place new measures designed specifically to protect veterans. The safeguards have been developed with veterans in mind. After carefully listening to their concerns. They have no respect at all, have they, for this issue? We've been meeting. We've been meeting with veterans organisations and listening to their views. And when the bill reaches the committee stages, the House will see the result of those considerations.

And I'd be pleased to hear that we're determined to ensure protections are as fair and effective as possible. Recognising the role that service personnel played in keeping people across the UK safe during the troubles. And I thank him for his question.

12:28

Rachael Maskell MP (York Central, Labour )

- -

Rachael Maskell thank you, Mr. Speaker. Having met with many independent business owners, they fear the cumulative impact of the rateable value revision and relief reductions in York hospitality seats, an average business rate rise of 41%, a music venue 44.4% and many independent shops increases around 27%. It will mean doors closing and trade ceasing. They just can't do it. So could the Prime Minister urgently review the business rate proposals, and will he ensure a Minister or official attends my business rates Summit at the end of January, as I want to avert a crisis on York's High street?

12:29

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

Can I thank her for raising that issue? As she knows, during Covid the rates went down and that was coming to an end. And that's why we put in place interim relief. As we move to the new rates, Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to work with and talk to the sector on that support and what further support and action we can take.

12:29

Sarah Olney MP (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)

- -

So. >> Mr. Speaker, the period after Christmas can be a challenging time for many people, and consequently, the month of January consistently sees higher rates of suicide than sees higher rates of suicide than at other times of the year. But suicide is preventable and lives can be saved. Education, raising awareness, targeting vulnerable groups are all effective suicide prevention strategies, and I was pleased to see them in the recent men's health strategy. But I'm calling on the government to go a step further and to launch a public health campaign to encourage discussions about suicidal thoughts and ideations.

So will the Prime Minister agree to continue this conversation with me, and will he state his support for a public health campaign to tackle the worryingly high number of deaths from suicide in this country?

12:30

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

Can I thank her for raising this issue and assure her that we want to work with all colleagues across to work with all colleagues across the House on this crucial issue, and it's in our interest to do so? We did, as she said, launch the first ever mens health strategy, announcing over £3.5 million into supporting suicide prevention support programmes, recruiting over 7000 mental health workers, including access to talking therapies, rolling out mental health support teams in schools. It

12:31

Bill Esterson MP (Sefton Central, Labour)

- -

the chicken pox vaccine. This, of course, is in stark contrast to the health care in this country is safe, and that reform must never, ever be in a position to be responsible for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in a position to be responsible for the health of this country. Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased about the measures we're about able to announce this week. Of course, that comes on top of the 5 million extra appointments that we've delivered in the first year

12:31

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

of a Labour government and 300,000 taken off the waiting list. And more to come as we turn the year more to come as we turn the year into 2026. But he's absolutely right. They laugh at the denial of right. They laugh at the denial of the importance of vaccines. Imagine where this country would be if they ever saw power. And if you want an example or if you like, look at the local councils where they want power. They're absolutely chaotic in a mess and putting taxes up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Peter Bedford. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unlike many of his parliamentary colleagues, I don't actually think the Prime Minister should resign. But at the start of a new year, it's time to reflect, reset, detox, if you will, on his government's appalling economic policies and tax rises, particularly business rates and the impact it's having on the hospitality sector. Now, will the Prime Minister commit to doing that Prime Minister commit to doing that today? Yeah, yeah yeah, yeah.

12:32

Mr Peter Bedford MP (Mid Leicestershire, Conservative)

- -

Mr. speaker, I reflect on the fact that inflation is falling and the Bank of England says that it's going to be down to target. I'll reflect on the fact that we've had

12:32

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

six interest rate cuts in a row. Mortgages, those with mortgages would be hugely effective. Our would be hugely effective. Our effect on the fact that the IMF say we're going to have the second highest growth in 2025, defying the highest growth in 2025, defying the forecast. And I'd remind them that under them, we had inflation at 11%, under them, we had inflation at 11%, the worst Parliament on living standards on record. And the Leader of the Opposition thinks that Liz of the Opposition thinks that Liz Truss was 100% right to crash the economy.

She's said literally the only people who think that anybody should be listening to them. Nobody is Johanna Baxter. Hear, hear.

12:33

Johanna Baxter MP (Paisley and Renfrewshire South, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Adrian Howarth was a successful and dedicated Vodafone store manager of dedicated Vodafone store manager of over 20 years. In 2017, he was offered the opportunity to take on a franchise of one of their thriving stores. But then the goalposts changed, and he was then forced to take on a struggling store. And just days before he was due to open that store, Adrian stepped into a lake and didn't ever return home. And Adrian's wife and widow, my constituent Tracy, is wondering if the Prime Minister will review franchising legislation to ensure there is a balance of power between companies and franchisees, so that nobody else feels undue pressure when they take on a franchise.

12:33

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

Can I thank her? And I speak for >> Can I thank her? And I speak for the whole house in saying, I'm deeply sorry to hear about this tragic case, and all our thoughts tragic case, and all our thoughts are with the family. Obviously, there's a legal case I can't comment on, but I can reassure her comment on, but I can reassure her that we'll look closely at the final outcome of that case. There are strong rules in place, but we will look at the outcome of the case to see whether there's more that can be done.

12:34

Alison Griffiths MP (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)

- -

Alison Griffiths. Yeah. >> Baltic Clipper. >> Lost 16 containers off the beautiful West Sussex coastline, beautiful West Sussex coastline, beaches and seas in my Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency have been polluted with toxic debris. The clean up was initiated and led almost exclusively by resolute local volunteers. So will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to all those involved for their extraordinary efforts? And will he or the relevant Minister meet with me to ensure that the coastline is restored and that local taxpayers will not pick up any costs?

12:35

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

Well, let me join her in paying tribute to the agencies and the tribute to the agencies and the local volunteers who supported the clean up efforts. They're the very clean up efforts. They're the very best, and I do pay tribute to them and join her in doing that. Liability sits with the polluter and agencies, and her local authority should work with the responsible party to recover the costs. I will make sure that she gets the meeting that she has asked for with the appropriate Minister.

12:35

Fabian Hamilton MP (Leeds North East, Labour)

- -

Ian Hamilton. >> Ian Hamilton. >> Mr. speaker, I recently met. >> With. >> Bereaved constituents who lost their babies at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS trust. Now, understandably, their confidence in the system is at an all time low the system is at an all time low and they want answers about the circumstances in which at least 56 babies and two mothers have died in recent years. So will the Prime Minister update the House on what steps he is taking to ensure that an inquiry uncovers the factors which led to these deaths? To confirm Donna Ockenden as chair of that inquiry, and to join me in paying tribute to the courageous families campaigning to ensure that nobody has to suffer, that suffer the same tragedy again.

12:36

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

Yes. >> Can I start by saying every mother and baby deserves safe, high quality, compassionate care? And I want to see the inquiry at Leeds want to see the inquiry at Leeds start as soon as possible. We're working with bereaved families to shape our approach and to appoint a shape our approach and to appoint a chair who they can trust. As he knows, I have a huge amount of respect for Donna Ockenden. She's an outstanding advocate for families, will make sure that we select a chair of the highest standard, who has the independence and expertise needed to deliver the real change that is needed.

12:36

Mr Angus MacDonald MP (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Angus MacDonald. >> To the office. >> For National Statistics, 174,000 people under the age of 35 moved abroad in the year ending June 2025, in the Highlands. This problem is especially acute. Demographic statistics show that young people are not staying in the rural communities. Pupil numbers are down by 40 to 50% in schools over the last 20 years. Rural depopulation and youth emigration are two sides of the same story. Lack of opportunity. We have a demographic crisis.

What is the Prime Minister doing to ensure the UK offers strong apprenticeships and skills pathways for young people? And does he agree that the SNP's failure in Scotland, diverting away 170 million intended for apprenticeships and skills development, shows exactly what happens when opportunity is not delivered? Yeah.

12:37

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

Well. record settlement that we put in place for the Scottish Government, we're delivering huge investment in apprenticeships and offer a paid apprenticeships and offer a paid placement for every young person, which is vitally important. The SNP, on the other hand, blocked a welding facility in the Clyde because apparently it was related to defence. They don't back Scottish industry, young people or national security. We do Pam Cox.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government is tackling patient waiting lists through NHS waiting lists through NHS modernisation and reform. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that we need to tackle victim waiting

12:38

we need to tackle victim waiting lists by reforming our courts and criminal justice system? >> Prime Minister?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Prime Minister? Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. And I've been working with victims of violence against women and girls for the best part of 20 years, and I've assured them time and again that if we get the opportunity, we would make the system work better for them. They have to wait far too long for justice, and in many cases, they don't see justice at all. I'm they don't see justice at all. I'm absolutely determined that we're going to turn that around.

12:38

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

Final question.

12:38

Rt Hon Wendy Morton MP (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)

- -

Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister promised not to bulldoze the countryside, but under Labour green fields in Aldridge-Brownhills fields in Aldridge-Brownhills Donald Road, Birch Lane and Boston Lane are now under threat. Will he Lane are now under threat. Will he accept that his housing target can be met without destroying our farmland and our countryside, but by reusing empty homes and brownfield land? Or was this just yet another promise he never meant to keep?

12:39

Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)

- -

Yes. >> We're not going to plough through farmland. We're going to make sensible proposals to build houses, something they fail to do houses, something they fail to do in 14 long years. So young people now have not got the dream of home ownership, because the inheritance

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we got from them. We're going to turn that around. That completes Prime Ministers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That completes Prime Ministers questions. Let the frontbench Right. Right. Presentation Right. Presentation of Bill Sarah Pochin.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Deprivation of citizenship. Promotion of terrorism or

12:40

Ten Minute Rule Motion: Student finance (review of payment schedules)

violence bill. >> Second Reading what day? >> Friday, the 16th. >> Of January.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of January. Please, Mr. Speaker. Friday, the 16th of January. Thank you.

12:40

Presentation of Bills

Thank you. >> Hold on sir. Right. We now come to the ten minute rule motion. Student finance, Mr. Luke Charters.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Student finance, Mr. Luke Charters. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg. To move that leave be given to bringing a bill to require the Secretary of State to review the scheduling of student finance payments to undergraduates, to require the review to consider advanced provision of certain student finance payments in certain circumstances and for connected purposes. Today, I introduce the Student Finance Review of Payment Schedules Bill, a former civil servant, one of the designers of the current student finance system, once told me that the loan system has become Frankenstein's monster.

Maintenance loan payments dates

12:41

Ten Minute Rule Motion: Student finance (review of payment schedules)

simply don't line up with the reality of students lives. Rent and

12:41

Ten Minute Rule Motion: Student finance (review of payment schedules) Mr Luke Charters MP (York Outer, Labour)

- -

12:50

Opposition Day Debate: Jury trials

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government proposes to abolish the right to trial by jury for a vast range of offences. Any case where they expect a sentence of three years or less. This is nothing less than wielding a constitutional axe against the centuries old cornerstone of our liberty. Juries are not some bureaucratic add on to our justice system. Juries are the means by which the public consents to and participate in the exercise of the gravest power of the state, the power to convict and to imprison our fellow citizens.

Yes,

12:51

Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP (Newark, Conservative)

- -

13:15

Mr Speaker

Yeah. >> The question is on the Order Paper. I now call the Minister to move the amendment Sarah Sackman. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Mr. speaker, I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. Let's fix it tomorrow. The right hon. Gentleman says tomorrow, tomorrow and tomorrow. What a luxury. Our justice system is in a state of crisis, as the hon. Gentleman has said. But in every crisis, whilst there's risk, there's also an opportunity. And the opportunity here is one that we in government grasp to modernise our justice system and bring it into the 21st century.

Let's start with the crisis. I didn't hear an apology in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but what it did do was lay bare the facts of what the previous government did to our justice system. Being in government, being in government is about choices, and we know what choices His Majesty's opposition would make about the justice system, because they had 14 years to show the world. Now he says, let's come together. Let's talk about investment in our system. Let's come up with solutions.

But what do they do? For 14 years, the previous government closed half of all the courts in England and Wales. Who did they entrust to be guardians of our justice system? Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Chris Grayling they decimated our legal aid system. They all but broke our

13:17

Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)

- -

13:47

Jess Brown-Fuller MP (Chichester, Liberal Democrat)

- -

14:02

Andy Slaughter MP (Hammersmith and Chiswick, Labour)

- -

>> The background to. >> This debate is well known against a historically high and growing backlog of cases in the growing backlog of cases in the Crown Court provoked by the previous government. The former Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to undertake an independent review of the criminal courts, with the aim of bringing the backlog down. Part one of that review was published in July 2025. It suggests structural and policy changes to Sir Brian made 45 recommendations, a few of which concerned changes to mode of trial.

These have become the main issue of contention because they restrict the right to jury trial. The policy changes proposed came first because some require primary legislation, but in a matter of weeks we will also have part two of Sir Brian's report, which will look at greater efficiency in the Crown Court and may be less contentious. Yes, sir. Brian is clear that all the recommendations and both parts of his report are a package, not a pick and mix selection. That is because he believes the crisis in the Crown Court with trials for serious offences, waiting 3 or 4 years to be heard, is so severe that every lever must be pulled to control and then reduce it.

In this he is surely right. Moreover, this is not a short term problem. Changes to the complexity and detail of criminal cases mean longer and more legally and factually difficult. Trials are here to stay. For this reason, he does not recommend changes are temporary or to be curtailed, for example, by a sunset clause in any legislation. So what happens now? First, we must have Sir Brian's full report to consider. As I say, part two is due imminently. Secondly, we have the government's response to the report saying which recommendations it accepts entirely or in part and which it rejects.

Then comes the bill putting necessary recommendations in law and accompanied, we are told, by an impact assessment giving greater statistical colour to the effect of the proposals on the backlog. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

likely date I'll give way once, but I'm aware of time. I'm very grateful to you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to you. For giving way and he's an expert in this area. But if every lever needs to be pulled, shouldn't lever needs to be pulled, shouldn't there be a removal of the cap on sitting days, which would make a far bigger difference to clearing the backlog than removing jury trials?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm coming on to that. And sitting days have already been increased substantially over what the previous government did, and I think they should go further, but I do when Sir Brian says every lever. I think that's exactly, exactly what he means. The likely date for all the documents I've just mentioned to surface is sometime in spring, ahead of the end of this session, with the bill carried over into the next and becoming law later this year. On the 14th of October, 2025.

The right hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam led a debate in Westminster Hall on the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, part one. I recommend that debate to members present. It's well informed and measured on all sides. I do not think today's debate will take the matter further. In the absence of the documents I have just described, but here we are. In the meantime, there have been some loud protests about certain proposals of Sir Brian's in parts of the legal profession and from some members of this House.

These include replacing the right to a rehearing of include replacing the right to a rehearing of a case decided in the Magistrates Court with a limited right of appeal, and extended trial by judge and magistrates to more serious offences than is currently the practice, with district judges in the Magistrates and Youth Courts, and this by creating a Crown Court Bench Division. The government has stated it wishes to go beyond Sir Brian's proposal for a judge to sit with two magistrates, in some cases currently tried by judge and jury, and allow a single judge to decide guilt or innocence in cases likely to attract a sentence of up to three years custody.

They also go further than Sir Brian in proposing to extend magistrates sentencing powers to 18, or possibly 24 months, and removing entirely the defendant's right to elect where the government seeks to go further than the independent review, it should set out clearly its reasons for doing so. The most controversial proposal is to curtail the right to trial by jury in between a quarter and a half of cases where it is currently available, while retaining it for more serious offences.

My own view is that trial by jury is not an absolute or immutable right. The availability of jury trial has varied and generally become more constricted over the ages in criminal and civil cases for defamation and inquests by reclassifying offences from either way to summary only. But I am pro jury, I think a lay element in the criminal justice process is reassuring in a more democratic element, into a profession regarded by some as elitist and homogenous. I think the involvement of citizens in the criminal justice system, whether jurors or magistrates, is good not only for the individuals and the legal system, but for society generally.

But where do we draw the line between jury trial and other modes of trial? It's a matter of degree and judgement. Not, I think, of legal or moral principle. I think there is nothing wrong with reviewing the appropriate forum for trial, as has been done many times, whether in its own right or because it is a piece of the jigsaw which will create a better system overall. I would like to see more evidence to support the contention in Sir Brian's review, that significant time will be saved and a significant increase in cases heard will result.

I would like to hear that there is more money for sitting days, for trial counsel, for functioning courts, that courts are run more efficiently. That listing is a good at every is as good at every Crown Court as it is at the best that Serco and Amy deliver prisoners to court in good time to start the day's proceedings. Not halfway through the afternoon. We are not going to get the answers to all these questions today, though I hope we will before long. I prefer the government amendment that anticipates this information being provided to the opposition motion that prejudges what it will say, and I do acknowledge that the government has already increased budget and already provided greater efficiency measures.

The Justice Committee is seized with this issue. We heard evidence from Sir Brian Leveson in November, interrogated the Lord Chancellor in December, and next week we will hear from opponents and supporters of the proposed reforms and from the Minister of State who opened this debate. We may have some criticism of the bill or the government response to the review and seek to amend. But like the government and I think MPs on all sides, we hear every week of fresh indignities heaped upon victims of crime and on defendants too, made to wait years beyond what is humane, often in a physical or mental prison, for a resolution of their case.

Not to consider them is not to be serious either about the damage delays doing to individuals or to confidence in our courts. This is not a one way valve. There are gains and losses. Whatever course we take for the present, I am prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt that they are looking for every possible measure to repair our battered justice system, and certainly I prefer their honest endeavour to the gamesmanship of the party opposite, who broke the system and now seek to use its dilapidated condition as a political tool.

14:10

Rt Hon David Davis MP (Goole and Pocklington, Conservative)

- -

David Davis. >> Can I start by commending my own frontbench? I don't always agree with him. I'm not quite Anna Soubry, with him. I'm not quite Anna Soubry, but I don't always agree with him. But on this I struck exactly the right tone. Yeah. Speaker somebody has criticised the Department of Justice under all parties rather vigorously for 30 years, and I think he struck exactly the right tone that this is a system that has to be put right. From failures over 30 years and more.

And we have to address it by taking the fundamental but not taking the fundamentals out of it. In the process of doing so, can I also do something unusual and commend the Liberal spokesman, which I don't often do? And because I thought it was a very well thought through speech. New year, new David. I'm losing. I'm losing the whole house piece by piece. That's OK, you know. Because I and I say to the I say to the Minister, I would pay some attention to the detail of that speech because it was an some extremely important points made.

Yeah. As for the chairman of the Justice Committee, he and I have fought together on some spectacular miscarriage cases successfully, I think, in the biggest one. But I didn't agree with him when he said that this didn't address matters which were fundamental to the justice system, morally, fundamentally, if you like, because the jury system absolutely is fundamental for a few reasons. I'm going to touch on in a minute. The Minister has got a difficult job. Her department, bluntly, has not done very well.

Not the Ministers, just themselves, but the actual department itself has not done a very good job of managing the system over decades, decades, the system failures have been seriously spectacular. I recommend she looks back at some of the National Audit Office reports. I commissioned one as Public Accounts Committee chairman. It's the longest now report I think I ever remember and the most complex because the matters are systemically complex and they don't lend themselves to just off the cuff answers. And she talks about modernisation and modernisation is often important, but modernisation shouldn't be at the price of taking out the most important building block in our justice system, one which the rest of the world as a as my right hon.

Colleague said has been has been copying for centuries. And that's why, of course, the majority of the judiciary themselves don't agree with this. And when I raised this matter with the justice secretary, I think at questions on one occasion, I asked him whether he'd read the report by Mr. Rivlin KC, which actually does a formidable job of forensically taking apart the Leveson recommendations. And one of the points he makes is that Leveson is making judgements quite properly as a judge, a very, a very distinguished judge, a very long standing, but he's not making them on the basis of empirical data.

There was very little empirical data behind what Justice Leveson argued. So I think it's really important that we understand that that we look at that. And I would recommend to the Minister, if he hasn't read it, she reads Mr. Rivlin's note and what part of it? He was the head of the Southwark Crown Court, which is one of the highest courts in the country. And he put this point to all of his, all of his judges, not one, not one agreed with Leveson working active judges today.

Now, implicit in Leveson's comments, and certainly implicit in what the Minister said, is an underlying idea that juries are not quite up to it. In certain cases they can't quite cope, particularly in technical and financial cases. Well, frankly, I've I've handled about a dozen miscarriage of justice cases over the course of the last decade or two, and in not one of them was the jury the source of the error? More often than not, it was a misdirection by a judge or an error of the system, or the or the court case was allowed to get out of control in some way or another.

I'll come back to an example or two in a minute. And it was all pretty much always a judge, sometimes the other lawyers in court, but pretty much always the judge, not the jury. And so the risks in this are quite significant. And by the way, when she is modelling the numbers and she talks about speed of the magistrates system, please do look at the appeal rates for magistrates decisions and the number of appeals

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in which the magistrates decisions are overturned. I will give way. I'd just like to gently say to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd just like to gently say to the to the right hon. Member that the current system for appeals from the Magistrates Court requires a the Magistrates Court requires a full retrial. Now, when somebody comes to give evidence, we're asking a lot of them. They're particularly victims. So to do that particularly victims. So to do that all over again, after a wait of considerable months or even years, is a very onerous. And most a lot of them are the simple fact that the witness or the victim doesn't want to go through that all over again.

It's that's the that's the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

problem there, which this fixes. She highlights yet another problem, the magistrates court. I problem, the magistrates court. I mean that's that's the problem. So so I rest the point. The point here so I rest the point. The point here is that trying to do a big systemic change, if you're going to do that, you don't change the fundamentals. you don't change the fundamentals. You do that as a separate testable exercise later on after you've tried everything else. But let me tried everything else.

But let me come back to this issue of the expertise of juries. The it's illegal in Britain to to talk to jurors about what happened in the jury room. It's not allowed, but there's one spectacular lacuna in there. And that was in the most one of the most complicated financial cases, the Jubilee line fraud trial, which collapsed. And as a result, it was possible to interview the jurors. Now, this was particularly in the area where it said that jurors can't cope.

Complex financial law. And they were asked, you know, couldn't they cope? Was there a problem? When they were asked, they answered quite unequivocally. When they asked if they could and could not understand the case, they said, oh yeah, we could understand the case. It was a lawyers that couldn't understand precisely what the outcome of that analysis was. Now secondly, I say to the Minister, she resisted publishing the model. That's understandable. I can see why she's doing that. And she wants it to be presented properly and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

transparently, I hope, and so on. But she has made the decision. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She's made the decision already. So at very least she'd be. She should be telling us what the size of saving is, what the size of of saving is, what the size of change is. Now, my judgement is it's less than half a percent. The point I made in the intervention point I made in the intervention earlier. She may disagree. Well, let's see what she thinks it really is, because we are expected to take this on trust, and we should never change something as fundamental to our Constitution and our justice system on trust.

Never. I don't think this will move the dial at all. Now, there's one other systemic issue here I want to raise. And again, my own side might not like it because the primary case undermined not unusual. I know the primary case, the primary case undermined apart the Thatcher government activities. And it was a case of Clive Ponting. He was the man, the civil servant, who gave out the information that the Belgrano was sunk whilst it was leaving the Falklands, not arriving.

The judge in that case instructed the jury to find guilty and they found him not guilty. Why? Because they made a moral judgement about the powers and rights of the state over citizen. And you cannot replace that. You cannot replace that by any judicial mechanism other than that. So my comment to the Minister is I sympathise with the size of the problem. She's right to try and take it on full on, you know. I'm glad she does and I'll support her what she does, but she should not do it by wrecking the system.

Justice delayed is justice denied. But summary justice is not justice at all. Speaker.

14:19

Karl Turner MP (Kingston upon Hull East, Labour)

- -

It's a pleasure to speak in this >> It's a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the opposition on using one of their opposition day debates to debate opposition day debates to debate this very important subject. There's no doubt, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this government Speaker, that this government inherited a terrible crisis in the criminal justice system with the backlog of criminal cases, both in the Crown Court and in the magistrates growing, every single day. But I can tell members that I've been in this place for 16 years.

I was elected, I think, in May 2010, and in those 16 years, not once have I been tempted to vote against the whip. Not once have I voted against the Labour Party, whether in opposition or in government. But I'll tell the Minister, the Chief Whip, the deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister. Now I will vote against this ludicrous, ludicrous proposal every step of the way, including voting with the opposition. Today, this proposal goes well and truly beyond what Brian Leveson recommended.

I've got the privilege of knowing Brian Leveson a little bit. He helped me on occasion put a private member's bill together on the issue of causing serious injury by dangerous driving that was adopted by Ken Clark as Justice Secretary, and it was put into the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act. Ken Clark always has the joke that he accepted my private member's bill as an amendment to the bill, but then I voted against the bill, the type of thing I would do, of course.

But these proposals are not reduce the backlog one iota. Sir Brian speaks of 20% savings efficiency. I don't dispute the fact that it's quicker for a single judge on a trial to deal with the trial, but what happens to the writing up? What happens to the judgement? Giving a reasons for why the judge has come to the view that the judge has come to in the particular case? That will take minutes. As I said in my intervention to the Minister, the judge is not going to put that to bed whilst he's putting kids to bed in the evening.

It's going to take days potentially. So any saving is lost by having to write up the reasons. There are a multitude of reasons for the backlog in the criminal courts and it's right. Have to be honest here. It's parties of all political persuasions for decades failing to invest in the criminal justice system. That's the reality of where we are. The government, the previous government, rather played their part as well. But since we've been in government, we've not addressed the issues as we should, in my view, because the backlog can be addressed.

If we look at Liverpool Crown Court as an example, proper case management of cases, what's the backlog in Liverpool Crown Court? We should go there, perhaps, and have a look at what the judge is doing there. I'm concerned as well, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the magistrates extra powers, 24, up to 24 months sentencing. That concerns me. The reality is this 41% of appeals from the magistrates to the Crown Court are successful. That's a concern. And in any event, if there's going to be more cases than the magistrates because they've got more powers to sentence, where are all these guilty people going to be put, all these guilty criminals who apparently going to be convicted in swifter forms of justice? Where are they going to be imprisoned? I say this is a ludicrous proposal, and it really is, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it won't work.

It's not in the Labour Party manifesto. There's no mention of doing away with some jury trials. I suspect the opposition was as shocked as anybody when they had to give up one of their opposition debates on this subject, because the Secretary of State for justice in opposition, would have gone off his head about the prospects of this being proposed by the previous conservative government. But look, this raises more questions than it actually answers. So I have some questions for my hon.

Friend the Minister one. Did the Ministry of Justice do any modelling before the announcement, and if not, why not? If they did modelling, can we see it now? Please? Can we see it? Did the Secretary of State consider piloting single judge only trials? Why? A Minister determined to pretend that trials for shop theft as an example, holding up cases of serious sexual assaults. There are listing priorities in those cases. If a listings officer in a Crown court is prioritising a shop theft over a rape or serious sexual assault, there's a major problem.

I accept that. But if the Minister can point to an example of that happening, fine. Give us the example and let's go off and investigate that. Because frankly, I don't think that is happening today. Madam Deputy Speaker 75 Crown Court courtrooms are sat idle, not sitting 75 out of 516. Why? Why don't we address the issue of courts not sitting if we don't have enough judges and barristers to conduct some trials? Why does the Justice Secretary think the judges and barristers are going to come from to do these judge only trials? How long does the Minister think it's going to take for the prosecution, the defence and the judge to determine whether or not the particular case is worth less than three years on conviction, and thus viable for a bench trial.

When will circuit judge? When will circuit judges find the time to draft the reasons? The point I've already made what counts as successful delivery of a prisoner to court mid-afternoon. Ready for court at 9:00. So the barrister and the solicitor can have a conference before the called into court at ten. What's the delivery that these private companies are expected to meet? Because I know of an example recently where a Crown court judge and I won't identify the court or indeed the judge was asking a an officer to come up to court to explain why they'd arrived at 3:00 in the afternoon.

And the answer that was given was that they had to stop for a cheese sandwich. That's what's happening in the real world, and that's the issues that the Minister needs to address. And what happens if the case is determined suitable for a bench trial less than three years. But then the judge, after conviction, gives more than three years. This is a terrible error. My final question is this the Minister was charged with, say, a fraud or false accounting case.

Would she want to be tried by a judge of 12, or would she want a single judge sitting alone?

14:27

Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)

- -

14:33

Emma Foody MP (Cramlington and Killingworth, Labour )

- -

To hear. Covid. When it's clear that backlogs were increasing before Covid as a result of underlying factors, including substantial real factors, including substantial real terms, cuts to the justice system, court closures, reductions in judges and court staff, and they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

began rising in 2019, the same year that they cut sitting days. Yeah, absolutely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, absolutely. Agree with my hon. Friend. And I'm immensely frustrated at the rhetoric on that point. I'll give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. Tell the House where backlogs higher or lower in 2010 than they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

higher or lower in 2010 than they were in 2019, before the pandemic. Did you take the question? But unfortunately, I didn't hear the apology that should have preluded apology that should have preluded it. The absolute carnage that they left in our courts on their watch and have shown no recognition or contrition for what they have left behind. Because in every single one of those cases, there is at least one victim who is unable to access the justice. So I'm glad that they all find it so amusing that they find it much less amusing when they're on the other end of it within the justice system, because every victim is waiting to move on, every witness is stuck in limbo, and every defendant is entitled to have their case heard within a reasonable time to repay their debt, or even to begin to be rehabilitated, is waiting.

And I speak about this not just as a member of Parliament, but as a former member of the judiciary myself. Having sat as a magistrate, I've made the decisions in courtrooms that I knew would have lasting impact on people's lives.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've seen first hand I'll give way. Member for giving A way. Very valid point was raised earlier on valid point was raised earlier on that before a matter is decided upon in terms of triaging whether a case should have a jury trial or not. If a judge decides that that sentence would be less than three sentence would be less than three years. But in fact, after a trial, in absence of a jury, the judge decides he or she must get 5 or 6 decides he or she must get 5 or 6 years.

Does that individual have a right to appeal that decision and a jury trial? Good question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sure my hon. Friend will be able to go into the details of the substantive point, but the hon. substantive point, but the hon. Gentleman has made. But if I may make some progress at this point, because, as I said, I've made decisions that will impact on people's lives. I've seen first, first hand how long the delays damage victims wellbeing, undermine their confidence, and cause too many to withdraw from the process altogether. Because this is not a failure of victims, but a failure failure of victims, but a failure of the system.

And let's be clear, because the backlog isn't just frustrating, but it is frustrated some defendants gaming the system to delay their trial to avoid accountability for as long as possible, in the hope that by the time their case is heard, either it will fall over entirely, or that witnesses and victims will be unable to give evidence which is not as fresh as it was before. It is simply indefensible, and it is exactly the type of behaviour that reforms are designed to stop. We are already investing heavily with more Crown Court sitting days this year than ever before.

We are putting money into repairing and modernising court buildings, into legal aid and into victim support services with long term funding, so that these services can actually plan ahead. But anyone who has worked in the courts knows that we simply cannot spend our way out of this problem alone, because there simply aren't the judges, the criminal barristers, the court staff to keep up with demand, and even the courts running flat out are struggling. Without any reform, the backlog will continue to grow.

Now, as we've heard today, everyone will have the right to a fair trial. That is fundamental. But the truth is that most criminal cases have never involved juries. Over 90% are already dealt with by magistrates, and they are dealt with fairly. And let's also be honest about the history, because it was a conservative government through the Criminal Justice Act in 1988 that restricted eligibility for jury trials by reclassifying a range of offences to be summary only selective amnesia that we see all too often in this place.

Now, as I've mentioned, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a former magistrate, I am proud of the work that magistrates do, and I'm pleased to see the recruitment campaign launched recently to recruit more of them to the bench because they are volunteers drawn from their communities, giving up their time to serve the public. They are more representative of the society they serve than the judiciary is as a whole, and they take their responsibilities extremely seriously. And I thoroughly enjoyed my role and would truly encourage anyone from my communities and communities across the country to put themselves forward for this important role.

Sir Brian Leveson has been clear jury trials now take far longer than they used to, largely because cases are more complex and involve vast amounts of digital evidence. And that isn't anyone's fault. But it does mean that the system needs to adapt. We must restore confidence by keeping communities safe, making sure victims are supported and not forgotten by the system that is meant to protect them. The conservatives left US justice system behind in serious trouble, and Labour is the one who's choosing to fix it.

14:38

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst MP (Solihull West and Shirley, Conservative)

- -

14:45

Pam Cox MP (Colchester, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Madam. of our justice system being held to account in court by our fellow citizens is one of the embodiments of the principle of justice, by the of the principle of justice, by the people, for the people. But like all aspects of our justice system, the jury trial has a history. It For our times. I'll focus my remarks on that history, if I may. In support of amendment A, when jurors were first introduced, one of their first roles was to determine the facts of the case before them.

In other words, they had an investigative function, a function that was later removed from them and given to other bodies. Juries then went on to be used in both civil and criminal cases for centuries, until they weren't. A major reform of the 19th century removed juries from the adjudication of civil cases. A key driver of that reform was the pressing need to process a vastly increased flow of civil disputes created by more complex commercial economy. Today, our civil justice system is renowned around the world for its robustness and fairness.

The composition and role of the jury in criminal cases has also undergone major changes over time in the mid 19th century. Who was it that was called to serve on juries? Men of property, though they gave verdicts in a in trials on a wide range of alleged offences. But if we jump forward to the early 20th century, we see some major changes to that arrangement. By then, the range of people who could be called for jury service have now widened. Women and working people could now be called for jury service, but the range of offences deemed to require a jury trial had greatly narrowed.

Now, why was that? This was because the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879, which was passed in this place, and it was passed in this place because of the need to respond to the need for enhanced public access to justice. And what it did was greatly expand the remit of summary courts and magistrates. And it's very key, of course, that the magistracy is another embodiment of justice by the people, for the people. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I could say more. This very potted history shows that juries have played a vital but shifting part in our justice system.

They have never operated in isolation from the other moving parts of that justice ecosystem. Their remit has narrowed at different points over time, as the remits of other judicial bodies have expanded and flexed. So for me, the government's proposals for court reform are rooted in an undisputed drive to modernise our justice system. Those proposals retain jury trials. The right to jury trial is not being removed. They also, however, encompass a much wider range of suggested and very necessary changes to our justice system in order to uphold public access to justice.

14:48

Alicia Kearns MP (Rutland and Stamford, Conservative)

- -

Cairns. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Jury trials were introduced to bring order and justice to a legal system beset by opportunism, superstition, bias and archaic practices. For eight centuries, they have been the bedrock of English and British liberty, recognised globally as a bulwark against tyranny and oppression. And yet without any modelling, no impact assessment, no equalities assessment, and not in line with the review done by Sir Levinson, the government plans to scrap this ancient protection and I have yet to make an argument, but I will shortly.

Who in this place can honestly say that the seeking when facing incarceration, they would be happy with just one judge making that decision with no jury? Think of victims who face unconscious bias on a daily basis and do not get justice with just one person deciding that. But most sinister of all is the debate this afternoon in this chamber, where Labour MPs have argued that juries, ordinary people, can't be trusted, they're not up to the job. It's too complex, it's too detailed.

What next? Are you going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to strip the right to vote as well? Yeah. It is deeply concerning. The Minister has also said today that Minister has also said today that this isn't as the result of some crisis that the Labour MPs want to blame on conservatives, that they blame on conservatives, that they would be doing this anyway because it is ideological. Every time the Labour government comes in, they have tried to strip jury trials under Blair when I was a child and under Blair when I was a child and now, yet again, both the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary previously recognised the importance of jury trials.

In fact, they opposed the abolition publicly. How are they going to justify their change of mind? Perhaps when the justice Secretary returns to the benches, as he certainly will after the next election, he'll bring in trial by combat next. Almost 40 of the government's own MPs have opposed this, and they are absolutely right to do so because there are other options, whether it be the unused sitting days or whether it be Sir Levinson's proposal of having one judge and two magistrates.

There is some aspect of a layperson having a say. Now, clearly the Prime Minister can admit when he gets something wrong and change course, as we saw, albeit far too late on the family farm tax, on welfare and on grooming gangs. Don't leave it too late this time. The Labour manifesto made no mention of curtailing our right to jury trials. But this is not a minor shift in policy. It is a worrying trend, fundamental to the relationship between the individual and the state.

We are seeing it with digital ID, we are seeing it with the stripping of these fundamental freedoms, and jury trials recognise the gravity of removing someone's right to liberty. Yeah, ultimately, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm just wrapping up. The hon. Lady would like to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder what she thinks about this or what? What what she thinks this or what? What what she thinks about the the history of jury trials, which has shown that they flexed over time. They've not been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an inalienable ancient right. The hon. Lady. I did not say they were right. In fact, the law says you have a right to a fair trial. However, we have established historically that jury trials mean that unconscious bias and the that unconscious bias and the archaic and appalling way in which history has shown that one individual making a decision over others is often not fair, transparent or right. As we heard from Sir David Davis, the amount of trials that have to go to retrial are higher.

When there is one individual making a decision, rather than a jury, just.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To make sure the member doesn't make a further mistake. Do not names. Serious apologies. I don't speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Serious apologies. I don't speak for a year of maternity leave. Does leave one a little bit with cobwebs, so I apologise. Also, Madam Deputy Speaker, the British people are Speaker, the British people are very clear. They do not want to see this. They do not want to see a fundamental change in their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relationship. I will happily give way. Gentlemen. The hon. Member for giving way and making very persuasive points around modelling and impact assessments. As someone who practices in the criminal bar for the last two decades, I can tell you. Well, tell the chair if I, if I may, that you're still going to have opening speeches by defence counsel and prosecution counsel, you're still going to have cross-examination of witnesses. And most importantly, what you will get is questioning of the defendants and judges understanding the procedure.

But also defendants must understand the procedure and closing speeches. So I can't see where they'll be saving. So that's why the modelling is so important.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Agree I'm afraid, madam Deputy Speaker, we see the continual argument that the average layperson argument that the average layperson cannot understand justice. If a defence lawyer, if a prosecution lawyer cannot make the argument lawyer cannot make the argument make sense, the average person, they have no job representing an individual within the court. It is individual within the court. It is their duty to make law transparent and make it understandable to every individual. These arguments that individual. These arguments that court cases become more detailed.

We should be pleased that there are more detailed and more complex arguments being made in our courts. This is a sign of a court system that is working, not relying on basics or tropes to get justice. And yet the Labour Party sees it the opposite. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I see this, unfortunately, as yet another disappointing and deeply sinister step towards the government changing our fundamental relationship with the Crown and the state. So I urge the government listen to the legal industry, trust the British people and listen to them.

14:54

Catherine Atkinson MP (Derby North, Labour)

- -

Catherine Atkinson. >> Deputy Speaker. I wanted to be a barrister from when I was a child. I didn't know any lawyers. I think I got most of my ideas about what I got most of my ideas about what lawyers did from TV shows. But jury trials is what I wanted to do, and some of my most memorable moments as a barrister was prosecuting and defending in front of juries. So I, I do get the importance of jury trials, but I also saw courts falling down.

I saw delays getting longer and longer. And I've spent recent years hearing from former colleagues talk about cases that are to be listed in three, four, five years into the future. And we've heard the Crown Court backlog is sitting at 78,000 cases. And behind every single one of those cases is justice put on hold. A family left reeling from a burglary, a teenager recovering from assault, a survivor of sexual assault who has been waiting for years for her day in court.

And it is not acceptable. And of course, I want to see increased funding. And with this Labour government, we are already beginning to see that with an additional 450 million per year earmarked for the court system over the spending review period to fund the increased number of court sitting days. But Sir Brian Leveson made it abundantly clear that the system in its current form cannot stop the backlog from growing. And with more digital evidence being presented in court DNA, cell site electronics, social media evidence, the massive disclosure exercises trials are more complex, and Sir Brian Leveson found that jury trials are taking twice as long as they did in in the year 2000.

And having spent over a year of my time as a barrister, walking on a complicated insider trading fraud, we spent huge amounts of time and resources working about how we present that prosecution to a jury. And it's not saying that they're not capable. It is saying that when it comes to the the suitability and proportionality, I need no persuasion that when it comes to some fraud trials and similarly technical trials, it is often not appropriate for those to be jury trials.

Can we also be absolutely clear that the proposal is not scrapping jury trials? It is to amend which cases are to be heard by juries, and types of cases being heard by jury has changed and evolved over time and through the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it was the conservatives who made offences like common assault and criminal damage. Summary only, not jury trials. And we are rightly proud of our legal traditions. But it is untrue to suggest that the lack of jury trials is somehow unique to despotic regimes.

Sweden, number one in the World Justice Project Global Rankings, is a country that doesn't use jury trials at all. Norway, ranked number three also doesn't, nor does Germany or the Netherlands, and in France and Denmark and Canada, only the most serious cases are heard by juries. Now, I believe that jury trials are a fundamental part of our justice system, and it is right that they remain so. But something has to change. And without really bold action, the backlog will continue to grow.

We need to ensure that justice for victims across the country. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you for giving way. I just wondered why she wouldn't look just wondered why she wouldn't look to implement the recommendations from the Shadow Secretary of State

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before seeking to restrict jury trials. I think there are a. Huge number of additional measures which will be rolled out, and I look forward to continuing to engage with justice Ministers about engage with justice Ministers about other, other measures, which I believe will help. And we have more coming after the next stage of the Leveson review. But we do need to see really bold action to ensure that justice for victims across the country is happening and not years into the future.

They need a criminal justice system that works

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and we all the British people, need to have faith in our criminal justice system. Again, thank. You, thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You, thank you. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker and I it's an honour to follow the hon. Member, an honour to follow the hon. Member, but I would just say I was listening to a speech very closely. It was largely invalidated, though, by the admission by the Minister when she said that she would have done this anyway, irrespective of any battles. There is no guarantee. any battles. There is no guarantee. And she can't. She can't assure the House, neither can the Minister because there's no impact assessment, there's no modelling

14:58

Saqib Bhatti MP (Meriden and Solihull East, Conservative)

- -

that has been shown to the members in this House. They cannot guarantee that this backlog would come down because of the because of come down because of the because of the abolition of trial by jury or partial abolition, which I'm sure she will concede is the case. The she will concede is the case. The Minister is Minister puts it under the guise of modernisation. But we have to be very, very clear about have to be very, very clear about what this what is at stake.

This is 800 years of legal precedent set out in the Magna Carta. And how clever, how clever they were in 1215 when they came up with this legal mechanism, which makes sure that we, as the individual citizen, have the right to pass judgement on our peers, a mechanism which goes to the right. I will, in due course, the mechanism which goes right to the heart of our society, which shapes the power of the relationship between the individual or group of individuals with the state.

So the state cannot abuse its power. It cannot go beyond the fact of when it has to make a decision about taking away someone's liberty or livelihood, or their reputation. It is a panel of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

peers who will make that judgement. That is what is at stake. Often. My hon. Friend, consider that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend, consider that when the conservative governments have reduced the number of types of offences that are heard by juries, offences that are heard by juries, that they were wrong to do so, and would he agree that it is absolutely necessary to see some modernisation, acknowledging that criminal trials have changed and the evidence presented in those trials have changed over the years?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trials have changed over the years? I'm delighted the member called me a friend. I accept such an accolade. Look, I the point of this motion today is that I agree with the trial by jury. I think it has validity in where it is placed and by reducing it, as the government is proposing. But as the government is proposing, without any assessment, without any guarantee of numbers, we on this side of the House think it's wrong. Now the member opposite and many other members set out a number of ways, albeit in party political, in the party political guise that a number of ways where we could reduce the backlogs.

But the reality is the government isn't even talking about those in a serious way. It is talking about reducing jury trials. I was here when the Justice Secretary stood at the despatch box and reducing jury trials to reduce the backlog. That is, those those two things do not go hand in hand. And that is why there is cross-party, cross-party opposition. There is opposition from professional organisations, from the Criminal Bar Association, from all sorts of organisations, judges saying that this will not achieve what they want to do.

I was approached by a constituent of mine who wrote to me today, actually, who talked about the improvement of sittings, a local barrister who sees this day in, day out. He wants the investment in sitting days. We've called for that. We've called for prisoner transport services to be on time. I think the Minister referred to some of these targeted removal of cases that can no longer be prosecuted. And of course, the investment of basic infrastructure in court. If all of those have been assessed and looked at and invested in, that would have had that may have even had cross-party support as the shadow justice Secretary offered.

But in fact, I was I was surprised by the tone of the Minister, who then had this glaring admission this would have happened anyway. This is this is about a big statist ideology undermining trial by jury and expanding it. And fundamental to it, in my view, is an arrogance. It's an arrogance. As we continue to hear. We've just heard from my hon. Friend to my left here about how it will undermine fairness in the system, because there's an arrogance to say, actually, lawyers will know better than juries.

We don't always expect the whole nature of this trial by jury is not to expect the jury, the individual juror, to have an expertise in everything. It is the collective decision making which takes away bias, which takes away discrimination, which none of the members opposite can guarantee. A judge which as as neutral as they they must be and as professional as they are, they cannot guarantee that the individual judge won't demonstrate those biases. And that is the point that we are making, that this fundamentally undermines the individual liberties that we rely on in this society.

One of the most fundamental individual liberties. I'm grateful to my friend for giving way. Does he share my concern that if the argument runs that well, it's because it's the expert lawyers arguing their case? To an expert judge, the next way of trying to speed up the jury process or modernise legal process is to reduce the rights of appeal, because it will have been expert judges alone, without the benefit of a lay jury, and that will be a further erosion of our rights.

And I thank the hon. Member. I suspect I'm running out of time. One minute. Well, in that case, I say to I agree with my hon. Friend. In that case, of course, the fundamental point here is that this is this is a slippery slope. It opens the door to further erosion of individual rights. And we may all here think that this is a good idea because or the government members may think that's a good idea because it cuts time. But there may well be a moment.

There may well be a moment where an individual has to rely on a trial by jury, and that is their right, by the way. They can request those because it gives fairness. And it's that fundamental right of being judged by our peers that we rely on. And I implore members opposite to follow the example of the Member for Kingston upon Hull East, who is taking a very brave stance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, who'd have thought a government led by a human thought a government led by a human rights lawyer would be leading the charge to remove one of our most charge to remove one of our most basic human rights? Trial by jury. This government is removing the This government is removing the right to a jury trial for any offences that carries a sentence of offences that carries a sentence of less than three years, supposedly to reduce the backlog of waiting cases to go to trial.

But let's look at the evidence. There is a backlog of 78,000 cases. There are

15:04

Rt Hon Esther McVey MP (Tatton, Conservative)

- -

around 1.3 million prosecutions in England and Wales every year, and 10% of those cases go before a 10% of those cases go before a Crown court. Of those, three out of Crown court. Of those, three out of ten go to trial. These reforms mean that there will now be more than that there will now be more than two out of ten still going before a jury. So from those figures, there jury. So from those figures, there is no realistic impact change to those waiting lists from what they are doing.

Removing a fundamental right. I mean, who was doing the maths from this? The Lord Chancellor mastermind Lord Chancellor. No wonder the Prime Minister appointed him. But look, my constituents of Tatton, from school pupils to the leader of the Northern Circuit and barristers from the Middle Temple, urged me to speak today to say that this was an absolute disgrace and to put forward some of their suggestions. So from the barrister at Saint John's Buildings, who said, actually, I don't believe at all that cutting of a trial by jury will get down.

These lists will sort out the problem. In fact, I'm deeply concerned that such proposals will further erode the trust of the public in our justice system. It will remove their participation in criminal justice, and there is no evidence it will make any impact on the delays. A better way solutions which would stop and stop this backlog would be to stop the cap on the number of days that can be set. Let courts sit around the clock and also sort out the failure of the prisoner transport system that doesn't get defendants to court, or they get some.

They're late and wastes time now. Further, another barrister, a criminal barrister from King's Counsel at Lincoln House Chambers in Manchester, said I'm very concerned that curtailing jury trials is based on no credible evidence at all. In particular, there has been no pilot scheme. It appears that the suggested savings of 20% has been pulled out of thin air, and very importantly, it will erode a deeply entrenched constitutional principle that a jury may acquit as a matter of conscience. In these cases, it will remove a bulwark against misuse of the criminal courts by the government and those in authority, and the ability of a jury to take a view favourable to a defendant for reasons other than the evidence of guilt.

And what about the Lord Chancellor? Until a few weeks ago, he believed in juries to jury by trial. And one thing that backbenchers on the opposite of the opposition should really take into concern is constituents have said to me that for such an important change to our unwritten constitution, there should have been mention of this in the Labour Party manifesto, because that would have factored into my and this is his voting decision, and it could well have been.

If not, it would have been a very different decision. So the debate today has been very revealing. No data, no impact assessments, no pilot. And the Minister herself, who even suggests it's I.

15:08

Rebecca Paul MP (Reigate, Conservative)

- -

Order, order order order! Speaking limit is now three minutes. Rebecca Paul. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. Plans to restrict Deputy Speaker. Plans to restrict access to jury trial. Takes a sledgehammer to one of the most important protections for the people of this country. I would expect that any government suggesting a change of this magnitude would have a strong rationale for doing so. Instead, we hear the nonsensical argument that curtailing jury trials will address the courts backlog. Yet the Minister of State for courts herself told.

The court told the House that only 3% of court cases are jury cases. So before we even get into this debate, we need clarity on what this change means for the backlog. That means modelling and timescales, not justifications based on religious belief. I would suggest the government is getting desperate when that is the best it can offer. Maybe next we'll hear that the tooth fairy backs digital ID. Will father Christmas supports giving away the Chagos Islands back in the real world in 2024, the Lady Chief Justice gave evidence to the Justice Select Committee that our courts face around 100 unplanned closures every week, with 200 closures per month.

This is in line with credible data suggesting that just yesterday, 15% of our Crown Court rooms sat empty, and it's the same today. If the Minister wants to tackle the backlog, might this be the best place to start? But coming now on to the key benefit of jury trials themselves, which is the involvement of our peers in delivering justice, these are people in our own communities with no obvious axe to grind or political motivations. Any justice system that concentrates powers in the hands of a small number of repeat decision makers inevitably risks groupthink and unconscious or even conscious bias.

A jury is a built in safeguard 12 ordinary people drawn at random, bringing different instincts and experiences, and forced to test the prosecution's case. In a way a single decision maker cannot. Simply put, it's safer to spread human fallibility across 12 people than to concentrate it in one, a system in which liberty hinges solely on inputs from various arms of the state the police, the CPS and then a judge cannot be as inherently fair as one in which justice is done with the people's direct involvement.

But the curtailing of jury trials is not the only concern here. Ministers want to expand sentencing powers in the magistrates courts by allowing them to hand down sentences of up to two years, while at the same time restricting the ability to appeal decisions taken in those courts. It is extraordinary that someone can sit as a magistrate from the age of 18 with no legal qualifications or experience, and this government thinks they should be able to decide whether someone loses their liberty.

If you were in the dock, would you be happy with that? Juries may not be perfect, but I know what I would prefer. If the government is determined to push ahead with this, then it is knowingly increasing the risk of wrongful convictions and excessive sentences. We know more than 40% of appeals against decisions taken by magistrate courts are held. How many miscarriages of justice is this government willing to accept? Ministers would be foolish to trade away a centuries old safeguard for a headline about swift justice, only to discover afterwards that our courts are no speedier, just less just.

Yeah. In closing, Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that the British people must remain participants in their system of justice rather than mere observers. I urge Ministers to think again. Do not curtail jury trials. Do not concentrate yet. More power in fewer hands. Fix the courts. Protect our legal heritage. Thank you.

15:12

Aphra Brandreth MP (Chester South and Eddisbury, Conservative)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right to a trial by jury is a right that has stood at the very centre of our criminal justice system for centuries. It is a crucial check on the power of the state as it undertakes one of the most solemn duties to try citizen and to determine guilt or innocence. This principle is, in the words of the Lord Chancellor himself, a fundamental part of our democracy. But instead of taking practical and obvious measures, such as fully utilising courtrooms that currently sit empty to address the serious backlog in the criminal justice system, the government has instead opted for the destructive option that, in reality, is unlikely to adequately address the pressure on the system at all.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the government's approach rests on the flawed assumption that only certain cases are serious enough to merit trial by jury. But who, Madam Deputy Speaker, is to decide what counts as serious, horrific crimes such as murder and rape are rightly treated with the utmost gravity. But offences deemed lesser can still ruin lives. A theft accusation can end a career. An assault can leave lasting physical and psychological harm, a reputation can be destroyed beyond repair. Our justice system is not merely about classification, but about justice itself.

It works by consent and it is the stronger for it. Trial by jury embodies that public consent, and without it we risk victims trust in its fairness and defendants confidence that they will be judged fairly by their peers. Madam Deputy Speaker, this debate is also about judicial decision making. The reality is that not all judges are created equal. No one is infallible. Judges can get things wrong, and they do so and can do so on more than one occasion. The strength of the jury system lies in renewal.

Each case is considered by a fresh group of citizens. If a judge becomes the sole arbiter of guilt, there is a risk that errors, conscious or unconscious, can be repeated. The jury system makes our criminal justice system more robust, more resilient, and ultimately more trustworthy. Madam Deputy Speaker, jury trials also play a vital role in ensuring justice is done because they are drawn from the communities they serve. That's a point that was made to me by Daniel and Grace Robinson, who are constituents of mine and who are experts in addressing modern slavery and criminal exploitation.

From the hundreds of cases they've seen, they have seen that juries often recognise indicators of modern slavery much more than would have been done without them. And that's because they bring a broad range of experience. The government seeks to justify these changes on the basis of the backlog reduction and also on cost. But we must not weaken the system that is respected across the world.

15:14

Lewis Cocking MP (Broxbourne, Conservative)

- -

Lewis Cocking. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As we have heard, trial by jury is one of this country's most fundamental rights. Only months ago, this government was elected and Ministers were saying that jury service is an essential part of criminal justice, that it underpins impartiality and fairness that runs through our legal system. I would have thought that every member from right across the House would agree with that statement. Not a single one of us stood on a manifesto at the last general election to abolish jury trials in this country.

So why would Ministers be so keen to abandon this important tradition of our great country? Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact we are asking that question will come as no surprise to our constituents from abolishing local councils, cancelling elections to an imposing and authoritarian digital ID scheme. It all part of the same pattern. Again and again. This Labour government shows they're more than happy to curtail the voice and freedom of the British people. If the Ministry of Justice had exhausted every possible route to get that backlog down, their proposals on jury trials trials might have a bit more credibility.

This government could remove the cap on sitting days, ensuring courts can work at full capacity and ensure they work day and night to eliminate inefficiencies in the system, which wastes hours of court time. But they have not. Madam Deputy Speaker, having seen the justice system up close through my work with Hertfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner, I know huge amounts of time is lost before a case reaches court. A recent study from the University of Leicester found that, on average, it takes 113 days to charge a suspect after a crime has been recorded.

Issues between police forces and the CPS, when cases are submitted, can add at least 72 days to cases. Length communication between police forces and prosecutors could be vastly improved. Digital evidence such as body worn cameras. CCTV is widely present today, and the study notes that cases with digital evidence were submitted more quickly to the Kingdom. I urge this government to start listening, use all the tools available to them, and drop this disastrous policy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

R Stephenson Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I start by saying how extraordinary it was to saying how extraordinary it was to hear the Minister earlier say that she would be pursuing this even though there wasn't a back, even if there wasn't a backlog backlog to there wasn't a backlog backlog to deal with. It suggests that this was planned all along, but it's absolutely nowhere in the Labour absolutely nowhere in the Labour Party manifesto. I'd like the Minister, in summing up to explain why that's the case.

There is absolutely no mandate to reduce trial by jury. It is a profound constitutional shift, one that strikes at the heart of the relationship between citizen and state. Trial by jury is a centuries old safeguard designed to ensure that an individual can be judged guilty only by their peers, and not

15:18

Blake Stephenson MP (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

- -

by the machinery of the state. It is the ordinary person's shield against arbitrary power. And yet, astonishingly, the government now asks us to believe that this ancient protection must be ancient protection must be curtailed just because Ministers do not want to do the hard work to reduce the backlog. The Bar Council, reduce the backlog. The Bar Council, representing the very professionals who keep our justice system functioning, are correct to raise functioning, are correct to raise alarm bells. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that restricting jury trials will reduce the backlog.

None whatsoever. The government has produced no modelling, no data, no analysis to justify this constitutional gamble. This work should have been done before the announcement was made, especially for something of this magnitude. Around 3% of criminal cases currently reach a jury. To claim that reducing jury trials further will magically clear the backlog of tens of thousands of cases is just implausible. It defies logic. It makes no sense whatsoever. This is a complete distraction. No hon. Members supporting the government position have been able to explain how this will actually shift the dial on reducing the backlog, but the concern is deeper, and that's been explained by hon.

Friends on this side. Every time this government faces a crisis, its instinct is not to work out how sensibly to fix the system, but to take things away from British citizens. Examples have been given by hon. Friends digital ID, chaos, for example, and now taking away the right to be judged by their peers because they can't get a grip of the criminal justice system. Judge only trials may be quicker, but they're not fairer. They concentrate power in a single hand of a single state official.

Did it cross anyone's mind to pilot just juryless trials in Crown courts? And if not, why not? They removed the diversity of experience, the collective wisdom, and the democratic legitimacy that juries bring. How many judges are under 40? How many are non-white? How many were educated in state schools? How many have personal experience of the issues? Now ask the same question of juries. Jim Allister Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For me, the key question in this is what would be the impact on public confidence in our legal system? And I'm going to answer that question from my professional life, which was spent as a criminal barrister practising in our criminal courts. And I also answered from the perspective of answered from the perspective of someone who practised in Northern Ireland, where we had both jury trials and judge alone trials called Diplock courts. So I've seen them both.

I've operated them both. I know what the resulting public confidence level is from those respective types of trials. And I have absolutely no doubt that the public have far more confidence in 12 peers making a decision than any single judge making the decision. It's not that our judges aren't intellectually adequate. It's not that they don't have massive legal experience. It's the fact that they do not have the lived experience of 12 individuals who are deciding the facts of an equal person in respect of what is charged against them, and that is the genius of the jury system.

The 12 individuals who come to it without preconceptions, who come to it without the baggage of anything else, can, when they hear the evidence and the evidence, only make the decision, yes, I will.

15:22

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

- -

The member is making a very good point, and I too am a recovering lawyer myself. But will he agree on lawyer myself. But will he agree on the impact of these proposals? That because of the lack of confidence, what we're likely to see is not a what we're likely to see is not a cut in the backlog, but an increase in applications to the appeal court in applications to the appeal court to overturn unsafe convictions, hardly a way to fix the justice system.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Indeed, and indeed, I would remind the House that because of remind the House that because of concerns about the Diplock court, there was a Northern Ireland, an there was a Northern Ireland, an automatic right of appeal so as to try and build some confidence. But that automatic right of appeal that automatic right of appeal would not exist in the main in these proposals. But we're told these proposals. But we're told this will save time. This will not save time.

What time are you saving? An hour to swear in a jury a day, maybe that a jury deliberates on. But as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East pointed out, a judge who has to make a decision might give an extra decision there and then, but he has to go away and write it up. He'll spend a lot longer writing it up, knowing it has to go through the fine tooth comb of a Court of appeal, perhaps, than a jury will spend in reaching a decision.

So there will be no time saving, the loss of time. The delays in our courts come primarily, in my experience, from delays in providing disclosure, from delays in justice, in in witnesses not being available. None of that will change under this system. But what will change under this system is a body build confidence in the judicial system and the legal process. And for me, the government lost this debate today when the bottom fell out of their case, when the justice Minister had to when the Minister had to say, effectively, this is not about delays.

Yes, this is about an ideology. It's an ideology which outfits this house, an ideology that this House most convincingly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should reject. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since the year since 1220, trial by Since the year since 1220, trial by 12 good men, trials by jury have been taking place. Juries are a key way that citizens consent to and way that citizens consent to and participate in. One of the most significant powers of state holds to convict and imprison subjects, according to the Secretary of State's figures stated in this House, on the 15th of December last year, only 3% of all criminal cases year, only 3% of all criminal cases are heard by a judge and jury under the current regime.

He also claimed that jury trials will remain a cornerstone of the British justice system. Delayed justice is justice denied and yet now he is choosing to bring to an end almost almost 1000 year system in the name of efficiency. This is a complete red herring. There are remedies already available that would help solve that backlog. In November, the Institute for government stated that the major drivers of poor productivity are not having enough criminal lawyers, badly maintained court buildings, shortages of court staff and poor technology.

Whilst none of these are quick or easy to overcome, maximising productivity is a far more practical and measured step than the controversial and nuclear option of introducing judge only trials via the introduction of a new intermediate court, the Crown Court Bench Division, that has neither been piloted nor thoroughly modelled. And I heard the Minister there chuntering from a sedentary position about who started that. Well, the government is doing nothing to address it. They could do as we do on these benches, and suggest that by starting providing adequate sitting days.

Lady Chief Justice has already said that currently there are 2000 days going unused. Rather than abolish a significant part of our system, I would advise the government to help sort the backlog by allocating these. The Ifgs identified that scrapping jury trials will save between 7 to 8% of the time currently spent on Crown Court jury cases, abolishing a practice which such a small percentage of cases use shows. This government is more focussed on the same tinkering at the edges of the Justice Secretary stated we cannot afford to do, as opposed to using pragmatic, clear solutions that could help fix the issues.

It also represents yet another in a long range of examples of Labour wanting to take power from citizens and further engorge the state. The Justice Secretary need not only listen to me. The Bar Council's leadership issued a statement that made clear their position that they are against the curtailment of jury trials, stating there is no evidence. We have seen that it will significantly reduce the Crown Court backlog. However, there is evidence that diminishing the constitutional principle of trial by jury will erode trust in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our criminal justice system. When the Justice Secretary gave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When the Justice Secretary gave evidence to the. Justice Committee. In December, he said that the evidence underpinning that 20% time evidence underpinning that 20% time saving that comes from Sir Byron's report would be released. But if it does make that proposition good, and I understand he's he he disputes that. But if it does, would he and his party still oppose even the principle of structural

**** Possible New Speaker ****

even the principle of structural reform, even if it's necessary to cut the backlog and keep it down? I have just been informed that the hon. Member only walked into the chamber about five minutes ago.

15:27

Ben Obese-Jecty MP (Huntingdon, Conservative)

- -

Order. >> The member has been here for a while. He wasn't allowed to participate in the speech because he wasn't here at the beginning, but he has been here for a while.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but he has been here for a while. Ben Obese-Jecty I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I'll make progress. No one who voted for Labour voted for this. Seismic Labour voted for this. Seismic change. The way it is rushed, knee jerk and smacks of a justice secretary who, still smarting from his demotion from one of the great offices of state, is now overcompensating by attempting to make his mark. I urge the government to reconsider, and I urge those on the government benches who plan to rebel today to do so clear in the conscience that they are simply cutting out the middle man, because the government will inevitably end up with those rebels already are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There you go, you go. Monica Harding. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Trial by jury is not a luxury. It is one of the oldest and most fundamental protections in this country, and it is a key safeguard country, and it is a key safeguard of liberty. Yet under this government, it is being treated not as a principle to be defended, but as a principle to be defended, but as a system to be rationed. We all agree that there is a crisis in the criminal justice system, and that criminal justice system, and that we need to bring them back.

Lock down cases are drifting for years before reaching court, draining justice of its force and credibility, to the frustration of my constituents in Esher and Walton, the consequences fall heavily on victims and witnesses. Prolonged delays weaken evidence, memories fade, statements are withdrawn and prosecutions collapsed, and confidence in law and order, and therefore democracy falters. As my local borough commander told me this week, this undermines policing.

15:28

Monica Harding MP (Esher and Walton, Liberal Democrat)

- -

The government have rightly prioritised community policing, and my own force in Esher and Walton my own force in Esher and Walton have increased the rate of burglaries by 84%. So wouldn't it be great if we all slept safely in be great if we all slept safely in our beds? No, because residents were shocked to learn that two individuals arrested for burglary in December, charged in December, will not appear in court until September 2027. Similar problems September 2027. Similar problems arise in youth justice, where sentences is repeatedly deferred, leaving young offenders without timely consequences.

And that most important lesson if you are young, that if you commit a crime, you will be punished. It erodes public confidence, confidence. But why not use the most immediate lever? Lift the cap on court sitting days. Late last year, I visited Kingston Crown Court. The backlog has grown by 25%, yet courtrooms sit unused. Staff described to me the frustration of having judges, clerks, ushers, spaces and cases ready to proceed, only to be blocked by centrally in place limits on sitting days.

Government imposed caps. It's nonsensical. It makes no sense to pay for court buildings, judges and staff and then prevent them from operating fully. That is a false economy, which shifts the cost onto victims communities and public trust. The government have only marginally increased Crown Court sitting days, barely touching the scale of the backlog and falling far short of what is needed. And this goes back to the priorities of the Treasury. Surely they must prioritise law and order first. Instead, the government has decided to treat jury trials as a nuisance.

They seem too costly and inconvenient. They have been squeezed not because they have failed, but because cutting them is easier than rebuilding the system around them. This is a political choice, and it seems like an ideological choice from the conversation earlier, not an inevitability. The Liberal Democrats have set out a serious alternative to lift the cap, invest in court buildings, lift the cap on sitting days, use courtrooms, effectively, fix broken contracts at council hearings, including the failure of prisoners transport to bring defendants to court on time and invest in rehabilitation to reduce offending.

This is not what my constituents in Walton want.

15:31

Sir Ashley Fox MP (Bridgwater, Conservative)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not agree that the government should curtail our rights to trial should curtail our rights to trial by jury. Trial by jury is an ancient right in England and is the very essence of our criminal justice system. Combined with the government proposals for digital ID, it reveals a very authoritarian attitude. It marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the state, and I shall vote against it.

There is a crisis within the criminal justice system and specifically with the Crown Court backlog. But that backlog was not caused by trial by jury and will not be cured by its removal. Why does the Lord Chancellor believe that abolishing the right to jury trials for those likely to receive a sentence of three years or less, is the right thing to do to bring down the backlog. If it is based, as he says on evidence, then will he publish that as soon as possible? In the last two years, government figures show that the Ministry of Justice, which includes the court service, lost the highest number of days per member of staff in sickness and absence in the whole of Whitehall, an average of 10.7 days sickness, more than two working weeks for every member of staff.

That is more than 30% higher than the civil service average, and over twice the UK average, if you include the private sector where the Lord Chancellor to focus his efforts on improving the efficiency of his own department, he might start to see the system as a whole improve. With

**** Possible New Speaker ****

approximately happy to give way. But I think it's important to because I've just been to visit Bournemouth Crown Court and Magistrate Court, and they actually talked about that question of sickness. They talked about the fact that their staff have been fact that their staff have been carrying the load for so many members of a team that weren't in members of a team that weren't in place because they'd seen austerity. There's so many staff in the Crown Court system who may be going on to sickness leave because they are sickness leave because they are burned out.

They're burned out from years of cuts. Would he not recognise that? Actually, what we need to have is an investment in our Crown Court system in order that they can get back on their feet, and that criminal justice can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

also get back on its feet. My experience, Madam Deputy Speaker, staff absences normally caused and the result of poor management and I suspect the Ministry of Justice is managing its staff significantly worse than the staff significantly worse than the rest of the civil service. If staff sickness is 30% above the public sector, which wasn't great to begin with, with approximately 16,400 staff in the court service simply staff in the court service simply reducing the rate of absences to the civil service average would free up nearly 50,000 working days.

That would help cut the backlog without undermining the principle of a fair trial. We know this government has a habit of making bad decisions, getting ambitious backbenchers to defend them for a few months, sending a hapless junior Minister out to face the media while the Secretary of State hides in his office only at the last minute to realise what a disaster these plans are before executing a U-turn that comes far too late to gain any credit. We've seen this on winter fuel, on welfare reforms, on the grooming gangs, inquiry, on the two child benefit cap and most recently, the family Farm and family business tax.

So I would urge Labour backbenchers to be very cautious about supporting the government this evening. They risk voting for something their constituents don't want. That in their hearts they know is wrong. And ultimately they know that late in the day the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government will back down, leaving their credibility in shreds. Steve Barclay Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Steve Barclay Madam Deputy Speaker, now, I wouldn't say this of most of the debates that I attend in the House, but I think this one has been genuinely very revealing and revealing primarily for what the Minister said, both at for what the Minister said, both at the end of her remarks and what she said in her opening. And as the

15:35

Rt Hon Steve Barclay MP (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

- -

said in her opening. And as the Member for North Antrim quite powerfully brought out, and he speaks with great professional experience on this issue. These are proposals that will not work. It is exactly what she's been told by her own colleagues. The Member for Kingston upon Hull East described them as ludicrous proposals that won't work. It's what she's been told by her own profession, her own colleagues in the legal profession, who point to the fact that these proposals won't work. And indeed, that also speaks to a conundrum of past debates we've had on this as to why there is such a reluctance on the part of the government to bring forward the impact assessment.

If they've already made this decision, if they've already taken the view that these changes will work, then surely they'd want to present the evidence to prove that. And indeed, as was pointed out earlier in the debate, if they won't publish the full impact assessment, surely they publish the threshold, the minimum tipping point on which this policy would be determined worthwhile, not least, given how fundamental a change that is being proposed. But indeed, as the Minister set out at the end of her remarks, irrespective of whether there was a crisis in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

courts, this is a change she will be making nonetheless. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. And there we have it. There we have the crux, the nail on the head that the Member for North Antrim that the Member for North Antrim hit, which is this is an ideological change. Now that in turn opens up a second paradox, turn opens up a second paradox, which is if it's ideological, why wasn't it in then a manifesto? wasn't it in then a manifesto? Indeed, if it's ideological, why was it contrary to what the Justice Secretary said so many times in opposition, when did he have this change of belief to this new ideological position? And that in turn speaks, and given the time limit, turns also to a further contradiction, because the Prime Minister so often has spoken about the need for more trust in politics.

And yet we have a policy here with no transparency, no evidence it will work. A fundamental change after 800 years of legal precedents that wasn't in the manifesto. That's contrary to the remarks that they made. And I close, as the Member for Bridgwater pointed out, and he gave a list as the Member for New Forest West quite rightly identified, because at the start of her remarks, the Minister also spoke about choices. This will be a choice for Labour back benchers, and it's a choice that are at risk of making only for then the Prime Minister to belatedly change his mind.

15:37

Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)

- -

15:58

Jake Richards MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Rother Valley, Labour)

- -

public confidence and is fit for the realities of the 21st century. These changes will provide a long term, stable foundations for the term, stable foundations for the criminal court system and prevent the caseload reaching these levels again. That should be our focus, again. That should be our focus, not a narrow debate on the merits of tradition versus the challenges of the day, or preserving a system of the day, or preserving a system that so clearly no longer works for the British people. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Speaker. The question is that the original words and parts of the question, as many as are of that opinion, say I. I of the contrary,

15:58

Jury trials:Division

16:13

Opposition Day Debate: Rural communities

inform the House that Mr. Speaker selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the opposition spokesperson to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

call the opposition spokesperson to move the motion. Shadow Minister, Atkins. Yes.

16:13

Rt Hon Victoria Atkins MP (Louth and Horncastle, Conservative)

- -

16:28

Dame Angela Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Wallasey, Labour)

- -

16:54

Sarah Dyke MP (Glastonbury and Somerton, Liberal Democrat)

- -

17:09

Michelle Welsh MP (Sherwood Forest, Labour)

- -

has farmers along with their families who are dedicated, hard working, decent people trying to make a living managing our countryside. They've had to battle for 12 months on inheritance tax and I'm incredibly pleased that the and I'm incredibly pleased that the government have listened. But we must continue to listen. Farming is under pressure. Some of the main under pressure. Some of the main challenges raised to me by local farmers include persistent rural crime, limited policing capacity, crime, limited policing capacity, low farm profitability, low morale, workforce insecurity, biosecurity risks linked to imports and uncertainty around farm schemes and long term policy stability on rural crime.

Farmers tell me that they are reporting persistent and escalating crime, including organised poaching gangs on quad bikes who at night are damaging livestock fencing and intimidating farmers and gamekeepers. This is understandably causing significant risk to safety and animal welfare, as well as costing farmers for product, land, equipment and property. It is unsustainable for many farms for this issue to continue without prevention. The police are already overstretched and without support from government. With frontline enforcement and prevention, the situation will only get worse.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to also emphasise the need for every police force to adequately recall rural crime and to treat it seriously. The livelihood and safety safety of local farmers and communities deserve nothing less. I therefore ask that the government issues a mandate to all police forces, including in Nottinghamshire, that isn't currently doing it, to record rural crime and provide regular reports that will guide resources to where it needs to be. Can I ask the Minister to speak to their Home Office colleagues about a clear mandate on reporting of rural crime, and about the current support for Nottinghamshire Police, and direct additional resources specifically for rural policing and rural crime? The increases of rural crime is combined, compounded with existing concerns with farm viability, low returns and workforce pressures affecting business confidence and employment stability.

Very low commodity prices are squeezing margins and many are worried about maintaining sustainable wages for staff. If we are truly committed to. I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I thank my hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Could I just ask her to perhaps comment also on the importance of rural bus services in terms of mobility of local staff in rural areas and in particular to commend the work by Labour mayors on bus franchising and the work of Nottingham buses and reading buses,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nottingham buses and reading buses, and providing excellent rural routes. And I thank him for their comments. Certainly in my comments. Certainly in my constituency, rural transport, including bus services, are not how they should be at the moment and I know the East Midlands, Clare Ward is actually having a conversation about that across the East Midlands with regards to improvement proving it. If we are truly committed to supporting our local farmers, we must show that there are jobs available and that morale is high enough that people will want to have them.

I would like to mention the current uncertainty around government schemes, particularly the lack of clarity on sustainable farming, incentive scheme and payment certainty, and capital grants availability. Perhaps the Minister could offer some insight into further long term plans or announcements on support schemes for farmers farms. We often say that small family farms are the backbone of rural communities, and they definitely are, but we need targeted support to ensure that they remain viable and we do not lose them. Finally, an issue that is raised to me by farmers is a serious concern about disease entering the UK.

Could the Minister reassure me and local farmers that they are working to ensure their effective controls on imported meat, and that UK production and food standards are not undermined by imported goods that do not meet the same standards? Rural communities are not a museum piece and farming is not a hobby. They are the backbone of our country. If we fail our farmers, we cut our villages from transport, jobs and services. We don't just damage the countryside, we weaken Britain itself. Supporting rural communities is not a charity.

It is a duty. And it's a duty this country must finally honour. Behind

**** Possible New Speaker ****

every field is a family. Behind every farm is a future. So, Julian Smith.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy. Speaker. You know, as a Bradford MP, how sparse? North Yorkshire is the sparse? North Yorkshire is the largest rural road network in England. Historic funding, special funding for rural schools and funding for rural schools and almost all employment coming from small businesses and hospitality. Huge efforts were made by the last government to save businesses in

17:14

Rt Hon Sir Julian Smith MP (Skipton and Ripon, Conservative)

- -

agricultural areas during Covid, through the Bounce Back loans and other loans. But Covid hit in the other loans. But Covid hit in the context of long term pressures, existing pressures, farming, undervalued shops closing, rural undervalued shops closing, rural schools consolidating or federating, post offices going, churches post offices going, churches shutting. In spite of this, communities work hard to both fight these trends and to continue to maintain the fabric of their local societies. Coffee mornings, clubs support for older people in the shadow of Covid Madam Deputy Speaker with the other pressures facing rural communities, the new government had a responsibility to tread really carefully with this part of our country.

But as we've seen with the Farms Tax, what has happened since the election are a series of hammer blows on our rural communities, massive stress to small farms that rely on intergenerational leadership to survive the Employment Rights Bill, with many more burdens on small businesses, disproportionately hits areas like North Yorkshire. These businesses have fantastic ways of managing employee relationships. Informal but robust, but without the need for even more contractual arrangements. The removal of the Rural services grant and now the removal of the bad weather adjustment in the local government financing settlement on transport's fuel duty, scrapped the drink driving laws changes and now this loss of reliefs for public houses, £26,000 is the average increase in cost rates.

Costs for pubs in North Yorkshire and even the new mayor of North Yorkshire, Labour mayor hammering the tourism industry with a tourism attack. These places Madam Deputy Speaker provide a place to meet in rural areas. They provide events for old people, they fundraise for local causes. We've heard earlier, they provide jobs for the increasing number of people leaving college without opportunities. And Madam Deputy Speaker, farmers, small businesses, pubs, hospitality venues all just trying to make a reasonable turn using their private capital.

But under such massive pressure from this government, I urge Ministers to move quickly on the valuations issue to triple check parts of the local government settlement, and I also urge it to reset its relationship with rural communities within government and Whitehall, develop a cumulative impact test for these communities, and avoid the missteps we've seen so far in the past year.

17:16

Terry Jermy MP (South West Norfolk, Labour)

- -

Yes. >> Jeremy. Very much. >> I may be biased, but I believe Norfolk is a beautiful place to Norfolk is a beautiful place to grow up and grow old in. It is the place where I was born and raised, and it's where I call home. Like so and it's where I call home. Like so many rural communities, it is a place that values cooperation,

17:17

Rt Hon Sir Julian Smith MP (Skipton and Ripon, Conservative)

- -

community and compassion. But for so many years, those values were tested because we saw conservative

17:17

Terry Jermy MP (South West Norfolk, Labour)

- -

17:21

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

- -

So Geoffrey Clifton-Brown. my constituent, I wish to start by declaring an interest as a farmer and chairman of the all party shooting and conservation group. Rural, rural communities like the Cotswolds feel totally neglected by this government. We talk about the cost of living, but the cost of rural living is even higher. The family farm tax, the rise in National Insurance contributions, food bills, water bills, heating bills, business rates. I could go on. Madam Deputy Speaker, just before the recess, the government stealthily announced the local government funding settlement, which included cuts for Gloucestershire County Council.

Whereas many urban authorities have seen an increase under the so-called fairer funding three year review, Gloucestershire County Council will have a gap of £10 million in 2000 and 607, £20 million in 2728 and 30,000,000 in 20 2930. As a result, Gloucestershire will have to rely on council tax, including a higher police precept. They will no doubt also have cuts in services as well. In addition to all of that, Madam Deputy Speaker, my constituents also face inadequate funding for education. We are in the bottom 20% nationally funding for pupil.

This is unfair on our children. The family farm tax was a cruel policy. I am pleased that the government have finally listened after 14 months and have compromised on this tax, even though the threshold has been increased to 2.5 million, this policy will still break up farms and is the £300 million to be raised to the Treasury really worth the destruction of the farming community? Food resilience must be the top priority. It is astonishing that the government cancelled the Food Resilience annual report to Parliament, and I ask them to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reinstate it. I wonder if my. Friend. As ever, making a valuable contribution to our consideration. Does he recognise that energy security and food security should security and food security should not be made competitors? We need to. We need to invest in energy We need to invest in energy security, of course, but not at the expense of the most fertile, valuable farmland in the country, valuable farmland in the country, which we need to grow enough food to feed the nation.

I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for right hon. Friend for that intervention. As a chartered surveyor who has studied rural properties and farms, we should not be putting wind farms or photovoltaics on the best farmland in this country. Are you? the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hon. Gentleman for giving way. The wording of the motion seems to imply that the conservatives are imply that the conservatives are against any and all renewables in the countryside, but even the most the countryside, but even the most ardent opponents of an oversized industrial scale solar farm in my industrial scale solar farm in my constituency of the South Cotswolds would still support rooftop solar. So I would be very grateful if the hon. Member, the right hon. Member, would please clarify this point whether indeed the conservatives

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are against all renewables in countryside. But my Labour uncharacteristically didn't clearly uncharacteristically didn't clearly listen to what I said, which was we shouldn't put them on the best land shouldn't put them on the best land in this country. Yes. In the North Cotswolds, hospitality produces an estimated £220 million to the local estimated £220 million to the local economy, and we know that rising business rates are going up on average by 32,000 on average. Two average by 32,000 on average.

Two pubs a day are closing. They are literally being taxed out of existence. We shouldn't be banning trail hunting, which adds 100 million to the rural economy. I am lucky enough to represent some of the most famous hunts, and if we carry this policy through, how many people will directly or indirectly lose their jobs? How many thousands of hounds will be euthanised to support this unwelcome measure? A further threat is to the shooting industry. Shooting indirectly contributes 3.3 billion to the rural economy, 9 billion to the wider economy.

Last year, we saw staggering 245% increases in shotgun and firearms certificate bills. But the thing that is worrying the shooting community at the moment is the move from section two to section one. For shotguns, this will involve a huge extra bureaucracy, and there is now a Basque petition of well over a million signatures opposing this. So I urge the government to reconsider this damaging proposal. And in conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, rural Britain is the backbone of our nation, yet it is being systematically disadvantaged by this government.

From food resilience to hospitality, from farming to country pursuits. These issues are not niche. They are fundamental to our economy, our environment and above all, our rural way of life. If we fail to act now, we risk losing not only livelihoods, but the very fabric of our countryside.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Ben Goldsborough. Thank you very. Much, speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Much, speaker. So I want to focus on three main points today within the rural communities because of South Norfolk now having a Labour MP for Norfolk now having a Labour MP for the first time since 1950, I think goes to show a really key point for members opposite need to pay attention that there has been a huge change within rural representation within this country. representation within this country. And some humility, I think would be welcome on taking these points forward. Now I want to focus on these three main points, which are healthcare, which weren't mentioned in the actual motion, which I think is something a bit odd because we do get ill as well within the backbenches on our side as well.

17:27

Ben Goldsborough MP (South Norfolk, Labour)

- -

Infrastructure is another issue as well that has needs to be focussed upon. And then finally, obviously farming within South Norfolk. So to start off with healthcare, this government to start off with has invested £9 million for the Norfolk invested £9 million for the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital in my constituency, which makes a huge difference for our local economy. Stopping people getting sick, Stopping people getting sick, meaning sure that we have the investment we need as well, directly onto the ground for our healthcare professionals.

But not only that, we've also seen £1.3 million invested into the Cotman Centre, which has specialist centre for Cancer and prevention. The Wyndham Health Centre, my largest market town, has also seen money invested in their Long Stratton Health Centre as well and the Cringleford surgery. Each one of these means that my constituents can live happier, healthier and longer lives because of it now. Infrastructure. Since my time of being elected, the first Labour MP since 1952 South Norfolk, I've secured over £200 million into the upgrades of the Thickthorn junction of the A11 and A47, something that's been waiting for years for Norfolk to be done, which will directly improve the connectivity of constituencies across Norfolk, including to the right hon.

Gentleman in Broadland and Fakenham. So these investments will happen directly as well. There's also been £289 million of investment into broadband contracts, which are being rolled out to villages across Norfolk and will make huge differences to me locally as well. And then also there's the Project Gigabit system as well. 131,000 homes have now been connected. Now farming. This is something that's really important to me because as the hon. Gentleman on the shadow front bench also knows, I've got a slight bit of an obsession with biosecurity in the United Kingdom.

This is one thing that we need to take extremely seriously, and I urge my colleagues on the front benches, as I know they have to this point, to continue with the investment into Harlow and other places to ensure that our borders are kept safe, that we are stopping the threat of avian influenza, and also African swine fever into the United Kingdom. We cannot continue blindly walking down an alley where we're not protecting our farming industry. On that. We also need to be looking at how, going forward, we act more on planning policy on farming as well, such as reservoirs, and ensuring that broilers particularly have the easy access economy.

17:29

Charlie Dewhirst MP (Bridlington and The Wolds, Conservative)

- -

Yeah. >> Charlie Dewhirst. >> Oh yeah. Deputy speaker, now it very much feels like we are back to very much feels like we are back to the future. Or as the Minister has been channelling her inner Charli XCX, she just wants to go back to 1999 because 27 years later, here we are with a Labour government at war with the countryside, discussing issues such as hunting potentially enormously damaging changes to the pig industry and enormous, enormous changes that could affect our countryside and our rural economy.

Fresh from the hammer blow of the family farm tax and family business tax over a year ago, I will take this opportunity to pay tribute to those members on the other side who did quietly campaign against it and have achieved some changes. But whilst the Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away. So while that news was announced just before Christmas, we also saw the arrival of the government's Animal Welfare strategy, a document that could have been written by the NGOs and animal rights activists themselves, and contains some potentially extraordinarily damaging measures that could indeed harm farming well into the future.

Now, these are often technical and quite complex matters. Now, when I mentioned 1999, it's very important to remember what happened. The government, rightly at the time, took a view that South Dorset were needed to be phased out, but instead of phasing them out, they banned them overnight and destroyed 50% of the British pig industry. So when you look at future animal welfare matters such as farrowing, it is very, very important that the government works with the industry to ensure that any future changes and transition is done, so it does not affect our ability to produce fantastic British pork and supports our farmers and ensures British food security.

There are other measures that need to be discussed, such as the use of CO2 in stunning another technical matter, a matter that needs to be worked with through the with the food processors, food processors and abattoir owners to ensure once again that we do not damage our food security. There are lots of other things my hon. Friend the Member for North, hon. Friend. The Member for North Cotswold, mentioned the issues with shooting and the changes to firearms and shotguns certification and licensing. You said, of course there are 67,000 people employed.

There are over 600,000 people engaged in that industry. It is hugely important to my constituency in Bridlington, the world and to neighbouring constituencies like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, where a town like Helmsley brings around £1.5 million a week alone from shooting. So very, very important that we take that into account. Also, while I have a moment, I think it's important that we mention the SPS deal, that wonderful thing that is being trumpeted by the government and by the Liberal Democrats, which we sold out our fishing industry for 12 years for for something that has yet to be negotiated and which if you speak to farming representatives, they will tell you, is likely to cost farmers hundreds of millions of pounds and likely to reduce our food production and increase our reliance on imports.

Look, I will always stand up for our farming community and for our rural economy, and I commend the motion of the opposition today.

17:32

Josh Newbury MP (Cannock Chase, Labour)

- -

Josh Newbury. >> Thank you. >> We have had a bitterly cold start to 2026, but as always this week, farmers up and down the week, farmers up and down the country have been out in all weathers and all hours helping their neighbours and clearing vital routes. And I'm delighted that just a fortnight ago we had the news that the threshold for Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief, due to come into force in April, has been raised considerably, to a total of £5 million for a couple.

Even if one of them has already passed away. I very much welcome the fact that this Labour government has listened to the farming community, and I pay tribute to my fellow backbench Labour MPs who raised this privately and constructively for many months before feeling we had to voice our concerns publicly, as well as to the national farmers unions in all four nations and many others for their steadfast and constructive campaigning on this. And above all, I would like to thank the farmers in my constituency who sat down with me and opened up about their very private family matters as well as their businesses.

Two things that are uniquely intertwined in farming. I know the changes are a huge relief to them, but Madam Deputy Speaker, one issue that is on our roads that farmers cannot solve is a lack of bus services. Often part of rural life is the services you rely on being further away. But when public transport is non-existent or inadequate, that physical distance becomes deprivation. Most of our villages in Cannock Chase have just an hourly service and slitting mill, as I have mentioned many times in the house, has none at all.

I'm very proud that the Bus Services Act, which I served on the Bill committee for, has given local transport authorities the ability to seize the opportunities of franchising and publicly owned bus companies on Staffordshire. Yes, I'll have to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. Villages in my. Own Shipley constituency such as Eldwick, Gilstead, Cullingworth, Eldwick, Gilstead, Cullingworth, Harden, Wilton suffer from the same problems with the decline in rural bus services under the Tory government. So will my hon. Friend government. So will my hon. Friend agree with me that it is under this Labour government and the announcements around the Rural announcements around the Rural Transport Accelerator Fund that are going to restore vital connections to our rural villages.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Madam Deputy Speaker, I very much agree with my friend, but I am a little envious of her, if I must confess, because she, of course, has the mayor of West Yorkshire backing up the Labour government and using that investment wisely and hopefully making use of the powers that are introduced in that act as well. Whereas as I was about to say on Staffordshire County Council, the conservatives took absolutely no interest in this during their time in power. And recent news of reform UK's cost cutting review suggest that our bus services will continue to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

neglected. Following. Yes, I'll give way very briefly. My friend and. Constituency neighbour for his.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Constituency neighbour for his. For his kind words and his campaigning on this issue, as I'm sure he well knows. Rugeley Trent Valley train station serves a very Valley train station serves a very rural area, mainly in my constituency with the footprint of the station is, but it's also the the station is, but it's also the access to the West Coast Main Line for his constituents that is not accessible by a bus service. And does he agree that actually we should be extending bus travel so people can get to a train station on a bus and have all the access and all the opportunities that come with that, rather than what we've got at the minute, which is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legacy of conservative failure. Absolutely. Madam Speaker, I couldn't agree more with my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, and I would add that Rugeley Trent and I would add that Rugeley Trent Valley also doesn't have accessible access either, which is a big issue that the two of us are campaigning that the two of us are campaigning hard on and hope to see some progress on this year. Following the shameful revelation that reform shows a supporter of white supremacy to lead our County Council, and the fact that the dosage unit has yet to visit.

dosage unit has yet to visit. Reform have just announced a cut of £1 million to concessionary fares in the coming financial year. And transparency clearly is not in their vocabulary because reform refused to say who will be affected by these cuts. You cannot slash £1 million from the concessions relied on by thousands of residents without having an adverse effect on them, particularly in rural communities. Whilst this government is giving councils more money for road repairs and public transport reform, led Staffordshire County Council is filling even fewer potholes than the conservatives did, and bus services are not improving as they should be.

Rural communities that were let down by the old Conservative Party are now being let down by the new turquoise Conservative Party. I'd love to have said much more Madam Deputy Speaker on mobile phone coverage and healthcare, but I will finish by saying that the clearest ways we can support our rural communities are by standing with our farmers who put food on our tables, ensuring our constituents can get around on reliable buses and access healthcare that is just as good as people in big cities enjoy, because rural Britain is and will always be a vital part of our nation.

17:37

Dr Danny Chambers MP (Winchester, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Here Scott Arthur Danny Chambers. >> Thank you, Madam. >> Deputy Speaker, one of the best things about the boundary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Changes at the last general election is that Winchester is now 60% rural, and I've spent many happy years driving around the happy years driving around the countryside of the Meon Valley, treating horses. One thing that is very obvious is that the the communities, the towns, the villages in rural areas are absolutely cut off in many different ways because often where there's no mobile signal, there's often no broadband or no fast broadband either. But an added extra pressure over the last few years is that buses are now being cancelled as well.

And Madam Deputy Speaker, this year, well, last year, 2025, I spent a lot of time working with local communities who are trying to save bus services, trying to restore bus services because they're an absolute lifeline. A there was the number 61 bus that was cancelled to Colden Common and Bishop's Waltham. It had been running a hundred years. I took the last bus journey. The bus driver was telling me this particular route had been going 100 years, and Hampshire County Council withdrew funding for this bus.

It's not only important for people to get to work, to get to school, but it is vital for people's independence. Madam Deputy Speaker, I've met many elderly people who use this bus to get to to get to Winchester for hospital appointments, to, to, to go to the doctors to do their shopping. And they say without this bus they would actually not be able to remain living in the little village. They wouldn't be able to remain living independently. And I think something that hadn't occurred to me was the communities that the buses themselves create.

So I met some people, Madam Deputy Speaker, who said that their friends are now on the they met on the bus. They now go for coffee together. They check up on each other, and they wouldn't have even known each other had they not been on the same bus together. So I would. I've got a lot to say about this bus. I've only it's not the only bus. I think. Although it is amusing, this is something that, you know, the Conservatives and Hampshire County Council have cut funding for these buses.

They froze council tax for years. The conservative government cut funding for the local council, and now local people are paying the price at a very poor financial decisions. And the first thing that is being cut are buses that affect people's everyday life and the individual experience. And it is a real a good example of poor financial management. And individuals are now paying the price for that.

17:40

Sean Woodcock MP (Banbury, Labour)

- -

Thank you very. >> I'm very proud to be the Member of Parliament for Banbury, where I was born and grew up. And I'm keenly aware that I'm not just the keenly aware that I'm not just the MP for that town. I'm proud to represent the small towns of Chipping Norton, Charlbury, as well as the villages and countryside of north Oxfordshire. Many people in these places put their trust in me and in Labour for the first time. They did so because the Conservative Party lost the trust of the British people in rural areas, just like the rest of the country.

The people in those areas remember the party opposite, dragging them out of the European Union on broken promises to reduce immigration, of a better deal for farmers, and of more money for our NHS. They remember a conservative Prime Minister who party during lockdown. They remember a chaotic mini budget that sent mortgages skyrocketing and nearly crashed the economy. Yeah, I raise all of this because the Tories try and pitch division between rural communities and our towns and cities where there is none.

The reality is that while they are different, people in those areas have exactly the same issues and very much the same concerns. The conservatives left our communities with sky high NHS waiting lists. They left village schools that were literally crumbling. They left terrible infrastructure and our county and country roads riddled with potholes. They left rivers like the Cherwell and Diglyme clogged with sewage. And today we've been reminded that they have learnt absolutely nothing. Nothing. We've learnt that they would do nothing for the residents in Claydon, in my constituency, who are suffering harassment because they complain about their pets being killed, their gardens being wrecked and their children being terrified.

As dogs and horses from the Warwickshire hunt run across their through their village under the smokescreen of trail hunting. Yeah, yeah. Now, I will acknowledge that the issue of Agricultural Property Relief has caused concern for many farmers, but the chief reason for their concern is not just that that those changes to tax, they concern because they were let down by the Conservative Party for so long. They know that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conservatives sold out farmers and undercut them in trade deals with New Zealand and Australia. Will you. Give way on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That point? Happy to give way. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. It's not just those constituents of Banbury who know that they were let down by the that they were let down by the trade deals. In Australia and New Zealand, it's the Conservative Party themselves, my predecessor, my conservative predecessor. Does my conservative predecessor. Does he not agree? Said in this House of the of when he was in this house of of the Australia deal that it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wasn't a very good deal for the UK. I'll just echo the sentiments of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll just echo the sentiments of his of his my colleague predecessor Amanda Hack the people in my constituency know and the farmers of my constituency know that it was the conservatives who allowed food inflation at 19.1%, while they, as farmers, continue to suffer from unfair market practices from supermarkets that prospered rather than the farmers themselves. They than the farmers themselves. They know that it was the conservatives who bottled planning reforms that would make it easier for farm businesses to invest, diversify and to grow.

And we also know that in our that they, the Conservative Party, like to pigeonhole people living in rural areas. Now our villages and our countryside are filled with different people who have one thing in common their love for where they live and their desire to make it better. They want a government that is committed to fixing and solving those problems. The issues that matter to them the NHS, schools, the economy. But they also want better buses, they want better connectivity and they want an end to rural crime.

People in villages across my constituency abandoned the conservatives at the last election, and the reason they did that is because the Conservative Party abandoned them. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

promise you one thing. I won't be here. Steve Barclay. Thank you. Madam Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The irony won't be lost on farmers in Norfolk and across the border in my constituency in Fenland. Of hearing the Member for Fenland. Of hearing the Member for South West Norfolk and South Norfolk say how important farming is, having also then voted for the is, having also then voted for the family farm tax. And indeed, that builds on a contradiction we saw at the general election, because the the general election, because the Labour Party said they wanted to offer a new deal for farming, and yet that New Deal has seriously wants to intervene.

She can rather than but go ahead.

17:44

Rt Hon Steve Barclay MP (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

- -

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I feel slightly less vulnerable because he's made false accusations about some of my colleagues who absolutely didn't do colleagues who absolutely didn't do that with the hon. Lady. Like to withdraw that comment, please? I withdraw that comment, please? I suppose so, inadvertently calling suppose so, inadvertently calling the member dishonourable. I'd like to think that the hon. Lady is not disrespecting me in that comment. Samantha disrespecting the Deputy Speaker and I do apologise if it's come across that way.

I wish to apologise to the member if I have offended him. That's fine.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

An abstention as opposed to a vote against. But the reality is only one Labour member of only one Labour member of Parliament voted against and people's voting records are are there for all to see. Well, of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course, if he wants to also give me intervention. Very much to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Did he read the for giving way. Did he read the article in the Farmer's Guardian, which highlighted that over 20% of the conservative backbenchers did not even bother to turn up to vote

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not even bother to turn up to vote on the day? A vote on the day. But the point is he didn't oppose it. It came also through the finance vote as well, when there was another opportunity. So there were two opportunities for the House to vote on it. On one should look at both votes to determine whether people were for or against, but that's a matter of public record. We've had a number of opposition day debates on this. We've had a number of opportunities in the House, and I think people's voting records and their records more widely on the family farm tax are there for all to see.

But the point is there's only a partial U-turn on that. So if he wants to say that he's opposed to the tax, then hopefully he will support future votes to remove the tax entirely because we've only had a partial U-turn. So there will still be an opportunity for him to go further. But of course, that's not the only measure. We've seen. The sustained farming incentive scheme abruptly stopped with no notice to farmers. There's no timeline in terms of when that is going to be reopened.

We've seen things like the family, the Farm to Fork Summit in number ten scrapped an important opportunity for the industry to have the ear of the Prime Minister. We've seen schemes on productivity cut and there's a whole range of things which the Member for Witham and Skipton spoke about in terms of wider pressures, and that really builds on the fact that in the Labour Party manifesto, page 59, there's only one paragraph on farming. And so the first thing I wanted to do was really turn to that paragraph, because one of the things, the few things the Labour Party committed to was to say that 50% of food procured by the public sector would be locally sourced or to higher environmental standards.

So will the Minister commit to writing to me with a timeline given? A number of months have now passed since that manifesto to set out, what is the implementation for that? Because that is something that can make a real difference to helping the farming community. The second thing I wanted to highlight is the report of Baroness Battersea is widely respected, I think across the House and certainly within the community. She makes 57 recommendations. I think it is regrettable that that was slipped out right at the end of the Parliament at Christmas, but it is a serious report that merits serious attention and I'm sure the Minister would agree.

So could she update the House when she winds up on what the timeline is in terms of implementation of those 57 recommendations, given the pressures that colleagues across the House have spoken of. And third, I just wanted to touch on a theme that I think applies to both debates today, because last year was characterised by a number of U-turns that the government was forced to make, where the Prime Minister asked his backbenchers not just on the family farm tax but on welfare reform.

On the winter fuel allowance, on national insurance, where the previous budget had triumphed. The fact that the tax thresholds were not being extended, the freeze, and then this last budget did exactly the opposite. And already we can see a theme Madam Deputy Speaker of a number of U-turns that are pretty foreseeable. One of them from the debate we've just had on jury trials, where there's widespread concerns. But again, in farming we can see a number of areas. But the one I particularly wanted to highlight is regarding rural pubs, and I commend the Telegraph for the campaign that they have launched.

But I just want to speak to the very serious concerns that I, and I think many members across the House of all parties will be hearing from their rural purpose, and I don't support the ban on Labour MPs from pubs. I don't actually personally think that is the right approach. I think pubs are the heart of our communities. They should be a place that bring people together. But I think the government is making a serious mistake and I just gently say to Labour backbenchers that I foresee it will be another issue on which they are marched up the hill only for their Prime Minister.

Under pressure to change his mind. I think he'll do it on digital ID, I think he'll do it on jury trials, and I think he will do it on pubs, and we can save people a lot of anxiety if the proposals are changed. Speaker.

17:49

Jayne Kirkham MP (Truro and Falmouth, Labour )

- -

I represent an area that covers >> I represent an area that covers a small city, a town and a large rural area. Much of that rural area is the Roseland Peninsula and is also coastal. It was notable when I researched my maiden speech that David Penn Halligan wrote about the challenges that threatened rural Cornwall 50 years ago, and they were very similar to the ones today. Roads, pressure on services, hospitals and sewage, lack of housing, summer lets and lowering the lowest average wage in the country at the time.

Many of those this government is already acting upon. Roads are being fixed, buses are better funded and rural franchising is being piloted in Cornwall, Railways are being nationalised and rail fares are being frozen and bus fares to housing. We have 39 billion for social housing and renters rights bill, so tenants can no longer be evicted to have their homes flipped to be holiday less. Stamp duty is being raised on second homes. Double council tax and registration for holiday lets the NHS big thing in Cornwall 5 million more appointments.

Neighbourhood health prioritised services moved out of urban cities into rural areas and community health workers going door to door. We're fixing our broken sewage system and we now have that minimum wage in energy, rural energy in Cornwall. That infrastructure will be a boon, not a bind. Critical minerals, the strategy for that and sustainable mining will fuel our economy and give us energy security alongside with tidal, geothermal and wind energy, which will power and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support our rural way of life. I will. Match within my. Constituency of Caerfyrddin. We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Constituency of Caerfyrddin. We have a number of infrastructure projects being planned to produce projects being planned to produce and transport energy, and whilst we agree that green energy projects production is necessary, the transition has to be made with community consent. Undergrounding community consent. Undergrounding of cables is project and time specific depending on thermal rate values and cable type. So does my hon. Friend agree that communities need to have a much greater voice

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the cumulative effect of these projects? I thank my hon. Member. I do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Member. I do agree that communities must have a say, but they must also benefit, and that is one of the things that and that is one of the things that this government will be introducing. Another type of security than energy is food security. After a energy is food security. After a very difficult decade under the conservatives, Brexit caused real problems at the border, which are problems at the border, which are SPS and EU agreement will hopefully untangle to a certain extent by 2027.

Plus those terrible trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, which will allow an influx of beef in. While very little will be going the other way. It's been a time of flux for farmers since Brexit. That rocky introduction of elms, which was then spent very quickly under this government and is coming back, and new improved Sustainable Farming Incentive in April, will hopefully give that support to food production as part of that environmental stewardship, working with recommendations from Minette Batters, the government can now focus on farm profitability, which is so vital, and move on through the strategies that are due this year.

On to a vision for farming in this country, that land use framework and the Farming Strategies road roadmap. And we will get there.

17:53

Rt Hon Sir Alec Shelbrooke MP (Wetherby and Easingwold, Conservative)

- -

OK. >> So Alec Shelbrooke. >> Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I think we just have to get down to some basic have to get down to some basic facts today, because for all of the propositions that are put across by the government, the reality is that people are feeling on the ground and my constituency crosses two counties of West Yorkshire and North Yorkshire. But in North Yorkshire Conservative run, they've seen millions of pounds of reductions in grant. As my right hon.

Friend for Skipton and Ripon touched on reduction in the services. Grant has knocked £14 million off the budget and the fair funding grant has not £20 million off the budget. And the reality is, is that people start to wonder does the government understand rural communities at all and rural counties? Because within North Yorkshire there are huge areas of deprivation, but they have now seen their money cut because of the overall picture of the county. Knocks them out of the picture. But also, Madam Deputy Speaker, a county like North Yorkshire can be very sparsely populated and has unique challenges that need that funding in place.

And this is against the backdrop of the attacks that have happened on farming. 92% of my constituency is rural or rural related agricultural business in my own constituency by £2.2 billion, to the Exchequer to GDP out of agriculture. And there has been huge concern and widespread disbelief at the policies that the government has brought in. And even with the U-turns they've knocked out just before Christmas, still has left a huge uncertainty. And crucially, even with those U-turns, a lack of faith in having to invest in the future.

And it's not just about farms. There's the whole ecosystem of rural economies. And there I've been to businesses in my constituency who hire plant machinery, but they don't just hire it Madam Deputy Speaker to the farmers during harvest and areas to do that. They also help make sure that the countryside and the landscapes itself are managed. And North Yorkshire and parts of my own parts of where I live in the part of West Yorkshire, has huge historic areas. These are areas that people come and visit, are tourists and if that countryside is not maintained, then it becomes less and less income of people coming there.

There's been this huge attack in every single angle to people trying to make a living in these rural communities, which they have done for decades and centuries, and nobody I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At my right hand is a really important point here. Whether you're in rural North Yorkshire or whether you're on the edge of the West Midlands, where we have some fantastic rural landscape, the fact of the matter is, surely we have a of the matter is, surely we have a Labour government that really does not understand the countryside and the countryside way of life, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the countryside way of life, and they're more intent on covering it in concrete. Yeah. My, my, my hon. Friend makes a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My, my, my hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I think that is the view that comes from a lot of people that you speak to in and around rural constituencies that they say either the government doesn't understand these communities or worse, they don't care. And that seems to be this constant attitude of, you don't need the money. We're going to take it into the urban areas. And that is what people feel. And it's all very well. As we saw at Prime Minister's question, when the Prime Minister is trying to say, well, we've got this bit of the economy, that bit of the economy, let me tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, when people are sat at home, it does not feel like that.

It does not feel like that when the weather is freezing cold and they're wondering where they're going to make the cuts to ensure that they can heat their homes. And that happens in areas of deprivation in and around my own constituency, which is deemed to be affluent. But because of that, they don't get the money that people need. And I just want to briefly touch on the fact that farms good agricultural land is being taken over by solar farms. I am fed up to the back teeth of listening to government Ministers say we must no longer be reliant on petrochemical dictators to control our energy.

China is a dictatorship and it controls 90% of the processed materials for renewable energy. And I will have a huge amount of respect for the Minister if she can, in her summing up, stand up and admit that the dictatorship of China is no better than some of the dictatorships and petrochemical states, and you're just transferring Madam Deputy Speaker the problem from one region to another. But they should not pretend that there are any different.

17:57

Jodie Gosling MP (Nuneaton, Labour)

- -

Jodie Gosling. >> Jodie Gosling. >> A thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to welcome the changes, would like to welcome the changes, first of all, to inheritance tax, to APR BPR farming is essential to our rural economies, and I will our rural economies, and I will continue to work with colleagues and with new investment champion, food security, sustainability and the key challenges around the sector, which have been a result of serious decline over the past decade. I would like to thank Ministers for their time to discuss these important issues and for listening to the views of myself and my constituents.

As an MP of a semi-rural area, I am very aware of the challenges faced by living in a rural community connectivity, access to work services and education. I am aware of the impact that the cuts to bus services, to outreach services like Surestart had on my community and our ability to thrive, and there are further cuts proposed now by Warwick's County Council's Reform Council to our school transport, potentially making children walk down unlit, unrestricted roads on their way home from school for a proposed five miles, which is just simply dangerous.

But I particularly want to focus on crime, and that's why I'm proud to see Cross-departmental approach to addressing rural crime and ensuring that the government's Safer Streets mission benefits every member of our community. Local farmers have repeatedly raised concerns about the level of rural crime with me, so I'm particularly keen to see that over £12.7 million of stolen machinery was recovered last year, including £800,000 from abroad. Theft of machinery is not only is not the only criminality that faces our farmers, one of my local farmers reported the day that a number of dogs from the local hunt broke the pack and ended up on his land filled with sheep.

Although none of the ewes were killed, two of them later aborted, losing two rare breed lambs, thousands of pounds of losses to stock and vets fees before even considering the emotional damage. This farmers story is not isolated and across Nuneaton regular regular residents across Nuneaton regularly contact me. Concerned about the activities of our local hunts, missing pets, damage to gardens. There are many serious questions still over what police's handling of the offences, and the force was released to was forced to release details of the secret protocol signed in 2022.

In spite of subsequent reviews. This deal, residents tell me, seem to have only emboldened Warwickshire hunt. Of the 5000 reports of criminal activities, only 75 prosecutions against 58 individuals have ever been successful. In the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

years between 2004 and 2024. This should give way. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way when it comes to rural giving way when it comes to rural crime. Earlier this week, the Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime and Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner resigned from the Conservative Party and is standing as an independent for the rest of as an independent for the rest of her term. Would you agree that this is symptomatic of the conservatives attitude to rural crime?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and it is symptomatic of just a disregard and a whitewashing just a disregard and a whitewashing of issues in my communities. Rural communities agree that this government, with this government's government, with this government's aims to make farming more profitable, to reduce rural crime, and to tackle the barriers to them prospering and thriving. If we are to achieve these, we need to to achieve these, we need to continue listening hard to our farming communities and embedded MPs and communications to make sure that their views are heard, to make sure that safer streets mission, and to take firm action to once and for all, stop hunting and acts from impunity.

18:02

Joy Morrissey MP (Beaconsfield, Conservative)

- -

Joy Morrissey. >> Joy Morrissey. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. >> When will. >> This Labour government's attack on the countryside come to an end? Will it be when there are no village pubs left to tax anymore? Will it be when the last family farm has shut the barn doors? Will it be when they have banned all English country sports and tradition? Will it be when their left wing lobby groups have finally had their student union fantasies fulfilled? Will it be when the English countryside is filled with solar farms and onshore wind? For months they have put family farmers under intolerable stress over the tax proposals that everyone could see they had got wrong.

There is not a country pub in my constituency and Beaconsfield Marlow in the South Bucks villages that isn't collapsing under the weight of their national insurance

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tax rate and business rate tax hikes. Yes, I'll give way. I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way across South Shropshire. We are going to see pub after pub closed with this rate revaluation. closed with this rate revaluation. Does she agree with me? Unless the government look at the rate revaluation there'll be next to no pubs left.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pubs left. Thank you. Makes a wonderful point that they are not just destroying the place where people destroying the place where people go, but the pubs are the place in the village where everyone comes together. They are destroying the local community with no regard to saving something that we saved during Covid that we kept alive this entire time, only to die a death for, I'm not sure. Ideological reasons. It's hard to say. They've gone for the economic livelihoods of our rural communities.

Now they are coming for the traditions and character of those same communities. I'm a passionate animal lover. I care deeply about animals and animal welfare standards. So I can say with total certainty the proposed ban on trail hunting is not about animals or their welfare. It is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about petty, vindictive ideology. And this government's pathological dislike of rural communities. Hear, hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear. Now we find in this Parliament in the absurd position of being asked to ban something that doesn't asked to ban something that doesn't even involve hunting or killing animals. Yes, and they've just had a debate in Ireland where they a debate in Ireland where they voted against a ban on hunting after a sensible debate. But no, after a sensible debate. But no, here, here we we have to come to the real question, the unanswered question of animal welfare.

What exactly do the government think is going to happen to the 170 packs of hounds in England, when this is when they are no longer in use? The £20,000 and numerous horses, if the trail hunting ban goes through. Let's be brutally honest, many of them will be destroyed. If you have a hound, have you ever tried to have it domesticated? Have you tried to have a harrier? No, no, please, I insist on you trying to have a hound come to your home and stay with you for a week.

That's been a. It is impossible. But it's OK. But the blood of those hounds and those horses on your heads. Because you want to stand in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ideological purity. I'm sorry. An awful lot of you. I hope those comments aren't addressed to me. I apologise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

me. I apologise. It's very it's a very important topic and I'm so sorry that I was topic and I'm so sorry that I was carried away. I do feel they don't really care about animal welfare. They don't care because they want They don't care because they want to double down. On attacking the English rural way of life. Yes, English rural way of life. Yes, English rural traditions going back centuries, sacrificed on the altar of left wing student political ideology, rural economies and livelihoods ruined.

And I say to this government, you will fail in your attempt to destroy the English countryside and our rural communities. They will outlast you and they will recover from the damage you do to them, but they will never forgive you.

18:06

Anna Gelderd MP (South East Cornwall, Labour)

- -

Anna Gelderd. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's a real pleasure to speak in this debate on behalf of the towns, farms and coastal villages of South farms and coastal villages of South East Cornwall. Our rolling hills and dramatic coastline attract visitors across the country, but they also support our livelihoods, our daily lives and the wellbeing of local residents. A local economy that works for local people year round means protecting our natural environment, which is vital to our key tourism sector. It means supporting new industries such as critical minerals, Bio, the New Kernow Industrial Growth Fund and providing a voice for traditional industries.

As a keen wild swimmer, I care deeply about our Cornish rivers and beaches. So last year I challenged the former CEO of Southwest Water on their actions and I look forward to seeing stronger accountability and better outcomes for local residents as a result of the new water measures put forward by this government, poor connectivity is held back for all communities for far too long, and I welcome the work in this area. So can I ask the Minister to outline what steps are being taken to tackle rural internet deserts, which I experience frequently in my village? Transport remains also a major challenge for rural life, and in south east Cornwall, residents often travel long distances just to reach essential services, work or for education.

Rural communities value our space and our close knit society, but no one should feel cut off or face extra financial barriers simply because of where they live. So I welcome the 20 million allocated by the government to Cornwall to improve our bus services, and I am determined to ensure local people feel the benefit of that investment. Under the last government, rail fares from Liskeard to Paddington rose by 65%, placing yet another burden on rural households. We have put an end to this increase.

Healthcare access has been another real problem for my residents, and many residents travel long distances for care, often crossing the Tamar and paying a toll only to face staff shortages, stretched services and long waits. Labour is already bringing down those waiting lists, but rural access requires specific attention. So would the Minister set out how the government is working to ensure that geography never becomes a barrier to care? Rural communities remember who stands up for them and who delivers the essential services that they need.

And in rural areas, we've seen the legacy left by the conservatives. Their mismanagement fed directly into stagnant growth and broken public services, with rural areas paying the price through long hospital waiting times, crumbling school buildings and a public transport network that simply did not work. So with alongside other Cornish Labour MPs, we've made sure that Cornish rural voices are heard here in Westminster and I've spent time directly speaking with farmers and industry experts, listening to their concerns and building the case for change.

And I'm pleased to see the increase in the agriculture and Business Property Relief thresholds. Farmers work tirelessly to produce food for our tables, yet their fields are too often used as dumping grounds for waste. So I ask the Minister to outline what further action is underway to tackle waste crimes that blight our rural community, and I will give way.

18:09

Cameron Thomas MP (Tewkesbury, Liberal Democrat)

- -

To the hon. Ladies out of time now. Cameron Thomas. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Ahead of the election. >> In Tewkesbury, considering my. >> Defence background, I. Recognised that I didn't fully.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Recognised that I didn't fully. Understand the experiences nor the lifestyles which come with the lifestyles which come with Rurality. So I began reaching out. I made visits, I spoke with people, I listened to them and I heard them. I think that if you want to represent people or if you're likely to make decisions which will directly impact people, then you should first exercise due diligence. I'm not convinced that this government fully understood farmers, publicans or hoteliers prior to announcing its economic plans for the country, although if the Conservative Party does understand Rurality, then its legacy is every bit as damning.

Following over a year of consistent lobbying, the government recently made some. To be fair, pretty significant concessions to farmers and I credit Gloucestershire, NFU and my local farmers, including Charles Day, for the part that they played. Gloucestershire publicans and hoteliers still reeling from the 2024 autumn budget, feel no better off following the last. I wouldn't suggest that banning Labour MPs from your pubs is the right way to go about that, so I will make a suggestion shortly. My publicans don't have tractors, but they can drive through Parliament Square.

So to better understand the experience of Tewkesbury's hospitality sector, I would welcome a government Minister to join me for lunch in any one of my 52 pubs. I guarantee there'll be made to feel most welcome to date. When I've raised the pressures on hospitality with Ministers and with the Chancellor herself, I've felt I've not felt listened to when challenging some of Labour's most damaging taxes, such as the hike in employers National Insurance contributions or unsustainable business rates. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are frequently challenged to offer financial alternatives to Labour's most damaging taxes, which we do.

For one, we could undo an awful lot of this by doing a customs union with the EU. And along with consistent pressure from my colleagues, I've personally called in this very chamber for increases in the digital services tax to raise money from some of the most profitable businesses in this country, rather than from the most desperate. Thank you.

18:11

Dave Robertson MP (Lichfield, Labour)

- -

Maldon Other place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You would be forgiven for reading the motion put forward by the opposition today for thinking that all was rosy in the that all was rosy in the countryside before the election in 2020. But in Lichfield, Brentwood, in The Villages, a countryside seat in The Villages, a countryside seat which is 85% rural, people know that that was not the case. They know just how important it is that government takes the concerns of rural communities seriously. They also know that despite more than also know that despite more than three decades of representation by a conservative MP, successive conservative governments have treated them with disdain.

And there is perhaps no better example of that disdain that the party opposite showed to the communities like mine than the story of how two conservative Ministers asleep at the wheel. While HS2 limited treated landowners in areas like mine, like they were a completely and utterly ignorable sideshow. It's gone on. For decades, I've spoken to farmers in my patch who have been dealing with HS2 for 17 years and have still not had final amounts of payments paid to them. Delay after delay, disruption after disruption.

It is an absolute disgrace. Years of roadworks causing massive inconvenience. Farmers not being able to farm on their land despite it not being built on and business planning put on hold for years. The party opposite say they care about our agricultural communities, but what did they do when our farmers who suffered under that project? Things got so bad at HS2 under the Tories that this government has had to bring in a new chair and a new CEO to clean up the mess that was left.

In fact, Mark Wylde, the new chief executive, has experienced cleaning up conservative messes. We only have to look at Crossrail. Beyond that, we also have further transport issues in my constituency that really affect farmers in my patch and rural constituents. Chetwynd bridge is a fantastic example. It's a bridge that crosses from my patch into the hon. Member for South Derbyshire. It is the largest iron wrought iron bridge left in the country. It is grade two listed. It is a wonderful piece of architecture, architecture.

It's incredibly useful and it's very pretty. Unfortunately, Britain's largest surviving cast iron bridge has been neglected for decades. Deterioration in the structure was first spotted in the 70s, but Staffordshire County Council do not have a plan on how to fix it. They know that it will cost £27 million. They do not know how to fund it. They did not speak to me before the spending review and in fact waited until reform UK were in control of the council to get in touch, after which spending review decisions have been made.

Now I'm working hard to try and find that £27 million to replace that bridge, and I'll be meeting with the relevant Minister next week. Now, these are real world examples of where conservative MPs and conservative governments and conservative councils did not do the work. They didn't do the work. They said all the right things. They were quite happy to go out there and dance and make their statements, but they didn't do the work. They didn't go out there to actually defend communities like mine.

And I will take absolutely no lessons from them. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

18:14

Stuart Anderson MP (South Shropshire, Conservative)

- -

Stuart Anderson you. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Living in a rural community is a brilliant way of life. It's beautiful, but it comes with remoteness. It comes with different remoteness. It comes with different issues. I've lived in an urban area and a rural area, and they are different. There are things that connect them, but a few things that I want to point out today that are really important that I have found in rural communities. Now, I've spoken on hospitality, farming, always going to be up there and they're struggling and facing issues at the moment.

But the shotgun licensing, the consultation that is coming up, and I know my hon. Friend from North Cotswold has just spoken eloquently on this, but it is going to have a serious impact to shotgun holders that require the use of a shotgun, not just for their job, but for also for pastimes. And if a third of shotgun users do not renew this, it costs over £1 billion to the UK economy. And I have one of the most constituencies with one of the most shotgun licences.

I'd really like the Minister to take this seriously. There is a huge knock on impact on changing any licensing rules for shotguns. The other area I want to touch on and a few people have spoken about already, is trail hunting. So with the proposed ban of trail hunting, it will have a big impact on rural communities. And I get that everybody doesn't think the same way as me. I grew up hunting, shooting, fishing. I've never been on a horse in my life.

The communities around trail hunting are great. What they do supporting the local areas. There are some great people. I have just launched my survey, my survey for my constituents. Almost 2000 people have filled this in, and 63% of South Shropshire constituents want this to continue. It's a rural way of life that gives 78 to £100 million a year back into the rural

**** Possible New Speaker ****

economy. Yes, I will. My hon. Friend, share my concern

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend, share my concern that such a controversial piece of legislation is being wrapped up with other things that people would find hard to disagree with, such as find hard to disagree with, such as puppy farming, etc. and that this is just a cheap trick by the government to try and say you voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government to try and say you voted against puppy farming rather than focusing on that particular issue. My hon. Friend raises a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend raises a brilliant point. There are so many good things that can be done on animal welfare, but this is not one of them. And if we look at the facts to support trail hunting, let's have a look at the incidents over the year. So when you look at how many people have been charged from 2004 to 2023, there were 44 convictions by hunts for trail hunting, and there have been 250,000 organised hunt days since that time.

So that's one conviction for every 5680 trail hunting days. So if you had one hunt a day, you would have to take 15 years to get a conviction. That is a serious statistic because the government do not like trail hunting, and they do not like the people that carry out trail hunting. They want to ban it on those statistics. There is not one thing they would ban. There is nothing that they would ban on those stats. They do not support a widespread criminality on trail hunting.

There is no evidence of that at all. Every and I stand clear if anybody breaks the law, they should be prosecuted. They should do that. But there's a huge impact to farriers, people around for vets fallen stock. Can the Minister let me know who is going to pick up the bill for fallen stock? That's a massive impact that will fall on farmers. Trail hunting is supported in South Shropshire, but I get that some constituents won't support that. That's fine. If anybody wants to look at what people are doing, the animal welfare, go on my Facebook page and my post about it this morning.

What people are saying in defending animal welfare is absolutely brutal, and I don't support that. Trail hunting is a key part of South Shropshire. I will stand up for it and for shotgun licence holders and it should continue. These rural pursuits are part of my community.

18:19

Jenny Riddell-Carpenter MP (Suffolk Coastal, Labour)

- -

18:27

in regards to planning to restore funding for neighbourhood plans, because that will deliver the local because that will deliver the local vernacular housing which local communities wish to see. And my final point is that we need a final point is that we need a fundamental realisation of the formula that underpin important funding decisions, whether that's funding decisions, whether that's the schools, whether that's with police, whether it's for Environment Agency projects. Get

18:27

Simon Hoare MP (North Dorset, Conservative)

- -

Environment Agency projects. Get all of that right, and the government might begin to restore its reputation within the rural community, continue as they are, and they're on a hiding to nothing.

18:27

Mike Reader MP (Northampton South, Labour)

- -

Hear, hear. >> Much. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to come and contribute to this debate to celebrate the brilliant debate to celebrate the brilliant food producers in Northamptonshire and across the UK, some of which you sampled Madam Deputy Speaker in Northamptonshire and as chair of the food and drink APPG, I've seen first hand how rural communities play a critical part in our supply chain and how they set the standard for global food quality. So preparing for today, I did think I might do, like many in the opposition, go buy myself a fresh Barbour jacket, some shiny wellies, film, a social media video ranting about protecting farmers completely tone deaf from the 14 years of hammering they got under the conservative government.

But now I'm going to be collegiate Madam Deputy Speaker and instead I'm going to focus on supporting food producers in particularly on how we support growth and prosperity in rural communities. Many will know that my background lies in the construction sector. I'm a proud yimby and a supporter of this Labour government's necessary policies to correct the catastrophic and sustained failures of the last government to build baby build. And whilst many in the opposition benches see development as a threat to communities, if they spent more than five minutes talking to farmers and rural landowners, they'd know that actually it's a really important that we support sustainable development and it's critical to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the prosperity of rural Britain. Of course I will. I'm speaking, first of all, can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm speaking, first of all, can I commend Upper Bann? One of the things that concerns me is putting forward the good points for agriculture and how the economy can agriculture and how the economy can build off it. Northern Ireland has six £6 billion worth of manufacturing and export, and it's critical for Northern Ireland to do well as well. But one of the things that holds us back is the that holds us back is the veterinary medicines, the Northern Ireland Protocol. So to see us go forward, the rest with the rest of United Kingdom, does they agree that the Northern Ireland Protocol should be addressed and perhaps the Minister, whenever she comes back,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. But thank you for the intervention. I'm not familiar with the Northern Ireland Protocol at the Northern Ireland Protocol at all, but as I learn more about the SPS agreement in my role as the chair, we've got Nick Thomas-Symonds. I hope, coming to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thomas-Symonds. I hope, coming to sorry. The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. He can refer to him as the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Minister. Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. Anyway, so the food and the food, the Farming Productivity review, the Farming Productivity review, sorry is very clear. If we want a sustainable rural economy, that's much more we can do to unlock its potential. And currently planning is one of those areas that we can we can look to tackle. A farmer can spend millions of hours filling in mountains of paperwork to build new sheds, slurry pits or new barns to support better welfare.

And our planning system does not support our farmers, the livestock that they keep, or the British public who love what they buy from their supermarkets, butchers and cafes as set out in the paper. Yes, in my farmyard, which I delivered with the Yimby initiative and with support from the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, we've identified some clear recommendations as to how the government can help reduce paperwork and speed up rural development. I'd like to just share a few. So through the permitted development regime, this Labour government can put down instruments to improve part six of the regimes by by abolishing height and volume restrictions on land and machinery improvements.

We can also change and expand class R regulations to improve anaerobic digestion and storage for digesters, which will help enhance the circular economy for fertilisers, reduce our reliance on Russia and other states where we get our fertilisers from and lower river pollution, and we can expand class Q regulations to natural landscapes to ensure that our farmers can build small, sensible, sustainable settlements for their agricultural workers, who in turn can protect these precious environments. There will practical steps which will help rural businesses diversify and bring long term stability to rural economies.

I'm really pleased to see that many of the recommendations in our paper are broadly supported in the Battersea review into farming profitability, and it has endorsed that some of these policies are in the paper, but now encourage the DEFRA Ministers to work with MCHLG to bring forward these planning changes and our yimby farming communities, or should that be yimby farming communities? Say yes in my farmyard.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Joe Robertson. Thank you. Madam Deputy. Speaker, it's a pleasure to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker, it's a pleasure to be speaking in this debate on supporting rural communities. Although to the casual observer who Although to the casual observer who may have been here at the beginning hearing the Minister open, it appeared we were in a debate about appeared we were in a debate about general ramblings on Covid or later on, if they were here, when they heard the hon. Member for South

18:32

Joe Robertson MP (Isle of Wight East, Conservative)

- -

heard the hon. Member for South West Norfolk, they might have felt that they were in a general debate on the NHS. But I understand it. Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand why members opposite do not want to talk about rural communities because, despite their protestations, they know that they have lost the trust of rural Britain. And it's little wonder from the family farm tax what could be more damaging. And it's taken them over a year from that first budget when they introduced that tax to finally U-turn on the majority of it.

But before that point, four times they voted against conservative proposals to scrap the tax. On four occasions, they had the opportunity to say, enough is enough and we will continue to campaign on scrapping the family farm tax in its entirety until it is gone completely. But for rural and coastal communities like mine on the Isle of Wight, it's not just farmers who have the worst possible deal from this government, it's the fishing communities too. In my constituency just two decades ago, there were 30 fully crewed fishing boats.

There are now three, and this government robs the fishing communities face in it. When they renegotiated with the EU and folded and gave away our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fishing rights for 12 years. Yeah. You gave it away. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, for those who are reading this in Hansard in the future, from the benches opposite, there seemed to be smirks, there seemed to be smirks, expressions of laughter and jeering. This is a party, a government who This is a party, a government who fundamentally misunderstands the damage it's doing to rural Britain. damage it's doing to rural Britain. The Conservative Party have always been and always will be, the party

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of rural Britain. I will give way. One more time to agree with me that one of the greatest damages they're doing to the countryside is destroying it with acres upon acres, thousands of acres upon thousands upon acres of solar farms, destroying the best and most

**** Possible New Speaker ****

destroying the best and most versatile farmland. Joe Robertson I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, and I agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank her for raising it. And to add to that, destroying many rural add to that, destroying many rural areas with a clamour for housebuilding in the wrong places. We should all agree. We can all agree we need more houses. We need more houses for future generations. The argument is where you build them, and I'm surprised to hear members opposite say that they speak to farming communities and rural communities who are, yes, in my backyard they want building.

People do not want building of the wrong type of houses for people who do not live in their area and have no desire to live in their area. Most services are available in cities. That is where the majority of building should be taking place, and this government should be looking again at the whole way in which house building and planning works in this country. And until it understands the damage it's doing to rural Britain, it will continue to haemorrhage votes.

18:35

James Naish MP (Rushcliffe, Labour)

- -

James Naish. register of interests. Too often rural Britain has been spoken about and taken for granted, and no more so than by the party opposite, which over 14 years, and including through its harmful pursuit of Brexit, left many rural businesses, including family farms like my own, operating on life support. Now, as the Food and Drink Federation's 2024 trade snapshot notes, and I quote, the UK's global food export volumes have declined significantly more than other major European countries, demonstrating that the UK's challenges aren't part of a global trend but rather unique to the UK's post-Brexit circumstances.

And this is why I welcome the work that this government is doing towards an SPS agreement that will help food and drink producers in my constituency of Rushcliffe now doing things differently is extremely important. Madam Deputy Speaker, in government we must think, talk about and act differently in relation to rural Britain in order to break long standing cycles of poverty and underinvestment. Rural Britain cannot be treated as an afterthought, not only because this risks the urban rural divide growing even further, but because rural Britain is central to everything that we do.

Yes, food security, nature restoration, flooding, adaptation and animal welfare all clearly depend on partnership with rural communities. Everyone here knows that. But the role of rural Britain goes much further still. Why? Because new homes, new energy infrastructure, new transport routes, new critical mineral extraction, national security planning and preparation. They will all depend on rural space and resources. And this is why my view, and in the view of many of my colleagues on these benches, rural Britain offers a vital route, arguably the only route to national renewal.

But this will only happen if its unique values, needs and potential are properly understood and acted upon. And that is why, setting aside this opposition motion, which simply lists a set of things which previous conservative government didn't necessarily resolve, I want to focus on the phrase in the amendment, which talks about a joined up approach, and I will continue to push the government to commit to developing a proper rural strategy. The last one was in 2004, under the last Labour government, and I hope that we will commit to a rural strategy which puts rural Britain at the centre of economic growth, which means that we can finally ditch overused slogans about NIMBYs, NIMBYs and stop trivialising our rural communities, which are so important.

18:38

Harriet Cross MP (Gordon and Buchan, Conservative)

- -

The hon. Gentleman is out of time. time. >> Harriet Cross I'm really grateful to have been called today. And on any other week I would focus And on any other week I would focus on more substantive day to day, week to week rural matters, whether that's the family farm tax. I am grateful that there has been this partial U-turn. It shouldn't have taken this long. It shouldn't have taken the pain and frustration and hurt that it caused our farming and rural communities.

It must go further. We must get a full U-turn. We have to protect our rural communities. There's a reason why over 6200 farming, agricultural and forestry businesses have closed since this government came to power. It's not just farms impacted by the family farm tax, it's our rural communities as a whole. The suppliers, the contractors, they're all important. They're all part of our rural matrix, and they're all being let down by the family farm tax. But given it's this week and given the events in north east Scotland and Aberdeenshire in particular with the snow, I want to focus on what's happening there and the support for our rural communities.

Aberdeenshire is the fourth lowest funded council in Scotland and the lowest funded rural council. Because of that, Aberdeenshire Council has had awful decisions in recent years on the provision of services. Many of these focussed on our roads, on gritting and provisions for winter preparedness, and we are seeing the results of that. At the moment Aberdeenshire is under a few feet of snow, not a dusting a few feet. Our farmers are literally walking through waist deep snow to dig their sheep, their livestock out of snowdrifts.

They're then getting in their tractors to clear the roads for communities. They're bringing people who are stuck and needing medical attention in their cabs to the main roads to try and get them to hospitals. Our rural communities pull together when they're in times of need, when there is time to take action. They have done that for years. They will keep doing that and they deserve our support. But support is not enough. We must make sure that rural communities are properly funded, properly supported and able to act and prepare for situations like this.

And I will end briefly with just a thank you generally to everyone in Aberdeenshire in the last week who has lent a hand, whether that's, as I've said, the farmers, whether that's the council workers, organisation organisations and volunteers like Kotak who have been amazing in getting people out of tough situations, volunteers, neighbours or just passers by who have pushed cars, dug roads, children who we've seen digging out driveways of their neighbours. It's been a massive effort in Aberdeenshire. It will continue.

The next issue is ice that we're getting freezing temperatures and once the snow, the masses of snow starts to melt, ice and flooding will be the next issue. We must be prepared. We need assistance and funding to make sure that when this happens again, which it will. Aberdeenshire and other rural counties can be properly prepared. Thank you.

18:41

Robbie Moore MP (Keighley and Ilkley, Conservative)

- -

18:50

Mary Creagh MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Coventry East, Labour)

- -

Winchester Mary Creagh. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm grateful to have the opportunity to grateful to have the opportunity to close this debate. And I have to say, even in the bleak midwinter, I don't recognise the gloomy, barren landscape that members opposite have been describing. They describe a litany of disasters. If only they'd been in government for the last 14 years and been able to do something about them. As I go round our countryside, I see quite a different picture.

Millions of people in rural communities who are taken for granted and undisturbed, underserved by the party opposite. And that's why they kicked them out at the last general election. On this side of the House, we are Labour focussed, laser focussed on encouraging growth and it is Labour and it is a Labour government that is now the party of the countryside. They should stop talking the country down and get behind our drive for growth. But let's look at the inheritance that they left with local communities, broken, public services, boarded up post offices, crumbling schools, sky high NHS waiting lists.

They have learned, no lessons, offered no apologies and showed no contrition. And that's why they were booted out of government. They had a Liz Truss mini budget that crashed the economy, sending mortgages, rents and bills soaring. And who was the financial secretary to the Treasury when food inflation hit 19%? The shadow Defence Secretary. I'm not giving way. I've got eight minutes to respond to the debate. The former Prime Minister was explicit about their policy of and saying there's a deliberate policy of taking money away from deprived inner city areas to give to rural areas.

This government is cleaning up the mess they made. We've stabilised the economy and I'm grateful. Well, I'm sorry that the gentleman for Winchester isn't in his place because I cycled there from the New Forest during the Covid lockdowns and I did the 25 miles, got to Winchester. But he talked a lot about the 61 bus, but he didn't mention anything about the rail fare freeze. That is going to mean that his his constituents are going to enjoy freezing of rail fares, as well as the freezing of prescription charges, £150 off energy bills and the driving up of wages.

And what did the conservatives do in relation to each of those areas that will help people in rural communities? They voted against each and every one of those measures. They left the health service that was on its knees. Our schools were crumbling and they crashed the economy. So we've done more in 18 months than they have achieved in 14 miserable years. Cheaper mortgages, new rights for workers and lifting half a million people out of poverty. And I want to come back to bus routes because under the Conservatives and Lib Dems, bus routes in England declined by 50%.

Since 2010, 8000 services slashed on their watch. We have taken immediate action with the Bus Services Act. I will not give way, which includes provision to support socially necessary bus services so important in rural areas. I'm grateful to have the bus Minister on my side and we have maintained the national £3 bus fare cap, which we heard from. It was it was there was no cap under their government. They're shouting from there was no there was no cap.

We've heard from the colleague from Sherwood about the problems with rural crime during the 14 years of conservative government, the recorded crime rate in rural areas of England and Wales increased by 32%. Our rural communities paid the price for the Tories being asleep on the job, and those 20,000 police officers that they and the Liberal Democrats cut in 2010, we are ensuring rural communities will be better protected from the scourge of rural crime such as equipment theft, livestock theft and hare coursing.

We know these devastate communities, farming and wildlife, and that's why we've collaborated with the National Police Chiefs Council and the Home Office to deliver a renewed rural and wildlife crime strategy, published in last November. The My hon. Friend for South East Cornwall asked about waste crime and I visited my my hon. Friend's constituency in Litchfield to see the flytipping that had gone on there. We know that waste crime blights our rural communities and it undermines legitimate businesses. The last government let waste grounds and organised crime groups run riot, with incidents rising by 20% in their last five years.

And so we have announced what are we going to do? We had yes, we are announcing the we are bringing in, we're bringing in. They consulted on changes in 2018. We are bringing them in this year. We are introducing digital waste tracking this year, end to end tracking of who is looking after. No, it's actually going to be operational from April this year. So the infrastructure is there. So mandatory digital waste tracking, reforming the permitting system, a system that was so loose that Oscar the Dog could be a waste carrier, and tougher background checks for people carrying waste.

And we will require vehicles transporting waste to display their permit numbers. This was all prepped and planned and consulted on by them. The action is happening under this Labour government. Now. We've heard a lot of talk about land use framework. We are going to have to change the way we use land because our landscapes need to change to support climate change mitigation and adaptation, economic growth, housing delivery, food production, clean energy, and to meet our statutory targets for nature recovery.

And that's land use framework will be published later this year. We have the right hon. Gentleman for Skipton and Ripon talking about informal employment relations. I'm old enough to remember when their government, with the Lib Dems in coalition abolished the Agricultural Wages Board, abolished the Commission on Rural Communities and their prime plan for rural prosperity was to sell off the nation's forest, which received uproar in the rural communities and which was the first U-turn of that coalition government.

As the Minister for forests, I have been visiting Hexham and I stood amongst the pines and the spruce and the firs trees of Kielder Forest, a landscape bursting with growth, renewal and vitality. And I met the men and women who make that possible. And I met some of the businesses with my friend, the Member for Hexham. We went to innovators at Eggar in Hexham, one of Northumberland's largest rural employers, turning timber into panels that are found in homes and workplaces across the country.

We have announced the first new national forest for more than 30 years in Bristol, Swindon and Gloucester, all around the west of England. And we're not waiting 30 years to announce the next ones. In November last year, we announced the creation of two more national forests. The Oxford-cambridge corridor and a competition will be launched for a third new national forest in the Midlands or the north of England in early 2026, tens of millions of new trees planted in the coming years, alongside new infrastructure and new homes that this country needs.

Now, I want to come on to some of the points raised in the debate. So I was asked about the Battersea review. There were 57 points. The Member for Wetherby and for Northampton South. I learned a new word about Yim Yim Fee. Our priority is to get the implementation of this right and we are considering all of those. All of those recommendations, but we will set out a detailed response to the Battersea review in our 25 year Farming Roadmap on Firearms Licensing, the Prevention of Future Deaths report, shootings in Plymouth said that there were problems in the Firearms Lighting licensing scheme and they had, and the fees for firearms licensing were last reviewed in 2015.

So it is important that the additional revenue from firearms licensing is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

used to Mike Wood. I beg to move that. The question. Is the question is that the question be now put as many as of that opinion say I,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that opinion say I, I. Of the contrary. No, I think the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that the original word stand part of the question. As many as of that opinion say aye. Of the

19:00

Division: Rural Communities

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that the original word stand part of the question. As many as are that opinion say I. I the contrary. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, no. The tellers for the eyes are Andrew Snowden and Jerome Mayhew, Andrew Snowden and Jerome Mayhew, the tellers for the nose Gregor

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The Ayes to the right 105. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 105. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 332. Thank you Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Lord. The ayes to the right 105. The noes to the left 332. The The noes have it The noes have it En bloc. The question is that the proposed words be there added, as many of that opinion say I. I the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I didn't declare the question as amended to be agreed to. Right. We now come to the next part of the business.

Secretary of State for defence. Are you ready to make

19:13

Ministerial statement: Ukraine and wider operational update

the statement? Secretary? State? >> Mr. speaker, with permission and with thanks to you for allowing me with thanks to you for allowing me to do so at this late hour, I wish to make a statement to update the House on today's US operation and on yesterday's coalition of the Willing Summit in Paris. Today, the Willing Summit in Paris. Today, the US conducted a military operation to intercept the motor vessel Bella to intercept the motor vessel Bella one in the North Atlantic on its way to Russia.

The UK, at the request of the US, supported this operation as part of global efforts to crack down on sanctions busting and shadow shipping activity. The Bella one was falsely flagged. It was falsely flagged and subject to US counter Iran sanctions. The vessel refused to comply with the US's exercise of its sanctions. Jurisdiction. On the 20th of December, after which the US Coast Guard vessel Monroe pursued the ship across the Atlantic. This is a sanctioned, stateless vessel which carries a long history of nefarious activity and shares close links with both Iran and Russia.

Following a request from the US, I authorised the use of UK bases and the deployment of Royal Navy and RAF assets to support the operation, including airborne surveillance and the RFA ship Tied Force. This was a US operation. No UK personnel took part in the boarding and I can update the House. Mr. speaker, the operation is ongoing, but the Bella one is now under the control of US forces who demonstrated immense courage and professionalism in dangerous and deteriorating Atlantic sea conditions.

A stateless vessel, Mr. Speaker, may be lawfully intercepted and subjected to the law of the interdicting state. The US is enforcement action was based upon counter Iran sanctions aimed at stopping Iran from fuelling instability through the profits of illegal oil sales. The UK supported this action to achieve three objectives. First, to enforce counter Iran sanctions. Second, to tackle the global security threat posed by expanding shadowy maritime activity, and third, to reinforce British homeland defence and security.

In this era of rising threats. Mr. speaker, let me expand. First, in 2024, this vessel was sanctioned by the US and subjected to a seizure warrant for illegally transporting Iranian oil. It reflagged five times in the last five years and was falsely flying the Guyana ensign when it was intercepted by the US over a four year period. Reports suggest that this vessel moved some 7.3 million barrels of Iranian crude oil, the proceeds of which have used to finance terrorism threat and instability across the world.

And the Iranian regime continues to export violence across the region through its proxies and its partners, including Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iraqi militias. It maintains support for Russia by supplying Putin with weapons for his brutal invasion of Ukraine, including the drones and missiles which target and kill Ukrainian civilians. And it is telling, of course, that this vessel, in an attempt to evade the seizure warrant, changed its name and tried to adopt the Russian flag.

Second, Mr. Speaker, the UK also supported this military operation to counter the expanding global security threat. The vessel is part of an increasing web of shadow shipping that fuels and funds instability across the world, that undermines global trade and that threatens our national security. We know Russia operates a vast shadow fleet of its own to bankroll its illegal invasion of Ukraine, and last year, it's estimated that Russia sold $100 billion worth of sanctioned oil money, directly funding attacks on Ukrainian citizens, such as the onslaught during Christmas involving 600 missiles and drones, which killed at least three people.

We owe it to the Ukrainians to step up action on these shadow operations, and we are. This is why we are deterring. We're disrupting. We're degrading the Russian shadow fleet as a priority for this government. And to date, we've imposed sanctions on 544 vessels, according to estimates, sanctions against the shadow fleet by the UK and our partners have forced 200 ships off the seas. Almost half of the Russia shadow fleet's overall capacity, while Russia's critical oil revenues are now down 27% compared to October in 2024.

This is the lowest since the start of its full scale invasion. So let me speak plainly, Mr. Speaker. The UK will not stand by as malign activity increases on the high seas and alongside our allies, we are stepping up our response against shadow vessels and we will continue to do so. Third, Mr. Speaker, this is not just about international security, but about the threats to British national security to Iran presents not only a persistent danger to security in the Middle East, but to us here in the UK.

It poses a significant espionage threat. It sustains an aggressive cyber attack campaign against us. And as our own House of Commons Intelligence Security Committee reported, since 2022, the

19:19

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Iranian regime has plotted at least 15 assassination or kidnap attempts 15 assassination or kidnap attempts on British soil. Meanwhile, more widely across Europe, we're seeing widely across Europe, we're seeing a pattern of flagrant maritime activity coordinated by Russia. So activity coordinated by Russia. So I applaud and welcome the fact that the Finnish authorities seized a Russian shadow vessel suspected of Russian shadow vessel suspected of damaging a communications cable under the Gulf of Finland last week, and we've exposed the Russian spy ship operating in our waters, surveying our undersea cables.

And of course, by assisting our US allies in taking this ship off the seas, we are protecting the British people and our nation. So this is a stark reminder that our world is changing. It is less predictable and more dangerous. And this operation and the shadow fleet show the global links between the security threats faced by the UK and its allies. And the shadow fleet itself is vital to Putins ongoing illegal invasion and war in Ukraine. Which brings me on to the second topic in this single statement.

Because next month we enter the fifth year of Putin's full scale invasion of Ukraine. Yet the Ukrainian people still fight with huge courage and defiance, the military and civilian alike. And I'm proud to say that this House remains united for Ukraine, that Britain remains united for Ukraine. We know that if Putin prevails, he won't stop at Ukraine. And we know that a secure Europe depends on a strong, sovereign Ukraine. And I'm also proud of the UK's leadership on Ukraine.

It started under the last government and stepped up under this government. So now we, the UK, lead the 50 nation strong

19:22

Ministerial statement: Ukraine and wider operational update Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Ukraine Defence contact group alongside Germany and secured £50 billion in military aid pledges last year. And we with France, lead the coalition of the willing, undertaking detailed military planning to help secure peace for the long term. When a deal is agreed. And I say to this House, let's make 2026 the year that peace is not only possible, but the year that peace is achieved. And this government is leading that push for peace. This government is building the New Deal for European security.

And that's why in Paris yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and what was the largest yet meeting of the coalition of the willing with 39 nations? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, alongside President Macron and President Zelensky, signed a declaration of intent. And as the Prime Minister said, the purpose of the coalition of the willing is to help deliver a peace that can last and to work with the US to guarantee Ukraine's security for the long term. This work is now more advanced than ever, he said, and yesterday's declaration advances that work significantly.

It confirms that the UK and France will take a leading role first in using military, economic and diplomatic instruments to ensure the conclusion of a peace agreement. Second, in supporting the development of Ukraine's defence capabilities, and third, in commanding a multinational force for Ukraine which plans to deploy to Ukraine after a ceasefire has been agreed. Mr. speaker, the MSU plans to deploy units from nations in the coalition of the willing to carry out defence and deterrence operations in the air, on the land and at sea to conduct training, planning, recovery and regeneration of Ukrainian forces.

The UK and France will also create military hubs to support this work across the country, and to build protected facilities within Ukraine for weapons and equipment. Mr. speaker, as the Prime Minister said today, if there were a decision to deploy under this agreement that was signed yesterday, that matter will be brought to the House for debate beforehand and for a vote on that deployment. So yesterday, at this largest meeting of the coalition of the willing, we agreed further significant steps, including the signing of a joint declaration.

We will also participate in US led monitoring and verification of any ceasefire. We will support the long term provision of armaments for Ukraine's defence, and we will continue to work with the US towards security guarantees to deter any further Russian aggression and to support Ukraine in the case of a future armed attack by Russia. In Paris yesterday, the US special envoy Wittkopf described these commitments and I quote, as strong as anyone has ever seen, and I will travel very soon to Kyiv to continue these discussions with Ukrainian political and military leaders.

A secure Europe needs a strong Ukraine, but we can only get a peace deal if Putin is ready to make compromises. Over the Christmas period, he showed he is still not ready for peace. Hundreds of drones and missiles fired into Ukraine. Russian attacks continuing on the front line. So in 2026, we will continue with other nations to step up our military support. Still further our mission both to support the fight today as well as secure the peace tomorrow.

And I say to the House, in conclusion, our government will always act in the interests of national security. We are committed to countering the threats posed by our adversaries. We're committed to standing by our closest allies, and we are committed to keeping Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

19:26

James Cartlidge MP (South Suffolk, Conservative)

- -

19:32

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

For escape? >> For escape? >> Mr. speaker, we are working flat out on the Defence Investment plan. We will complete it and publish as We will complete it and publish as soon as we can on Greenland. The sovereignty of Greenland is not at issue. It is clearly Denmark sovereignty. It is clearly Greenland and Denmark, a part of NATO. Its security is guaranteed by its membership and by all 32 nations of NATO. And any decisions on the future of Greenland are a matter for the citizens of Greenland and for Denmark.

Mr. speaker, let me turn to his more extensive questions and points about the declaration of intent yesterday and the situation in Ukraine. I welcome his commitment to seeing a lasting peace, a just peace, and I welcome his support for that. He pledged his support for all efforts to bring peace to Ukraine, and I welcome his support for our work in doing so. On the detailed questions, I am simply not, and he is a former defence Minister will well understand this.

Going to go into details about the nature of the activities in the deployment, the numbers of troops that are likely to be deployed to Ukraine, or the details of the commitments that other nations have made, they finality of that will depend on the details of the peace deal. The hon. Gentleman quite rightly said we will deploy only in the circumstances of a ceasefire and a peace agreement, and to disclose, let alone to debate those sort of details will only make Putin wiser.

On the question of the deployment in future of any British forces, I am proud to say that whenever British forces deploy and whenever they deploy abroad, they meet the highest possible standards of international law and professionalism, and they will continue to do so. And in the numbers of nations committed and involved in the planning of the coalition, as the Prime Minister has said. And I've said in my statement today, yesterday's meeting was 39 strong. It was the largest meeting of the coalition of the willing yet.

And I think yesterday's declaration of intent is not just a signifying an advance in our work towards the security, guarantees and peace. It signifies a gathering momentum behind that. I just say to the hon. Gentleman this whilst he welcomes our support for efforts and pledges his own support for efforts to bring peace, he questions aspects of this deployment, aspects of this coalition of the willing, when his own leader has still not publicly backed the coalition of the willing, has still not publicly said she would support the future of the Multinational force for Ukraine.

And if she if and when she does so, if she does so, then we will gladly see that as support for the security of Britain, the future of Ukraine and the strengthening of our work with allies. Finally, the hon. Gentleman said that Putin isn't interested in peace. He's quite right to say that we will not let up, and we should not let up on intensifying the economic pressure. Part of my statement that dealt with the shadow fleet was a part of that.

We should not give up or let up in increasing the pressure on Putin through the military aid and the military support we provide to Ukraine. And I can tell the House that I will co-chair along my side, the German finance Minister, the next meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group. We will do that at NATO next month, when we will be looking to ensure that we see the strongest possible pledges in stepping up support for Ukraine, both to keep in the fight to secure the peace for tomorrow.

Throughout 2026.

19:36

Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi MP (Slough, Labour)

- -

Chaired the select committee. Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi. Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I welcome advanced sight of the statement today from the Defence Secretary and indeed, thank the Defence Minister for the operational briefing this morning and also welcome the Prime Minister's progress with regards to the coalition of the willing. But of course, it does nothing to change the reality on the ground as currently faced by our Ukrainian friends, nor the growing threats that we face.

And of course, we await precise details with respect to numbers rumoured to be approximately 7500 British troops. So perhaps my right hon. Friend can allay my concerns as to how our already overstretched armed forces will be able to meet their existing commitments, especially in Estonia and Mr Speaker. Today's UK support for our US allies to enforce sanctions in the Atlantic demonstrates the strength and value of alliances. And does my right hon. Friend agree that the future of Greenland is for Greenlanders and Denmark to determine, and that any attempts by a NATO ally to seize NATO territory would not be in our collective interest, least not of all America's.

19:38

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

So stay. Defence Select Committee are entirely at one and one with the Prime Minister. The future of Greenland. Greenland is a matter for the people of Greenland. It is part of the sovereignty of Denmark, and it is part of the sovereignty of a nation with a full scale and valued member of the NATO alliance. I say to my hon. Friend. He is right to question, and he will get the chance to question me directly when I look forward to appearing later this month before his committee with his member members on the question of the UK deployment and our commitments.

This House will have, as the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister's Questions, the opportunity to debate those detailed issues if and when any commitment and decision to deploy troops to follow up. What he made clear, quite rightly, was a political statement, a declaration of intent, significant for advancing our work to secure Ukrainians future, but nevertheless, a political declaration in this House will have the chance to debate in full the concerns that members have, the consequences that there may be for any future deployment into Ukraine and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

terms on which we will do so. James MacCleary, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson Mr Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Democrat spokesperson Mr Speaker. We all hope for peace in Ukraine. Years of brutal conflict caused and perpetuated by Russia have taken a perpetuated by Russia have taken a terrible toll. There is much, therefore, to welcome in the announcement that the United Kingdom and France are prepared, Kingdom and France are prepared, alongside partners to deploy forces to Ukraine after a ceasefire. This is not about escalation. It is

19:40

James MacCleary MP (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

- -

is not about escalation. It is about deterrence, reassurance and making peace durable rather than temporary. We have been clear that Ukrainians are not just fighting for their own freedom, but for all of Europe. In return, we should be prepared to secure and make durable a fair peace deal. We should be clear about the purpose. Any deployment must be focussed on defending Ukraine, strengthening deterrence and supporting Ukrainian forces, not fighting a new war, but preventing the old one from restarting. It must sit firmly within international law with clear rules, oversight and the consent of this House that matters even more to time.

When trust in American guarantees is under strain. When rhetoric about annexing Greenland escalates, or when international law is treated as optional. Europe has a responsibility to step up in defence of principles that underpin our security. So does the Secretary of State accept that this announcement and other global events intensify the urgent need to increase defence spending to 2.5% and beyond? The Paris Declaration states that the force would only be deployed after a credible cessation of hostilities. Can the Secretary of State give some detail on what that means in practice? If it refers merely to a ceasefire, would British troops be expected to conduct combat operations if hostilities were to suddenly resume? Today's US operation to seize a Russian flagged tanker supported by the UK, reminds us of the deep and enduring security partnership our two nations have built.

It is important and it is worth defending, but not at the cost of our values and our principles. The Shadow Fleet is one of the primary ways that Russia is funding its war in Ukraine. Legal action to diminish that fleet is welcome and stands in contrast to US actions in Venezuela, which represent a blatant breach of international law. So does the Secretary of State recognise this distinction, and is he prepared to guarantee that UK bases will not, in any circumstances, be used to facilitate operations that breach international law, including any attempt to invade or annexe Greenland?

19:42

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Secretary of State. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, in my statement, I think I made clear that. I took the decision to allow the UK, US forces to base themselves in the UK because we took an assessment about the legal basis and the purpose for the planned US operation. That is our responsible thing to do. So I think the hon. Gentleman should have absolutely no concern on that front. He rightly says that the Shadow Fleet is one of the primary ways in which Putin is funding his illegal invasion of Ukraine.

That is why we are stepping up action on the shadow fleet, developing further military options and strengthening coordination with allies. And in many ways, he's right also to say that Ukraine is fighting for the rest of Europe. They are fighting for the same values. They're fighting for the same hopes and aspirations to be a country free to determine their own future. And on the circumstances of any deployment. The Prime Minister has been clear, and I've been clear to this House a number of times in updates on the coalition of the willing military planning that the decision to deploy the military plans that are prepared will come into action in the circumstances of a peace deal being agreed.

It's one of the reasons I stressed in my statement, Mr. Speaker, that we are working to support the securing of that agreement, as well as then the long term peace that we all hope will follow. And finally, he urges, he urges me to support his argument that the imperative to increase defence funding to 2.5% and beyond entirely do that. He would welcome the fact that this is a government that has made a difficult decision to switch funding directly out of overseas aid into defence, to do so, because it recognises this new era of threat that we face an era of hard power, strong alliances and strong diplomacy.

And finally, just to say to him, we are doing that at least three years before anyone expected us to do so. We have an ambition and a commitment then to move that beyond two, 3%. And we have made that commitment, that solemn commitment alongside all other 31 nations in NATO alliance, that we will spend 3.5, 3.5% on defence, a total of 5% on defence and national security by 2035. It's a sign of the strength of the NATO alliance, the unity of the NATO alliance and its ability, its ability to help make Britain more secure as well as stronger abroad.

19:45

Rt Hon Emily Thornberry MP (Islington South and Finsbury, Labour)

- -

Dame Emily Thornberry, chair of the Foreign Affairs, select. I begin by thanking the Secretary of State statement, congratulating the brave men and women for the successful operation and paying tribute to the Prime Minister for his clear leadership in the defence of Ukraine. Hear, hear. My question is this is there anything more that we can do to ensure that Vladimir Putin is serious about peace?

19:45

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Sir. >> Sir. >> My right hon. Friend is entirely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. There's one man that stands between the continuing war in Ukraine, the continuing civilian deaths and attacks on domestic infrastructure, and that is Vladimir Putin. There is one man that has talked of peace, but has yet to demonstrate that he's serious about doing what he says. Important steps to answer. My hon. Friend's question are keeping up the economic pressure on Putin. It's beginning to tell on his economy. It's beginning to tell on his oil revenues.

It's beginning to tell on his people. And at the same time, we make clear that we will step up our collective military aid to Ukraine as we are doing. And finally, we make clear, as this House has always said, we will stand united for Ukraine as long as it takes.

19:46

Rt Hon Rishi Sunak MP (Richmond and Northallerton, Conservative)

- -

Rishi Sunak. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement this evening? And on Ukraine specifically. Can I commend him, the Prime Minister and the government for their continued efforts? I think this whole House will be proud of how Britain has led on this from the very beginning. The future of Ukraine, and indeed the security of Europe, is an issue of vital UK national interest. The point he and others have made now, I believe, three prerequisites for a lasting peace in Ukraine are, firstly, a Western military presence there.

Secondly, credible and durable security guarantees. And thirdly, a well armed and resourced Ukrainian military. So in his work with allies in the weeks ahead, will he ensure that any ceasefire or peace agreement does not give Russia a veto in any of those three vital areas?

19:47

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Firstly. >> I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's Echo for my pride in the way that the UK, under his government and set it up again government and set it up again under this government, has led on Ukraine. My pride also in the way that Britain remains united behind Ukraine. He's right about his three conditions. They are part of ensuring what this House wants to see, which is not just peace, but one that is lasting and and secure, and the importance of the discussions and agreements, the importance in particular of the comments from Special Envoy Witkoff yesterday about the US's commitment to security guarantees that sit alongside a match, European led guarantees through the coalition of the willing could not be more important, and they will form the basis of the confidence that President Zelensky can have in going into the negotiations.

We hope that they will add extra impetus to those negotiations, and in the end, it will be a matter for President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people. The deal that they strike with President Putin. And in the meantime, we lend all the support we can to President Trump doing what only President Trump can, which is potentially putting the pressure on Putin, bringing the parties together and trying to broker the deal that will finally put an end to this terrible war.

19:49

Mr Calvin Bailey MP (Leyton and Wanstead, Labour)

- -

And, Ben. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the Secretary of State's statement and the bravery of our service personnel who will have to service personnel who will have to consequence manage the result of such a military action today. This ship was not only part of an expanding global security threat, which was used to fund Ukraine, but it was also used to fund the nefarious activity that occurs here in the Ukraine. In the U.K. the subthreshold attacks and payments received by report form politicians like Nathan Gill.

So we must wake up because these attacks undermine our sovereignty and our way of life. And so it's asinine that the opposition uses moments like this to to progress false arguments about the in rules of engagement for events that we are presently at. So would the Secretary of State agree with me that it is imperative that the opposition stand up and show on which side it is, and sack its shadow Attorney general?

19:50

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

So stay. speaks with great military insight and authority on the challenges of the deployment, the challenges of the operation that was conducted in some of the most extreme weather and seas that any military force can face. He is also right to point out how this is a bad ship. This was sanctioned by the US in 2024. It changed its flag five times in the last five years. It turned off its transporter for almost two weeks on the 17th of December, so no one could track its whereabouts, and last month it was sailing with a false flag before heading to Russia.

And it's very telling which country then reportedly sent out a warship in order to try and escort it into a Russian port. So no one should be in any doubt. The purpose of the US operation or the legal basis for it doing so. In relation to the question about the support for the deployment, the potential multinational force for Ukraine. I think the most serious equivocation has come from the leader of the Reform Party, which when asked today about that, simply said forget it.

I just say to the two representatives from his party in the chamber today, he did. That is an insult to Ukrainians. It does not do justice to the sentiment of the British people that recognise the fight of the Ukrainian people that want to see them prevail and want to see above all, a peace that will last.

19:52

Lincoln Jopp MP (Spelthorne, Conservative)

- -

Lincoln Jopp. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> Welcome the Secretary of State's statement here this evening? And I hope it's been heard widely across the world. I hope it's been heard the world. I hope it's been heard in Moscow, and I hope it's been heard in Washington, and I hope particularly it's been heard in Kyiv and across Ukraine, because I want the people of that country to understand that this House is totally united in support of their aims. And I personally do not wish to see peace at any price.

I wish to see Ukraine prevail, and I hope that I speak for the whole House in that respect. But in with with that context, I would still like to ask the Leader of the Opposition, asked the Prime Minister earlier on today about the numbers which had been committed, and the Prime Minister said, let me be very clear about what was agreed yesterday. Military plans were drawn up some months ago, and I have updated the House in relation to that. There are figures being briefed to the newspapers.

I don't know whether those figures are correct. I think that the Secretary of State owes it to the House to brief the House on the numbers that he is considering. I may wish them to be higher. Some other members of the House may wish them to be lower. But I would just like this House to hear what his plans are.

19:54

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Mr. speaker, I really welcome the hon. Gentleman's response, his the hon. Gentleman's response, his question, the way that he speaks for the House, and he is urging that this is a statement and indeed the declaration of intent that was signed in Paris yesterday will be recognised around the world and particularly heard in Kyiv. And I'm sure President Zelensky will ensure that I will play my part in doing that as I shortly visit the country and will discuss the further work that needs to be done with their military and political leaders.

On the question of detailed numbers. Yesterday was a political declaration. It was a political statement. The detailed military planning that has been going on for months with the participating contributing nations in the coalition of the willing, means that we are ready if and when a peace deal is signed. The deployment that will follow that will clearly depend on the circumstances and detail of that peace deal. And I am not willing, and I have certainly not been briefing into the media at all, because any discussion of details of numbers, very detailed activities only makes Putin wiser, only undermines the confidence that the Ukrainians can have in the guarantees that we are developing with them and for them.

19:55

Alex Baker MP (Aldershot, Labour)

- -

Becker. welcome this government's commitment to providing security guarantees for Ukraine, which are vital to the defence of Europe and vital to the defence of Europe and to upholding peace on our continent. But military resolve alone is not enough. Deterrence requires financial guarantees that underpin our security commitments today and in the years ahead. Can I ask the Defence Secretary, will the UK join other nations in seeking to establish a multilateral defence, Security and Resilience Bank so that Britain can protect itself, stand firmly with Ukraine and uphold our responsibility to defend peace in an increasingly dangerous world?

19:56

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Well, my hon. Friend is entirely >> Well, my hon. Friend is entirely right. That part of the long term commitment that we and other nations have made to Ukraine isn't nations have made to Ukraine isn't just about our military support. It isn't just about the deployment of a multinational force into Ukraine. It's about the financial support that Ukraine will require for the long term. And we are certainly interested in the proposals that she has been championing, led by the Treasury.

This government has been in discussions with those that are developing proposals like that, and we'll continue to do so because they potentially have a very significant role in contributing the sort of financial investment that we must see in Ukraine for the long term.

19:57

Claire Young MP (Thornbury and Yate, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Claire Young thank you, Mr. Speaker. The UK remains one of the chief facilitators of the export of chief facilitators of the export of Russian gas. UK owned or insured vessels have enabled the export of £45 billion worth of Russian gas since the start of the war. Will the Secretary of State finally agree to ban the provision of all UK maritime services for the transport and insurance of Russian gas exports?

19:57

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

So state? where there are grounds for us as a, as a, as a nation and the government, particularly where we can do so alongside close allies, can do so alongside close allies, we have done so. We've done so against individuals, we've done so against organisations, we've done so against vessels. And we have sanctioned 544 ships that are part of the Russian shadow fleet operation. Wherever there are grounds to do more, we will look at that. But I won't get into speculation or hypotheticals about future potential moves that we might make with economic sanctions.

19:58

Johanna Baxter MP (Paisley and Renfrewshire South, Labour)

- -

Johanna Baxter thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the Secretary of State's statement and pay tribute to his leadership and that of the to his leadership and that of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister on this issue. And I welcome the statement of the coalition of the willing on their commitments to deter further Russian aggression. I would like to ask, does do those commitments extend to preventing the further forced deportation and militarisation of Ukrainian children? And if, as has been widely reported, we are 90% of the way towards a peace agreement, does that mean that Putin has agreed to hand back the more than 20,000 Ukrainian children that he has stolen from that country?

19:59

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Secretary of State. >> Mr. speaker, my hon. Friend speaks with great passion and emotion about this, one of the most I've had the privilege of visiting I've had the privilege of visiting Ukraine a number of times, and one of the most moving, one of the most moving things I've done on any of my visits was when I was there, jointly with the former shadow foreign secretary. We met some of those children that had been abducted by and kidnapped by the Russians and rescued and brought back to Ukraine.

The impact on them and their families was deeply moving. And she's totally right to say, this must be. And it is. I know it's in there, in the Ukrainian mind, at the forefront of ensuring that this practice is prevented and that the return of all Ukrainian children that have been kidnapped by Russia are returned in the very earliest stages of any peace negotiations.

20:00

Stuart Anderson MP (South Shropshire, Conservative)

- -

20:01

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

20:01

Dame Nia Griffith MP (Llanelli, Labour)

- -

20:02

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Spending Spending on Spending on military Spending on military aid Spending on military aid directly Spending on military aid directly to support Ukraine. Proud of the fact also that we are capable and fact also that we are capable and are doing the delivery of some of the most important. Military equipment that they need, for instance, air defence systems and missiles. And proud also that we work especially closely with the Ukrainians to help them develop new systems, new missiles, new weapons, to try and stay one step ahead of the Russians.

And we will continue to do that.

20:03

Rt Hon Mark Pritchard MP (The Wrekin, Conservative)

- -

Mark Pritchard thank you, Madam >> Mark Pritchard thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want the Defence Secretary statement today, but I just want to press him a little bit just want to press him a little bit on the issue of a vote in Parliament. His statement, page five, is pretty much the same as the Prime Minister's. I would expect that will be brought to the House for a debate beforehand and for a vote on that deployment. That is not the same as having a vote before the deployment.

Now, there are very good strategic and military reasons for not making it very public before an immediate or surprise or secret deployment before it becomes public. But this is a public planned deployment as set out in the Paris Agreement could become more public than that. So will he commit to a vote in this House before the deployment? Not a debate in the House. Only he will know. In 2013 he was in the House. I think he came in in 97.

Prime Minister, now the Lord Cameron of somewhere, Oxfordshire, Chipping Norton, beautiful Oxfordshire, Chipping Norton, there was a boat and that boat was lost by 1313 votes. As a result, the UK did not deploy RAF support of the Americans into Syria. So it's right that the government gets the balance right. I support what the government is doing, although we have to see the detail. But would he commit to a vote before deployment, not just the debate.

20:04

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Mistakes. >> I have to admit, I'm struggling to follow the concern that the hon. Gentleman expresses. I quoted in my statement. I'm quite happy to statement. I'm quite happy to repeat it here. The words of the Prime Minister today in this House, when he said I would put that matter to the House for a debate beforehand and a vote on that deployment, I think that is pretty clear and couldn't be clearer.

20:05

Kevin McKenna MP (Sittingbourne and Sheppey, Labour)

- -

Kevin McKenna. State for his statement, and I'd really like to commend our incredible service men and women who've defended our interests here. I'm increasingly worried, as are many members of this House, about the shadow fleets and the way that they're operating in the world, and particularly with two international ports in my constituency. I like my hon. Friend to tell me and reassure my constituents how the workers, the sailors and the companies operating out of Sheerness docks and out of Rhythm Docks are going to be protected at the sea in the future by the United Kingdom.

20:05

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Thanks. >> Thanks. >> My hon. Friend pays rightly the tribute to the professionalism of our UK forces. They they played an important supporting role to back up what was essentially an entirely a US operation today. But it is a demonstration of the professionalism. It's also a demonstration of the fact that we, with the United States, work together as the closest possible defence and security allies, something that this government is committed to continue to do. And our troops and our forces are proud to do so.

20:06

Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)

- -

And the best. >> The Secretary State knows my support for the government's persistence over Ukraine. And I persistence over Ukraine. And I therefore welcome his statement today. We spoke endlessly throughout this process. I, I am, however, deeply worried about deploying British troops into what is basically a First World war. War, as it were. It's with over 2 million dead or wounded as a result of the conflict. It puts it on a wholly different scale from anything we've been doing in the last 10 or 20 years.

Afghanistan and the others are very small by comparison with what we're discussing. So I have I have a certain amount of cynicism, but I will support the government to pursue that. But I worry desperately that we get this out of proportion that are we peacekeepers or are we going to enforce the peace? These are big questions to be asked before full support can be surely given. But there's one thing I think the government can do, and a very simple it's this. He talked about Iran and the shadow fleet and the support they've given to Russia and the brutality they have, and I absolutely agree with that.

So I have a simple question for the government. Will they now proscribe the IRGC, who are at the heart of everything that is bad, deceitful and despicable from Iran? Will they now prescribe the British government, proscribe the IRGC full stop?

20:07

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

The hon. Gentleman returns to a subject that's been raised debated in this House before he was a member of the previous government. He'll know that in advance of any decisions. They're never disclosed or confirmed by government Ministers in advance. On the concerns that he expresses. First of all, I welcome his support for the government's decision and participation in the leadership of the coalition of the willing and for the Declaration of intent signed yesterday. The. Three things.

First, there would be no deployment unless there is a peace agreement, any deployment of a multinational force for Ukraine will be only deployed into Ukraine after a peace deal. Secondly, the role of that force is primarily reassurance. The regeneration of the Ukrainian forces and deterrence of any future Russian aggression. We would do that alongside similar commitments and security guarantees being negotiated with the United States. And finally, the. And finally the role of any British forces is to ensure that Ukraine, as I've argued to this House before, is its own best.

Deterrence is its own best defence against future Russian aggression, which is why the primary focus of the Multinational Force for Ukraine will be to regenerate the strength of the Ukrainian forces, and we're ready

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to do that alongside them for the long term. Just for colleagues to plan. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just for colleagues to plan. I intend to take everybody, but this depends on the length of questions because we could be here for quite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

some time. So please can questions be short and the answers be just as please. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

20:09

Torcuil Crichton MP (Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Labour)

- -

>> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I thank the Secretary for his statement and pay tribute to the role of the Royal Navy and RAF personnel in taking out this rogue tanker flying under the flag of a rogue nation. The Bella Swan was taken just a few hundred miles out into the Atlantic, which is too close for comfort if you come from the Western Isles and I understand Stornoway and Benbecula Airport hosted the USAF aircraft Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and two b-22 Ospreys out of Benbecula.

Can the Minister give us more details on the role of Scottish airports in this operation? And does he agree with me that yes, we have a front line in the Donbas, but the front line for us against Russia is our backyard. The wild North Atlantic.

20:10

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Sector state. for your encouragement. For short questions and short answers. My hon. Friend is right on both accounts. Friend is right on both accounts. Part of the British and European front line is on in the Donbas. He's equally right. That part of the front line for this nation and for NATO is the North Atlantic. And I am proud of the way that Scotland makes such a considerable contribution to the security of this country. And I'm proud of the way that part of the basing that was important for the US operation was indeed also in Scotland.

20:11

Dave Doogan MP (Angus and Perthshire Glens, Scottish National Party)

- -

Thank you again. >> Thank you again. >> Thank you, Madam Speaker. >> I wholeheartedly endorse the resolve across this House to resolve across this House to continue to help Ukraine to prevail against this aggression and by extension, therefore commend the extension, therefore commend the armed Forces personnel who enabled and assisted the US in this very slick interdiction of a rogue vessel, a key element of the funding of Russia's war in Ukraine. There are other challenges in the High North.

As we speak. Our allies in the United States are very concerned about the vulnerability, apparently, of Greenland to Russian and Chinese aggression. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with our partners in the Jeff Nations about discussing with the Greenlandic peoples and the government of Denmark about how the Jeff may deploy to Greenland to allay those US fears.

20:12

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Madam. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm sure that the US and the US military will welcome the strong military will welcome the strong support from the Scottish Nationalists for their operation and the. The congratulations the hon. Gentleman offers, and I shall ensure that the UK Secretary for War is aware of those. Look on the on the on the question of the. Forgive me I forgot the question of Greenland. Quite simply. Look, I've been in contact with the Danish defence Minister.

The Prime Minister was very clear in the joint declaration that he signed yesterday in Paris. Greenland is part of Denmark. The sovereignty is not at stake. It's defended by being part of NATO. Its security is guaranteed by all 32 nation states. And any future for Greenland. Is that a matter for the Greenlanders alone and those of the citizens of Denmark?

20:13

Luke Myer MP (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, Labour)

- -

Luke Myer. decision to increase defence spending to the highest level since the Cold War, and the Teesside Defence and Innovation cluster stands ready to support the national interest. But will the Defence Secretary do everything possible to ensure that across the defence industrial supply chain, it is British steel being used so that national security is also economic security? For Britain to hear.

20:13

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

I welcome my hon. Friend's observation that national security observation that national security is founded on economic security. Economic security is dependent on strong national security. And as a an MP from the proud steel making town of Rotherham, I'm very conscious of the commitment that this government has made and the imperative to ensure that, as much as possible of what we procure through defence and more widely within government uses whenever we can. British produced steel, which is amongst the finest in the world.

20:14

Rt Hon Steve Barclay MP (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

- -

Barclay. >> Barclay. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Defence Secretary refused to say when the Defence investment plan would be published. And there's a tension between the statement talking about the immediacy of the growing threats and the lack of urgency on funding as other areas of government are prioritised. Does he recognise that other nations are moving now on funding, and why is the government complacent on funding that it is prioritising other departments over moving now on defence?

20:14

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Secretary of State well, I certainly don't accept the right hon. Gentleman's characterisation. We've made a we've made a commitment as a new government, an extra 5 billion into defence. We've extra 5 billion into defence. We've made the commitment to 2.5% of GDP. Three years before his own unfunded commitment at the election. We will raise that further. And as far as the work on the defence investment plan, we are dealing, of course, with a a programme that we inherited from his own government that was overcommitted, it was underfunded, it was unsuited to the threats that we now face, but we are working flat out to complete that defence investment plan, and I will publish and report the details can.

20:15

Natalie Fleet MP (Bolsover, Labour)

- -

Natalie Fleet. Welcome. >> Thank you. Defence Secretary. >> I also. >> Welcome comments from across the House on how the Prime Minister has House on how the Prime Minister has been conducting himself and leading the coalition of the willing at this time. We need consensus across British politics on how we support Ukraine. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that no British politician should ever be taking bribes from Russians, or advising Russian nationals on how to avoid sanctions for money that should be used to support Ukrainian people.

Yes.

20:16

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

I do agree with my friend and >> I do agree with my friend and the actions that she speaks of bring discredit on the party, the party of Putin. It brings discredit party of Putin. It brings discredit on this country. And I also welcome on this country. And I also welcome her comments on the importance of cross-party support and support throughout the United Kingdom for the actions we're taking to support Ukraine.

20:16

Richard Tice MP (Boston and Skegness, Reform UK)

- -

Richard Tice. >> Richard Tice. >> Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, can I thank the Secretary of State for his statement? We congratulate for his statement? We congratulate all those involved in taking and boarding the rogue ship in Atlantic. And I would also like to congratulate the Prime Minister and the government in securing from the US the strongest security guarantees, the strongest commitments. That is clearly good news. The leadership of the coalition of the willing and many will be questioning why 37 sorry, 27 of 37 of the 39 countries have not committed to put boots on the ground.

And can I just correct gently, the Secretary of State, what the hon. Member for Clacton said about putting boots and kit into Ukraine is to ensure that we can do that on a long term, durable basis. The government needs to increase its defence spending earlier and faster than currently planned.

20:17

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Well, I'm sure everyone in the House would like to hear from the leader himself. If he. >> Where is he? >> If he'd like to participate in a session in the House of Commons session in the House of Commons chamber rather than the press conferences. And perhaps let's hear from himself. Look on the. So I say this. Beyond that, I welcome the fact that he is here. I welcome his support for the actions the government is taking, and he is completely right to point to the importance of the US statements in public.

And the special envoy, Witkoff, that said that these security protocols that are being discussed and being developed and agreed with the US and with us and with Ukraine, are as strong as anyone has ever seen.

20:18

Patricia Ferguson MP (Glasgow West, Labour)

- -

Patricia Ferguson. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and thank him and the Prime Minister for their leadership in this issue, I wonder? Well, I he referred in his statement, quite rightly to the actions of the Finns last week in intercepting a rogue ship that was cutting or suspected of cutting cables. He also mentioned the operation of the yantar, which has been spying on our cables. So given the activity of the Russians in the High North, does he agree with me that the deal with BA systems and Norway is not just important because of the frigates that will be built, but it is also important because it is a sign of the cooperation that our two countries have, that we have as NATO allies, and that extends across the High North, with the exclusion of course, of Russia.

20:19

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Sector. State. >> My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I know she is very proud of the constituents who are part of the workforce that will build these frigates. This isn't just the biggest ever British warship export deal. This is going to set a new standard of countries, Norway and the UK, that are prepared to be able to combine and integrate their forces. And by doing so, we will be in a stronger position to help deter Russian aggression and reinforce the security of the High North in future years.

Andrew Murrison UQs, the Defence Secretary, said that one of the functions of the NFU will be to deter aggression. But you only have a deterrent if

20:20

Rt Hon Dr Andrew Murrison MP (South West Wiltshire, Conservative)

- -

you have the willingness to engage kinetically, backing it up. So if kinetically, backing it up. So if this matter comes back to the House for a vote, will he be clear on the rules of engagement for the deployment of our troops? Will the Status of Forces agreement with Status of Forces agreement with Ukraine be explicit? And does he envisage the triggering of the envisage the triggering of the Reserve Forces Act in order to sustain the sorts of numbers that have been floated in the press today? State well, the hon.

Gentleman is entirely right. The rules of engagement will be a critical part of the security guarantees. And the sort of points he raises today will be, I'm certain, at the heart of any debate, if we reach the point at which we have a peace deal and at which we are making a decision to deploy the multinational force. multinational force. Speaker.

20:20

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

We do not want an endless war in Ukraine and the people of Ukraine, and indeed here in the UK, need to see steps towards peace in the world, not more chaos, division and war. Could the Defence Secretary confirm whether, if the United States were to seek to seize ships, States were to seek to seize ships, taking, for example, oil to Cuba, where the US has unilateral sanctions in place against, would this government aid it.

20:21

Apsana Begum MP (Poplar and Limehouse, Labour)

- -

Sector states? wouldn't expect me to be able to or be prepared to answer hypothetical questions. What I can say to her

20:21

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

that if the US, as our closest defence and security security ally, defence and security security ally, asks for UK assistance, we will always be willing to respond. We will ensure that any support that will ensure that any support that we do offer, whether that is support or whether that is a support or whether that is a combined operation, will be legally have a strong legal basis, as indeed this one today that has been indeed this one today that has been mounted so effectively and early indications successfully has been Richard Foord.

20:22

Richard Foord MP (Honiton and Sidmouth, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Thank you, Madam. State said in relation to Ukraine, we will continue to work with the United States towards security guarantees. I regret that President guarantees. I regret that President Trump has continued to undermine NATO this afternoon, writing I doubt NATO would be there for us if we really needed them. That flies in the face of the experience of nine over 11 post nine over 11, when Brits and Danes fought with Americans in Afghanistan. How would the announcements from Paris yesterday differ if there was no prospect of a US backstop?

20:22

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

It. Gentleman, things have sort of moved beyond that point. Jared Kushner yesterday confirmed the readiness for the UK, the US to provide a backstop and special envoy Witkoff said that president and I quote him, strongly stands behind the security protocols that are being agreed. So I would say to the hon. Gentleman. Catch up, number one. But secondly, he is right, of course, that the only time that article five has been triggered was when NATO responded to the US's request following nine over 11.

We were proud to be part of that, and we're now proud to be part a leading part of a 32 nation strong NATO.

20:23

Fleur Anderson MP (Putney, Labour)

- -

Sir. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the decisive leadership of the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister in support of Prime Minister in support of Ukraine. When the Foreign Affairs Committee have met with Ukrainian government, they have highlighted the necessity of a strong sanctions the necessity of a strong sanctions regime, which is joined up internationally. And the actions taken today show that sanctions regime with teeth, that's joined up to stop those loopholes which keep Putin uses to keep funding his illegal war.

So I welcome the action taken today. And can the Secretary of State assure the House that the government will continue to increase the stranglehold of sanctions and action to freeze and seize the assets, and what will be done with those assets to enable that? They can be used to rebuild Ukraine, both now and in the future when peace comes.

20:24

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Great. >> Great. >> I can indeed give my hon. Friend the reassurance that we will do the reassurance that we will do everything we can to step up the economic pressure on Russia economic pressure on Russia alongside other allies, that we will step up our activity and pressure an action in relation to the shadow fleet. And at the same time, we will step up with allies, the military aid that we provide to Ukraine so that Ukrainians can be in no we as a country, alongside others, will stand with them in the fight and in the peace.

20:24

Rt Hon Sir Alec Shelbrooke MP (Wetherby and Easingwold, Conservative)

- -

Alec Shelbrooke. >> Alec Shelbrooke. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, in 1995, thousands of innocent men and boys thousands of innocent men and boys were taken from a UN protectorate in Srebrenica and murdered. The main reason that happened was because the UN troops were unable to fire upon the Bosnian Serbs as they came along. So I just pushed the Secretary of State further about the rules of engagement. The rules of engagement must not say do not fire until fired upon.

Otherwise there is no deterrent. And I know that this has got to be worked out. But may I ask him to take that into serious consideration when these rules of engagement are being put together?

20:25

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Effective date. >> Effective date. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, I will we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will we will indeed, to reinforce the hon. Gentleman's point. The purpose of the proposed and planned multinational force is to deter Russia. The rules of engagement will be entirely consistent and important in supporting that.

20:25

Dr Jeevun Sandher MP (Loughborough, Labour)

- -

Doctor Johnson, the. >> Doctor Johnson, the. >> Deputy Speaker, we clearly face the most dangerous times in almost a century in this country, indeed a century in this country, indeed across our continent and our safety and our security since 1945 was guaranteed by being part of the most powerful military alliance in the history of humankind and sacrosanct borders in Europe. The times are clearly changing. So can the Defence Secretary assure me and assure this House that we fulfil the aims of the SDR in full, fully funded, to protect both ourselves and our continent?

20:26

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Thank you. State. times are changing. He is also right that the role of NATO, which has been outstanding in protecting has been outstanding in protecting us and preserving the peace for more than seven decades, is critical to that. And this is a an alliance which isn't just the most successful defensive military alliance in history. It is one that is stronger now, is larger now, is more united now. And we're proud to alliance.

20:26

Dr Ellie Chowns MP (North Herefordshire, Green Party)

- -

Doctor Ellie Chowns, thank you, >> Doctor Ellie Chowns, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, given that the Americans are clearly perfectly capable of seizing the ship by themselves, I wonder why it is that they were so keen to involve the UK in a week in which Trump has ridden roughshod over international law on Monday and threatened NATO ally on Tuesday. Why is it on Wednesday that the UK was so keen to hang on the military coattails of Trump, when it doesn't have the courage to call out and condemn his breaking of international law? Earlier in the week, and if the UK is so very committed to enforcing sanctions, given the concerns in the report published last year about the extremely high likelihood of UK financial services companies being complicit in supporting breaches of sanctions, can he hand on heart, assure the House that the UK has done everything in its power to prevent that complicity of the UK financial services sector?

20:27

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Madam Deputy Speaker, if there >> Madam Deputy Speaker, if there is sound evidence of sanctions breaking, we will look at that and we will act. But I just say to the we will act. But I just say to the hon. Lady that in response to the question she started with, quite simply, the US asked for our UK military support because they wanted and they needed our UK military support to conduct this operation. And the legal basis for us doing so was sound.

The purpose for this action and operation was strong, and we are proud to support that action, which is part of bearing down on the sanction busting shadow fleet operations.

20:28

Emily Darlington MP (Milton Keynes Central, Labour)

- -

Emily Darlington thank you, >> Emily Darlington thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd like to thank the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for their the Prime Minister for their leadership on defending Ukraine, not just in wartime, but also in the peacetime. And that will really the peacetime. And that will really reassure the many Ukrainian families who sought refuge in Milton Keynes and across the UK. But I'd like to ask his advice. It's clear that Russia are not just challenging Ukraine, but they are challenging the UK.

They have they are creating incursions into our airspace and into our water. They are using cyber attacks to to undermine us, and they are using social media to undermine our democracy. What advice would he give the British public in terms of creating vigilance against those Russian attacks that we are seeing increasing over and over on the UK interstate?

20:29

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

My hon. Friend is right. This rising Russian aggression isn't rising Russian aggression isn't just directed at the UK. At the same time as fighting a war in Ukraine, Putin is testing the boundaries of of other NATO nations like the UK. The simple response is to say to people we are in a new era of threat. This demands a new era for defence. It demands a stronger NATO. And that's exactly what we're working to deliver.

20:29

Alicia Kearns MP (Rutland and Stamford, Conservative)

- -

Alicia Kearns thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Deputy Speaker. I welcome the action today and commend our armed forces on their action. Much of the discussion has focussed on troops discussion has focussed on troops in the event of peace. I'd like to take us one step further. The right hon. Gentleman said that yesterday. The UK agreed that we will participate in US led monitoring and verification of any ceasefire. Can the right hon. Gentleman please clarify whether this means physical monitoring or remote intelligence? And what if the terms of a ceasefire are unacceptable to Ukraine and to the UK? Does the agreement signed yesterday, which it says we will do so? Does it require us to accept and police and monitor any ceasefire, or will we be able to withdraw if those terms were not acceptable to neither us nor our allies? Ukraine?

20:30

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Thank you sir. is very expert in these things, is asking these questions. She's getting rather ahead of the the stage of either the peace negotiations or the the detail of the. Technicalities of any potential ceasefire monitoring. The commitment was a political commitment that we would play a role. It is likely to be led by the US in the context of a peace deal. And the important aspect of this is that what the Prime Minister was part of signing and helping to agree and announce yesterday, significantly advances that work towards not just securing and putting in place security guarantees, but by doing so, it significantly advances the work towards that.

20:31

Paul Waugh MP (Rochdale, Labour )

- -

Peace Paul Waugh. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Peter Lamb are extremely proud of our long standing Ukrainian community, which is made up of both community, which is made up of both those who fled Soviet terror in the 20th century and those who sought refuge from Putins crimes in the 21st century. Does he agree that the one thing that Putin fears most is Western unity, and he fears most unity and cross-party consensus in houses like this one in democracies across the West? And does he agree, therefore, that if reform MPs vote against deployment of our brave British troops in Ukraine, that would be the biggest gift to Putin since Nathan Gill took that bribe from the Russians? Yes.

20:32

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

I do indeed agree with my hon. >> I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend. He speaks warmly and rightly of the strength of pride that Rochdale has in their that Rochdale has in their Ukrainian community. He's right to point out that Putin's purpose is to divide NATO, to weaken NATO, and to set nations against each other, and to set people within nations against each other. And we in this House should all determine that. We will not let that happen.

20:32

Rt Hon John Glen MP (Salisbury, Conservative)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I thank the Secretary of State can I thank the Secretary of State for his update? He's a serious and experienced politician. I have no doubt that he always acts in the national interest. What concerns me is the gap between the coherence of NATO and their approach, and the approach that he's set out that we will take. If a peace agreement can be found in Ukraine and the determination that we are seen to have to meet the new level of threat that exists from Russia and elsewhere in the world, with respect to the commitment on defence spending.

I respect that he asserts that the government is committed to 3% between 2029 and 2034, but with the greatest respect, there is a great difference in that. In the timeframes of that five year window, in previous generations, this country has had to make sacrifices to defend this country. I think he needs to think about whether we should be making that case now, so that we can be ready for what may be ahead of us.

20:33

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

So the hon. Gentleman, right hon. Gentleman, was, of course, a distinguished government and Treasury Minister in his time. He'll recognise that the, the the commitment that we've made and the plans that we've got now is the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War. He'll recognise that also what we are doing is building a new deal for European security. It's an important part of NATO, but it goes beyond NATO and we'll continue to do that.

20:34

Graham Stringer thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> And I want to thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Madam Deputy Speaker, the unity of this House in opposing the unity of this House in opposing those states who would do us harm is a key foundation of our strong national security framework. So does the Secretary of State therefore agree that when a senior leader in reform accepts Russian bribes, and when the shadow attorney general is actively working to undermine a key policy in support of Ukraine, this does damage public perception of the unity of purpose of this House, and in doing so, impact our national security state.

20:34

Gurinder Singh Josan MP (Smethwick, Labour)

- -

It does damage the unity of this house. It damages the the unity of purpose, and it also damages the the status of Britain. When we have the status of Britain. When we have a party leader that also says the politician and leader he most admires is Vladimir Putin. admires is Vladimir Putin. constituents.

20:35

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Will be anxious about UK involvement in US operations, given Trump's vocal drive for American imperialism. And of course, my

20:35

Rt Hon Liz Saville Roberts MP (Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Plaid Cymru)

- -

party is unequivocal that any action taken by the UK military must respect international law. must respect international law. That includes today's events and all others. But this is my question. With oil further politicised With oil further politicised following the US seizure of the Belarusian with UK support, what steps would be taken to secure steps would be taken to secure critical UK oil and port infrastructure at key sites such as infrastructure at key sites such as Milford Haven and Holyhead? Given recent global developments in energy and shipping.

20:35

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

I thank the hon. Lady for that >> I thank the hon. Lady for that question. I think if she if she considers and reflects on the Strategic Defence Review that we Strategic Defence Review that we published in June, it set out a very strong case, not just for the rising threats, but also for action to step up our defence of the homeland. And that Strategic Defence review sets out the vision that we will pursue and the action years.

20:36

Peter Prinsley MP (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, Labour)

- -

To Peter Prinsley. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the statement of the government this evening, and I am proud that Suffolk is home to one proud that Suffolk is home to one of the largest air bases in this country. Now, British military families have been in contact with me this afternoon, very alarmed at the deterioration in the security situation. So what reassurance can the Minister give to them?

20:36

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Well, I I'd say to my hon. Friend's constituents, those who are serving in the military, that that is quite widely shared, a growing anxiety that underlines the recognition of the new threats that we face. And it argues for exactly the sort of commitments to defence funding. It argues for the strategy that this government has set out and the actions and decisions that we're now taking. And I hope his constituents will support both. The Prime Minister's declaration of intent in Paris yesterday, because of the importance of Ukraine to our long term security, and I hope they will also support and recognise the professionalism of the US operation on the Bill Esterson Julian Lewis.

20:37

Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)

- -

Does the government accept that, >> Does the government accept that, if you will, the ends you must will the means? The end of the Cold War has been mentioned a number of has been mentioned a number of times. It is a fact that at the end of the Cold War, we were spending 4.3% of GDP on defence, 3.5% under the old way of calculating it. And in the early years of the Cold War, we were spending in excess of 7%.

So can the Secretary of State at least indicate to the House what is the earliest year in which a Labour government anticipates spending 3% of GDP on defence?

20:38

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Effective state? >> Effective state? >> Madam Deputy Speaker, of course, at the end of the last Labour government, we were spending 2.5% government, we were spending 2.5% on, on, on defence of a level that the 14 successive conservative years came nowhere near matching. So we have a job to make up for that lost time. We have a job to make up for the hollowed out forces that the previous government left, and the commitment that this government has made alongside other NATO allies in 20 2035, to see a path to ensure that we spend on our security and defence a full 5% of GDP alongside allies, is our guarantee for strong defence and and deterrence in the future.

20:39

Peter Swallow MP (Bracknell, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for five years against Russian for five years against Russian aggression, Ukraine has been bravely defending not only its own border, but also the eastern flank border, but also the eastern flank of Europe. And so security guarantees for Ukraine are also security guarantees for all of Europe. Given this, does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the leader of reform today suggested that he would vote against those security guarantees?

20:39

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

I do indeed, my hon. Friend is right because a secure Ukraine is right because a secure Ukraine is at the heart of a secure Europe and at the heart of a secure UK, and at the heart of a secure UK, and that will be a consideration, I think, for all members of this House. If we get to the stage where we have a peace deal and we have a decision to deploy and command the multinational force in Ukraine.

20:40

Vikki Slade MP (Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Vikki Slade Madam Deputy Speaker. >> President Trump is supposed to be working on a peace deal for Ukraine, but has been so much more focussed on invading Venezuela and focussed on invading Venezuela and making threats against Greenland. So what assurance can the Minister give to the House on the US? Continued commitment to getting a deal in Ukraine? And what contingencies are in place to revisit the EU led proposals should they be necessary?

20:40

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. surprised the hon. Lady has any doubt about the determination of President Trump to help secure that peace deal in Ukraine. In fact, he has a role to play that only he can play in making that potentially possible. And I think it's our job to lend every support we can, both to the Ukrainians and to the US in securing that peace deal.

20:41

Noah Law MP (St Austell and Newquay, Labour)

- -

Noah Law Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes. >> Is a peacekeeping force. >> I wonder if the Secretary, as I do, wonders when the leader of do, wonders when the leader of reform will cease his adulation of Putin, ensure there are no further traitors among his ranks, support this peace process in Ukraine, and stand up for British interests.

20:41

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

To see. >> To see. >> That the. Just to be clear to my friend, the primary purpose of the Multinational Force for Ukraine is Multinational Force for Ukraine is not peacekeeping. It is there to reassure Ukraine. It's there to regenerate and help them rebuild regenerate and help them rebuild the strength of their military for themselves, because in the end, it is Ukrainian forces, their own country's best deterrence and best defence against potential future Russian aggression.

20:41

Rt Hon Sir John Whittingdale MP (Maldon, Conservative)

- -

John Whittingdale. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given Russia's stated refusal to accept any deployment of NATO troops on Ukrainian soil, is there troops on Ukrainian soil, is there a danger that this agreement will actually make Russia less likely to accept a settlement, and it will instead step up their military campaign? If that is the case, can the Secretary of State say whether there was any agreement amongst the Western allies about how we can massively increase the pressure on Russia, perhaps through further sanctions and their strong enforcement, as we have seen in the last 24 hours?

20:42

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Well, the right hon. Gentleman >> Well, the right hon. Gentleman contents me to try and comment on a hypothetical what ifs. What I what I can say is that security guarantees that are being agreed at this point are an essential element of any potentially successful peace negotiations. And those negotiations will test and if they reach agreement, will test what at the moment, Putin says is his approach to Ukraine in the future of Ukraine.

20:43

Amanda Martin MP (Portsmouth North, Labour)

- -

Amanda Martin. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank. I'd like to thank Secretary of State for his statement and leadership as the Member for Portsmouth North, the Member for Portsmouth North, the home of the Royal Navy. I want to pay tribute to all of our armed forces and to ask the Secretary of State whether he agrees that continued strong UK leadership from our Prime Minister and commitment and consensus across the whole of this House with our allies, is vital to enforcing sanctions on Russia and strengthening security and achieving peace in Ukraine and in doing so, Madam Deputy Speaker, ensuring security in my port city and in Britain to so Jo Stevens.

20:43

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Madam Deputy Speaker, I warmly >> Madam Deputy Speaker, I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's report, support for the statement and the support for the statement and the wise words that she set out for the House today. She speaks with great authority and great strength for her home town and her city, and I think the house will have welcomed the word she's got.

20:44

Ben Obese-Jecty MP (Huntingdon, Conservative)

- -

Ben Obese-Jecty. just like to start by recognising the US service personnel from my constituency, who played a part in the coordination of the interdiction operation to seize the interdiction operation to seize the MV Bella won via the Joint Intelligence Analytics Centre Europe at RAF Molesworth, which is part of the US European Command. But turning to the coalition of the willing, and I'm slightly worried that this might be a moot point. The presence of boots on the ground in Ukraine was a red line for Putin, and I worry that this potentially might be a stick that he beats us with in order to push back on any peace deal.

But workshopping this idea clearly with the force of 7500 that's being reported in the press currently, we can't realistically maintain a deterrence force posture, which would explain the commitment to military hubs, and I would appreciate clarification as to what exactly they are. But it underlines the paucity of our two options. So with Ajax off games for the foreseeable maybe years and no viable strike capability, what assessment has he made of the urgency to bring forward the next iteration of Project Asgard from Q2 to Q1, given its urgent requirement as a force multiplier on the eastern flank, defensive line.

20:44

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Sector state. right to point to the importance of Project Asgard. It is breaking new ground. It's demonstrating new technologies in new military techniques. It is Britain at the forefront of creative military innovation and technology, and we're determined to accelerate it. On the wider question of the peace negotiations and red lines. Look, the nature of any negotiations is always that declared initial positions get tested, and if a if a process successful process of peace negotiations is secured, then we want to be ready and we are ensuring that we are ready to play a role in securing that peace for the long term.

Through the Multinational Force for Ukraine.

20:45

Mike Reader MP (Northampton South, Labour)

- -

Mike Reader. that in Northamptonshire, despite Reform UK banning the showing of support for Ukraine in my county, that my constituents and those across the whole of the UK should be proud of the extraordinary skill of our British men and women who involved in this operation.

20:46

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> Thank you state. >> I share my hon. Friend's dismay at the decision of his reform led at the decision of his reform led council. I just say to him, I am proud that our Ministry of Defence building flies the Ukrainian flag.

20:46

Dr Ben Spencer MP (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

- -

Doctor Ben Spencer. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. He's explaining he doesn't want to be drawn on the questions by the Shadow Secretary of State for defence and others on troop numbers defence and others on troop numbers and exact nature of the forces that's being conceptualised be put together. But I do think it's more than reasonable for members of this House to ask to make sure the correct and right amount of resources, financially are being put in. So can I ask, based on the decision made yesterday, has that changed his assumptions and plans regarding investment, procurement and spending over the next year?

20:47

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Secular state. President Zelensky and President Macron will sit alongside and has developed from the detailed work on the military planning for the coalition of the willing and the deployment of the Multinational Force for Ukraine. And it is an important part of the contribution that the UK will make in the future to the security of the UK and the security of Europe.

20:47

Alex Ballinger MP (Halesowen, Labour)

- -

Bollinger. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'd like the Member for Boston and Skegness. I am very concerned that the leader of Reform UK has gone on television today to reject sending British troops to Ukraine to help secure a sustainable peace, and that is exactly what he said. And so does the Secretary of State agree with me that he should be ashamed, because we owe the Ukrainian people who fought so hard to secure democracy in Europe, and it shows for real how close the leader of reform is to Putin's priorities above the priorities of the UK.

20:48

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Order, order! the back benches, and I can determine if the House has or has not been misled. Secretary of State.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not been misled. Secretary of State. I welcome my hon. Friends. Observations I think this is a test Observations I think this is a test of the leader of reform. Are the interests that he declares closer to those of President Putin, or closer to those of the British people.

20:48

Dr Danny Chambers MP (Winchester, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Doctor Danny Chambers. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I think the the Secretary of State for his statement this evening, and it was really evening, and it was really reaffirming to see the whole House express their unwavering support for Ukraine. And we hope our Ukrainian friends take heart from this. We have discussed this evening the heartbreaking situation of over 20,000 Ukrainian children being abducted by Russia for this act alone. Is it the government's position that President Putin should be hauled in front of the International Criminal Court? Yeah.

20:49

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Centre state. have to say to the hon. Gentleman, is to ensure that we give maximum support and step that up alongside allies, to keep Ukraine in the fight and that we are ready from day one. If there's a peace deal, to play our part in helping lead efforts to secure that peace for the long term, and that peace must involve the full return of all those abducted children, involve also the pursuit of justice.

20:49

Jonathan Davies MP (Mid Derbyshire, Labour)

- -

Jonathan Davies. >> The Secretary of State's statement and the generosity of his answers at this late hour. But I want to express my sincere gratitude to the British forces, men and women who have helped us seize this tanker, part of the Russian shadow fleet being used to fuel Putins illegal war in Ukraine. And I also want to thank this Labour government for its record investment in our defence concerning the Russia Russian shadow fleet. Specifically, can he tell me that no stone is being left unturned to protect our critical undersea infrastructure, which is a regular threat from the Russian shadow fleet? And if it was terminally interrupted, that would cause absolute chaos here in the UK.

20:50

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Effective state. >> My hon. Friend is gently chiding me for over long answers, and I take that point. He's entirely take that point. He's entirely right about how critical to our way of life, the operation of our economy and the way that we live is dependent on infrastructure, on infrastructure. It's why we're stepping up our vigilance, our surveillance and our defence of that.

20:50

Ian Sollom MP (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)

- -

In solemn. >> In solemn. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State will know that the NATO secretary general that the NATO secretary general said in September that we must prevent spreading NATO forces too prevent spreading NATO forces too thinly. I wonder if he could provide some reassurance to the House on the implications of this potential deployment for the Joint Expeditionary Force and our leadership of that in Estonia.

20:50

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Thank you. >> I hope the reassurance that the gentleman asks can be provided by the fact that Sasha has been at the heart of the discussions and developments, and close to the military planning for the deployment of the Multinational Force for Ukraine, and an important figure in the discussions of security guarantees.

20:51

Dr Scott Arthur MP (Edinburgh South West, Labour)

- -

Doctor Scott Arthur. >> Doctor Scott Arthur. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do want to thank the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for the leadership that Minister for the leadership that they have been shown both at home and internationally on this issue. I also want to pay tribute to three rifles from Edinburgh South West, who deployed to Finland late last year and were training right up to the border with Russia, with their brothers and sisters from the Finnish Army.

Westminster might feel cold in some places today. It was -28 when they were in Finland. Absolutely incredible. I don't I don't doubt, though, that the same troops now are thinking about what this statement today means for them. And I know from past, past deployments that their families will also be thinking about what it means for them. So can the Secretary State commit to any plan that comes to this House for a vote? Also includes consideration of support for families and troops are deployed for Scotland.

That will include input from Forces Children Scotland. Thank you.

20:52

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

OK. >> OK. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, we are going out of our way as a going out of our way as a government to ensure that our British forces and their families can feel that we're a government on their side, that we are take seriously and we want to hear their voices. And it's one of the reasons that we have already legislated for a new armed forces commissioner. That will be the independent challenge to government, to Ministers and the independent voice to those forces and their families.

20:52

Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

Jim Shannon. thank the city very much for his statement? I think we're all very encouraged by the suggestion. What he said, encouraged by the City of Stewart's leadership and encouraged by this government's leadership. And it gives us heart as well. So thank you for that. Russian fighter planes, counterfeiting, fellow NATO country skies cables onto the sea interfered and and and damaged by Russian forces interfering with those Royal Navy ships on the sea and on the water and in the air.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will not be messed with. It is time, Secretary of State, that Russia got a bloody nose, and today they got just that. Not before time. This is a fraught international matter and maritime laws are not my forte. However, something that I am certain of is that Russia is no ally of ours. Their words never, ever meet their actions and the sanctions need to be strengthened. Will the Secretary of State outline what discussions have taken place with the US and NATO to discuss a way forward that sent a clear message to Russia that the time of pushing boundaries is over, and the day is a clear expression that we will stand firm against aggression within the confines of international law.

20:54

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

Thank thanks. >> I welcome the hon. Gentleman's congratulations for the operation and just say to him, I hope he will see that this is part of the UK working to support our closest defence ally and the US taking action to ensure that sanctions regimes that are designed to bear down on countries like Iran and Russia for illegal shipping activity will be stepped up, will be enforced and will help put some of the economic pressure on those nations to change their ways.

20:54

Kevin Bonavia MP (Stevenage, Labour)

- -

Kevin Bonavia thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also commend the Defence Secretary and the Prime Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister for their calm and determined resolve in defence of Ukraine. And beyond that, Ukraine has no truer friend than this country. Now Putin knows that too, and that is why he would never tolerate a democracy such as ours, nor have a debate or the questions that we've had here this evening. And because of that, he will do everything to undermine this country.

So I ask my right hon. Friend, what can not only his department, but a government as a whole do to ensure that we as a country have the resilience to take whatever Russia may throw at us?

20:55

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

The two state. >> The two state. >> I say to my hon. Friend, if he refers back to the Strategic Defence Review that we published in Defence Review that we published in June last year, he will see the identification and explanation of the sort of increasing threats and risks we face, and he will see the recommendations with which which we've accepted and we will implement in full, including for how we deal with the need for greater resilience and the need for stronger homeland defence.

20:56

John Slinger MP (Rugby, Labour)

- -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree Does my right hon. Friend agree that in addition to the strong diplomatic and military leadership that he set out in his statement, it is wherever possible, the unity of this House and indeed unity in the country at large that really counts in sending a very clear and strong message to our friends and fellow like that. This country believes in the international rules based system, international law, standing up to bullies and valuing our alliances.

20:56

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

I do indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend is right. Speaker, my hon. Friend is right. In this new era of threat, this is an era also that demands hard power. an era also that demands hard power. It demands strong alliances. It demands sure diplomacy. But what all of that is based on is a domestic political unity of values and unity of intent. And I'm proud of the way that the UK sets a standard for that.

20:57

Mark Sewards MP (Leeds South West and Morley, Labour)

- -

Final question. Mark Sewards. >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the statement this evening. And I would statement this evening. And I would just say to those primarily outside this chamber that any deployment of British forces in Ukraine is not going to be a tripwire to a wider conflict if we don't deploy those forces, if we don't put that deterrent in place, if we don't back Ukraine, if we allow Putin to take Ukraine either now or at some point in the future, that will have devastating consequences for British interests and global stability.

But with British interests in mind and fully appreciating the answer he's given previously on troop numbers, I understand his reasoning for not wanting to share those. Can the Defence Secretary reassure this House that this country has the soldiers, the resources, the equipment to to ensure that we can provide an effective deterrent in Ukraine without compromising and undermining the commitments, the other commitments we've made to allies across the world state.

20:58

Rt Hon John Healey MP, The Secretary of State for Defence (Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, Labour)

- -

I can indeed, Madam Deputy >> I can indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, and in recent months I have been making sure that defence has been putting in the investment has been putting in the investment to ensure that in the point, at the point of peace, that we are ready to move, we're ready to deploy and above all, with the safety of our forces in mind, they are properly equipped and they're properly protected to do the job.

20:58

Points of Order Adam Jogee MP (Newcastle-under-Lyme, Labour)

- -

That is the end of the statement >> That is the end of the statement on Ukraine and wider operational

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on Ukraine and wider operational update. Point of order, Adam Jogee. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. When I left home in Newcastle on Monday to travel down Newcastle on Monday to travel down to Parliament, the weather was already very bad after a heavy amount of snow on Sunday night. However, for the people of Newcastle, the situation at home has got worse. That's thanks both to the weather and to the complete and utter failure of Staffordshire County Council to grit our roads and keep those who live, learn and work in Newcastle-under-Lyme safe.

I've heard reports of empty grit bins on Sterndale Drive and Westbury Park and Plymouth Grove, two of our town centre being an ice rink of the A34 from Newcastle to talk, not being fit for purpose roads through Chesterton, Audley and mainly being cut off just like roads in Wolstanton too. So can you Madam Deputy Speaker advise me of the best way for me to raise this issue in this House, to get Staffordshire County Council and its leadership? This is serious. To get to do what my constituents pay for and want, and to do their job to grit our roads and to do so.

Now.

20:59

Ms Nusrat Ghani MP (Sussex Weald, Conservative)

- -

I do not doubt that the matter >> I do not doubt that the matter is indeed serious, but it's not a point of order. And for the matter of the chair, the chair's powers do of the chair, the chair's powers do not extend to the hon. Members Staffordshire County Council, but he has nonetheless got his very important matter on the record right. Did the front benchers want to quickly shuffle over? Right. Do you wish to? OK, Marcus, I will move on to motion number three on public order.

Minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is, as on the order papers, may there be and say I of papers, may there be and say I of the contrary, no the division is deferred until Wednesday next

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deferred until Wednesday next motion number four on corporation tax. Mr. Move. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the order papers. May that opinion say I of contrary. No. The ayes have it. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary. No. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Motion on the House of Commons Commission. Minister to move. I beg to move.

21:01

Petition

The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many of that opinion say, Paper, as many of that opinion say, I of the contrary. No. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Petition

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alison Bennett. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This petition is accompanied by an online petition. It calls for elections to West Sussex County

21:01

Petitions

Council to go ahead this year. Were these elections not to go ahead? Sitting councillors will serve for six years rather than the usual four, which makes a mockery of our democracy. The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons urge the government to reject any request from West Sussex County Council to delay its election, enabling the election to go ahead as planned in May 2026.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Petition elections.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To West Sussex County Council. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. And I call Callum Anderson on the potential merits of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Anderson on the potential merits of a new eastern entrance at Bletchley railway station. Callum Anderson. Thank you. Thank you, Madam.

21:02

Adjournment: Potential merits of a new eastern entrance at Bletchley Railway Station

>> Deputy Speaker. And good. >> Things come to those who wait. >> And despite the despite the late hour, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hour, I. Am grateful for the opportunity to champion an issue of real strategic importance to Bletchley, strategic importance to Bletchley, namely the case for a new eastern entrance to our railway station, creating a direct and welcoming connection to our town centre that local people have waited far too

21:02

Adjournment: Potential merits of a new eastern entrance at Bletchley Railway Station Callum Anderson MP (Buckingham and Bletchley, Labour)

- -

21:15

Keir Mather MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Selby, Labour)

- -

Feed Live - Click to view video

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page