Commons Chamber

Wednesday 25th March 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
11:35
None Portrait Oral questions: Northern Ireland
-

11:35
11:36
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
None Portrait Q3. What steps he is taking to mark the anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. (908468)
-

>> Number three, Mr. Speaker. >> Secretary of State. >> Thank you very much indeed, Mr.
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
None Portrait Q5. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the Spring Forecast 2026 on Northern Ireland. (908470)
-

>> No, no, no. >> Douglas McAllister question number five, please. >> Mr. Speaker. >> Northern Ireland will directly benefit from the Spring Forecast
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:07
12:08
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:42
12:42
12:43
None Portrait Mr Speaker
-

Thank you.
12:43
None Portrait Ministerial statement: Report from the Independent Review into Countering Foreign Financial Influence and Interference in UK Politics
-

12:43
Steve Reed Portrait Rt Hon Steve Reed MP, The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Streatham and Croydon North, Labour )
-
-
Mr. Speaker. >> Mr. Speaker. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The responsibility to protect our democracy is a duty which every democracy is a duty which every single member of this House shares. As a government. We are clear eyed about the evolving threats we must contend with from those who wish to disrupt our democracy for their own gain and their own twisted purposes. We already have a strong toolkit to detect, disrupt and deter interference, and we are strengthening this through our Representation of the People Bill and counter Political Interference and Espionage Action plan.

But as threats evolve, so too must our protections. For this reason, I announced in December an independent review led by the former permanent secretary, Philip Rycroft, into foreign financial interference in UK politics. I would like to place on record my thanks to Mr. Rycroft for his thorough, diligent and swift work in rigorously assessing our political finance framework and identifying where further safeguards are needed. The full report from his review has today been laid before this House, and the findings are stark.

Mr. Rycroft concludes that this country faces a persistent problem of foreign interests seeking to exert influence on and to interfere in our politics, and that the threat has become arguably more acute. While he welcomes the measures in our bill, the report is clear that we need to go further, and I agree. We welcome both Mr. Rycroft's assessment and his wide ranging recommendations, which cover the regulation of corporate and overseas donations, the need to close loopholes used by some non-party campaign groups, the approach to combating online threats, the importance of ensuring enforcement agencies have the information and powers they need, and the organisation of Whitehall to ensure we are best placed to tackle these threats.

In advance of the Commons Report stage of the Representation of the People Bill, we will provide a comprehensive line by line response to all of the report's recommendations. I am clear that wherever necessary, we will be amending the Bill to ensure our defences against foreign interference are robust and given the gravity of the threats we face and their level of seriousness. I also want to reassure the House that we will take immediate action on the most serious loopholes set out in the report that allow illicit foreign money into our democracy.

Madam Deputy Speaker, British citizens living overseas have the right to participate in UK parliamentary elections, and this gives them the right to donate to parties or candidates they support. However, the report raises two fundamental concerns about such donations from overseas. Firstly, the report is clear that, quote, inevitably tracing the source of funds offered by individuals living abroad is more complex than for domestic donations. The report also raises concerns about the democratic fairness of allowing people who have chosen to live abroad to have their wealth taxed abroad, but who nonetheless have the opportunity to make potentially game changing donations into British politics.

I will therefore take immediate steps to implement the report's recommendation on donations from overseas electors. We will introduce an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to place an annual cap on the total political donation, donations. An overseas elector can make. That cap will be set at £100,000 a year. In light of the gravity of the issues raised in the report, I am not prepared to allow any window of opportunity in which malign actors based overseas can funnel dark money into our politics.

This cap will therefore apply retrospectively, so it includes all donations from overseas electors received from today, and all regulated transactions entered into from today. Once the provisions are enforced, any donations by an overseas elector to any political party or regulated entity that exceed the cap for that overseas elector will be an unlawful donation, subject to parliamentary approval of the amendment. I will table the recipient of any unlawful donation will have 30 days to return that donation once the legislation comes into force, after which enforcement action can be taken and criminal penalties will apply.

This cap will apply to relevant donations from today in all elections in the UK. This includes for parties at the upcoming English local elections. Scottish Parliament elections and Senate elections in Scotland and Wales. Donations to candidates rather than parties are devolved are devolved matters, but my intention is to seek a legislative consent motion for our amendment to ensure there are no gaps in our safeguards, and I will speak to my counterparts in the Scottish and Welsh governments to emphasise my commitment to work together to protect our electoral system right across the United Kingdom.

The second recommendation I will take immediate action on relates to donations made in cryptocurrencies. Following extensive consultation, Mr. Rycroft sets out clearly the deep reservations many people have about such donations. His conclusions are clear and I quote there is a risk. Crypto assets are used as a vehicle to channel foreign money into the political system in the UK, and we should pause the use of crypto assets for political donations for the time being. Madam Deputy Speaker, I accept Mr.

Rycroft's assessment that the anonymity inherent in cryptocurrency transactions transactions could make it easier to mask the origin of donations and to evade robust checks on the true source of funds. The clear route this creates for illicit channelling of money into our politics is unacceptable and undermines public confidence in our electoral system. In light of this, I can confirm the government will take immediate steps to implement the recommendation made in the report, and we will introduce an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to place a moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrency.

I want to be crystal clear that, as the report recommends, I mean crypto in any amount, including donations of a value that would ordinarily fall below the threshold for control on donations, there are specific risks posed by cryptocurrency donations, such as the risk of rapid multiple small donations being made just below our current thresholds. This moratorium will remain in place until the Electoral Commission and this Parliament are satisfied there is sufficient regulation in place to ensure full confidence and transparency in donations being made in this way, subject to parliamentary approval.

This moratorium will be applied retrospectively to any crypto donations received from today by any political parties and regulated entities once the provisions are in force. If a political party or regulated entity has received a donation in the interim, they will have 30 days to return it, after which enforcement action can be taken and criminal penalties will apply. This will again apply to all elections in the United Kingdom, and as I have set out, we will work with devolved governments to secure legislative consent where that is required.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like again to express my thanks to Philip Rycroft for his comprehensive, thoughtful and well reasoned report. It is and always will be an absolute priority for this government to protect our democratic and electoral processes. The swift and decisive action being taken by this government sends a clear message. We will do everything necessary to protect, to protect the UK's democracy. I commend this statement to the House.
12:53
12:53
James Cleverly Portrait Rt Hon Sir James Cleverly MP (Braintree, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the. Secretary of State and I thank the. Secretary of State for advance. >> Sight of this statement. >> And I echo his thanks to Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I echo his thanks to Mr. Rycroft on the work he's done on what is a very important report. We began the work in this area through the Defending Democracy Task Force, and I'm glad to see the Minister, the security Minister, in his place to highlight the important link between the work of this report and the work that he does. And there should be no party political divide when it comes to protecting the integrity of our democracy.

And of course, there is a great deal within this report that my party instinctively agrees with. But the process falls far short of what this House should expect. The Rycroft Review, 50 pages, was published just 20 minutes before Prime Minister's Questions, and only five minutes before one of his Ministers was hosting a meeting that I was invited to on local government reorganisation, making it very difficult for me to properly read the detail of the report and.

Made it very difficult for me to read the detail of an incredibly important report, a report with which I said we instinctively have much that we agree. This is not just poor procedure. It means that it is harder for the opposition to properly scrutinise the actions of the government, particularly in light of the fact that many of the proposals in the report are being initiated immediately. Sadly, this does follow a pattern of behaviour from this government. This bill has already been through Second Reading and is at bill committee, and yet today this is the first time we are seeing important elements of a report that goes to the heart of that legislation.

Foreign interference is growing, and it does demand a coherent response, a cross-party response. And yet this government chooses to legislate first and then make announcements later. They brought forward the Representation of the People Bill. Before this review had been reported, they asked the House to scrutinise legislation which was full of holes, which the Secretary of State is now announcing at the despatch box. This is not good process and it is not about process. For process steak. It is about ensuring that unforeseen outcomes, bad outcomes, are avoided whilst protecting what needs to be protected.

Because now we are told that major changes, fundamental changes on donations, on enforcement, on on transparency. We rushed into a bill mid-way through its process late in the bill's passage, without proper consultation, without proper scrutiny, without proper type. Madam Deputy Speaker, This is not the way of making sure that cross party policy is successfully implemented, and it is absolutely right that the Secretary of State and the government want to send a clear message that they take this seriously.

And we echo we echo that desire, but this is not the way to do it. Announcing government action by press release, then filling in the details later actually undermines the important work at the heart of this report. Russia's aggression, Iran's hostile activity on British soil, cyber attacks on our institution, Chinese state based activity against us here in UK makes it incredibly important that we fight this fight together. And having these things bumped on the House in the way that this report has been does not help.

And he knows he knows that I very much we are very much on the same side of this. So I have a number of questions which I will rattle through. Now why did he not wait for the Ryecroft report before introducing this bill to the House. Which of the review's recommendations will require primary legislation and what time will be made for for that primary legislation? Will he commit to a full consultation with the political parties and regulators before making any substantive amendments to bill going through the House from initial reading, the proposal on company donations will have a significant effect on legitimate domestic donations.

Why is the government proposing to treat domestic philanthropy as if it was something distasteful? And will the Secretary of State confirm that these changes will not be brought forward without proper consultation and consideration on the effects of legitimate domestic funding for foreign interference is not the only threat to the integrity of our elections. We have seen evidence of breaches of electoral law. So what steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure the current legislation is enforced? Will he tighten the rules on foreign donations? He said about he said about devolved.

He said about devolved franchise changes in Wales and Scotland. What will he do to make sure that the forthcoming elections are protected? And finally, finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, finally, does the Secretary of State now accept a very short pause to enabled to enable good faith interventions from my party and others would make this legislation stronger and send

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the signal that we are united as a democracy in this endeavour. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Stake. Can I thank him, first of all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank him, first of all for his support, for the purpose and intent of this, of this legislation and indeed for his and legislation and indeed for his and his party's engagement with Philip Rycroft. On his review, he lists the reasons why this is important the reasons why this is important to all of or to all of us. And I agree with him and certainly are put on the record. I want to see proper engagement with the opposition and proper scrutiny, the opportunity for proper scrutiny by the opposition, because that will strengthen the legislation.

It's important it has cross-party support, given the nature of the issue that we that we are talking about, we had to act quickly to bring forward the provisions because we could not allow a window of opportunity to open, which would allow malign and hostile actors to evade the intent that we're all that we're, that we're all that we're all seeking. Beyond that, the the proposals will proceed in the usual way through the parliamentary processes, and members on all sides will have the opportunity to comment and be engaged.

It was necessary to act at speed because of the gravity of the threats, which Philip Rycroft review outlines very, very, very, very clearly. None of us want to allow foreign interference to continue. All of us believe it is the right of the British people and the British people alone to freely choose their own government. We will engage with governments across the United Kingdom and parties across this Parliament to ensure that is the outcome.
13:01
Florence Eshalomi Portrait Florence Eshalomi MP (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, Labour )
-
-
Select Committee Chair Florence Eshalomi. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Maya, start by the Secretary of State and the Shadow Secretary of State's comments, paying tribute to State's comments, paying tribute to Sir Philip Rycroft for his tireless work and to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy for their work on cryptocurrency. Madam Deputy Speaker, We have to be honest in that there is a lot of mistrust in our politics and democracy as it stands, and I'm proud to stand here as someone who is supported by two trade unions and local members.

In terms of how I was funded for my campaign. And we also have to be honest to say that if we are going to defend this country from foreign threats in one breath, then allowing fundamentally opaque payment methods in our democracy is not on. And it is right that the government will put this memorandum on cryptocurrency in place. So I welcome the Secretary of State's pledge on this and the cap for overseas electors, following the extension of their enfranchisement in the Elections Act 2022.

But as it stated in Rycroft Review, we know that one of the problems is the fact that no less than five departments cover responsibility to protect our democracy. Secretary of State and Madam Speaker, if we want to get this right, we need to continue with that leadership at the heart of government. So will the Secretary of State accept recommendation 17 of this review and allocate a permanent Secretary with lead responsibility for sustaining our democracy and coordinating the response at the heart of government? And will the Secretary of State also commit that any amendments to the representation of peoples Bill as a result of the recommendations be brought forward? Whilst the Bill is still going through the Commons before Report stage, so that us as a party, as a Parliament, can have adequate time to scrutinise these proposals.
13:03
13:03
Lisa Smart Portrait Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Called the Liberal Democrat >> Called the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Lisa Smart. Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Secretary of State for advanced sight of his of State for advanced sight of his statement, and I was grateful to meet Philip Rycroft as part of this important and urgent work. The important and urgent work. The threat we face, though, is not new. Back in 2020, the Intelligence and Security Committee said Russian influence in the UK is the new normal and the government then was not doing enough.

Since then we've seen reforms. Former leader in Wales being convicted for accepting pro-Russian bribes. We said before that the Representation of the People Bill is not nearly ambitious enough, and so I very much look forward to working as part of the bill committee to incorporate these recommendations. Could the Secretary of State say a little more and clarify whether the government intends to accept just the two recommendations he's focussed on in his statement, or if the government plans to accept all of them on overseas donations? A cap is welcome.

But does he accept that if this reform is made without wider changes, a malign actor could get around it by simply donating via a UK company? We strongly support the moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrency, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, much more is needed to really seize this opportunity to clean up our politics. We should ban anyone who has served a foreign administration from donating to UK political parties to think tanks or campaign groups. The significant opportunity remains for those who have been political appointees in hostile governments to funnel donations into the UK.

We should also ban politicians from receiving payment for participating in the propaganda of foreign adversaries on broadcasters like Russia Today and Iran's press TV. And could he address why calls from the Liberal Democrats for Donald Trump's administration and their explicit policy of interference in our democracy to be included in this review were ignored? Will he order a standalone probe.
13:05
13:06
13:07
13:07
13:09
13:10
13:10
13:11
13:11
13:11
13:12
13:12
13:13
13:13
13:13
Matt Western Portrait Matt Western MP (Warwick and Leamington, Labour)
-
-
Matt Western thank you. >> Madam Deputy Speaker of course, I very much. Welcome Sir Philip Rycroft review. It's long. >> Overdue when you think about how

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Overdue when you think about how much money has been flooding in from Russia and elsewhere. But of course, the question about association and certain individuals have been donating significant amounts of money. Yet living in Thailand and haven't been here, living here for 21 years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. The Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, which of course, I chair. Madam Deputy Speaker, we made many recommendations in our political finance report, which we published last week. In fact, we've published last week. In fact, we've I've put down 11 amendments, which I hope the Secretary of State will view as very much constructive view as very much constructive amendments. I welcome the connection test that the Secretary of State has been mentioning about the individual, but also at the individual, but also at corporate level.

And, of course, the moratorium on cryptocurrencies is extremely welcome. We think back to California, which banned them back in 2018. So it just goes to show how much could have been done in recent years. Just on the point about capacity of the enforcement agencies, it's a real concern. The penalty is higher. Penalties are much welcomed, I'm sure, by them. But just to reiterate the point about the Electoral Commission, across the enforcement agencies and the Electoral commission, that does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need to be greater capacity and greater expertise. Secretary of State yes, I thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary of State yes, I thank him for his his question. I recognise the concerns that he's raising. I've addressed them in comments that I've made to previous members who have previously spoken, and I won't repeat them.
13:15
13:15
13:16
13:16
13:17
13:18
13:18
13:19
13:20
13:20
13:21
13:21
13:22
13:22
13:23
13:23
13:23
13:24
13:25
13:25
13:25
13:26
13:26
13:27
13:27
13:28
13:28
13:29
13:30
Phil Brickell Portrait Phil Brickell MP (Bolton West, Labour)
-
-
And as an individual who's >> And as an individual who's dedicating my life to tackling corruption in all its forms and the >> Chair of the APPG on Anti-Corruption. Can I thank the Secretary of State and the Member for Barnsley North for their commitment to addressing foreign interference in our politics, and also thank Andy Prophet for his review. Yeah. May I also thank the immediate measures that the government has announced today around crypto donations and the size of donations made by British nationals abroad.

I think they are very welcome and very much needed. But can I press the Secretary of State on three particular questions? Firstly, to what extent can he assure the House that the Electoral Commission is sufficiently supported to be able to monitor and police the perimeter of the new announcements that have been made today? Secondly, can he confirm that, contrary to the remarks from the Shadow Secretary of State, there was ample opportunity for political parties of all stripes to feed into this review.

And thirdly, on know your donor checks and the risk factors that are going to be introduced through this bill. There is a recommendation in this report that they are more aligned with the anti-money laundering requirements that have been in place for quite some time, either for banks or other financial services firms. Can he commit to working with other regulators, for instance, the Financial Conduct Authority, to understand how those are best implemented, working with parties?
13:31
13:32
13:32
13:34
13:34
13:35
13:35
13:36
13:36
13:36
13:36
13:37
13:37
13:38
13:39
13:39
13:40
13:40
13:41
13:42
13:42
13:43
13:43
13:44
13:45
13:45
13:46
13:46
13:47
13:47
13:48
13:48
13:48
13:49
13:49
13:50
13:50
13:51
13:51
13:52
13:53
13:54
13:54
13:56
13:56
Alex Davies-Jones Portrait Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
-
I am very grateful for the opportunity to once again be speaking on the Victims and Courts Bill as it returns to this House. This is fundamentally a bill for victims. At its core, the measures seek to ensure that victims are treated with dignity, compassion and respect throughout the entire justice process. The bill will ensure that offenders are held to account by giving judges the power to impose prison sanctions on offenders who refuse to attend their sentencing hearings, something that the families of Olivia Pratt-korbel, Jan Mustafa, Zara Elena and Sabina Nessa have campaigned tirelessly for.

It places the welfare of children firmly at the centre by restricting the parental responsibility of the most serious offenders, including child sex offenders and those who have conceived a child through rape. The bill also strengthens the power of the Victims' Commissioner by giving them greater authority to act in individual cases that raise systemic issues, and requiring an independent assessment of compliance with the victims code. I am grateful for the scrutiny given to this bill and the Other place. The Lords amendments that we are considering today reflect a shared determination across both houses to improve outcomes for victims.

However, while the government shares this objective, we must ensure that the reforms are workable, proportionate and capable of being delivered effectively. I will now turn to the seven non-government government amendments made in the Other place first amendments one and three relate to court transcripts through the Sentencing Act 2026. The government has already introduced a major expansion to transcript provision that will, for the first time ever, give all victims the ability to request free transcripts of Crown Court sentencing remarks directly relevant to their case from spring 2027.

This is a significant step forward for victims, improving access to clear information about how decisions are made, and it will strengthen their ability to navigate the justice process. This is a significant operational undertaking, and we must ensure that this major expansion for victims is delivered effectively and in a way that is operationally sustainable. We are working at pace to deliver this, and it is essential that we get it right so that victims receive that important information in a timely way. It will help them understand the sentence that has been passed and support their recovery.

However, Madam Deputy Chair, we recognise the strength of feeling around transcripts, particularly from victims, and I want to reference the strength of feeling in this House towards this subject too. I want to be clear that the government is approaching this with care and ambition to go further. Access to what was said in court matters deeply for victims understanding, confidence and their sense of justice and the steps that we are taking to expand free provision of sentencing remarks a re happily give way to my.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Honourable colleague. I welcome this bill and I really welcome this government's focus. Laser focus on government's focus. Laser focus on supporting victims and survivors. It's something that's been lacking in our court system for a very long in our court system for a very long time. I hear what she's saying about court transcripts. It is incredibly important for the incredibly important for the victims and survivors I know to have a physical copy of sentencing remarks so that they can process it remarks so that they can process it in their own time.

So I'm confused why she's not accepting amendments one and three at this point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, I Minister, I welcome that comment and I and I agree with her from the countless, sadly victims from the countless, sadly victims and survivors that I've spoken to. They discussed the need to have that in writing. How how valuable that in writing. How how valuable the court transcript could be to helping them recover and process. And I want to commit at the Dispatch Box that the government shares that ambition to go further and to provide transcripts. What we need to do is do it in a workable, need to do is do it in a workable, sustainable and effective way so that no victim is let down by a process that is not ready or capable of meeting.

The challenge that this presents us as a government, but we are willing to go further, and we will be looking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords. Thank you. Josh Fenton-Glynn. I thank. The Minister for going.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister for going. Further in kind of moves. Moves to make these transcripts available. Could you let us know what the next steps in that process are going to steps in that process are going to be, and how quickly we are going to see a real movement to allow people to have have access to their sentencing remarks.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sentencing remarks. I welcome that question from my hon. Friend. And he's right. We need to have that incremental process towards the shared ambition process towards the shared ambition to going further on court transcripts, which is why I am clear that this is not the end point, but it is part of that broader effort to improve access, transparency and support for victims. I've been working with my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North, who was a tireless campaigner on this, as are many other campaign groups such as Open Justice, and I want to pay tribute to them for all of their work that they have done.

On getting the sentencing transcripts free for everyone in the Crown Court. We want to go further in conversation with others in this place and outside of this place, and with victims experience. At the heart of this, I think it's important we consult them on what would be most beneficial as a next step, particularly in which in cases that, for example, ended in acquittal and how those could be potentially looked at next in terms

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of court transcripts. Yeah. Happily, to give way. I'm grateful. To the Minister. For giving way. I was slightly concerned when I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was slightly concerned when I heard the Minister say that she was going to work at PACE, because that's the phrase that Ministers in that's the phrase that Ministers in the Defence Department have used for the defence Investment Plan, for the defence Investment Plan, which has been repeatedly postponed and still isn't with us. So when she says she's going to work at she says she's going to work at PACE, is she able to give a more precise timescale, or does that months?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Davidjones. I welcome the intervention from the hon. Gentleman. I cannot speak for the Department for defence, but for the Department for defence, but I can speak to my own record here as the Minister and my own actions in government when it comes to in government when it comes to delivering for victims, and I am happy to put on record that we are working at pace to deliver this. working at pace to deliver this. She, the hon. Gentleman, will see what measures come back in the Lords and what commitments we are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

able to make once we look at what is possible, practical, workable and effective, I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman. Giving way. She gives us a reason for turning down the Lords amendments that she needs to consult. Is that the usual approach to consult before bringing the legislation, not to bring the legislation and then consult afterwards?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister perhaps I wasn't very clear for the hon. Gentleman. This isn't about consulting with victims isn't about consulting with victims on what is required. We know what the victims want. I've spoken to many, many of them regarding court transcripts, but what is possible transcripts, but what is possible right now, whilst prioritising delivering these sentencing remarks for free for all victims and for free for all victims and ensuring that we work with the judiciary to ensure that we get this right and accurate, is the priority for the government.

We are priority for the government. We are willing to go further. As I've said, this is not the end here in terms of where we go next. On court transcripts, for example, looking at what would be best suited as the next possible step in this place for victims is that the acquittal? Is that the best possible focus of this work right now? We need to get that right before we go further, and I will happily come back to this House with the court's Minister on the next steps.

But if I could turn to the Lords Amendment Amendment number one, which would create that new entitlement for all victims of crime to receive free of charge and within 14 days. Let us not forget that is what is in the amendment here of a request. Transcripts of routes to verdict and of bail conditions and decisions relevant to their case. I would like to explain in more detail, madam, Madam Deputy Speaker, why this proposal would not provide significant benefits over the systems that are already in place at present.

Firstly, under the victims code, victims already have the right to be informed of bail outcomes and release conditions within five working days. So actually, in a shorter timeframe than what is proposed in the Lords Amendment, we recognise the importance of this right and the benefits for victims in being able to access information in a timely or consistent way. We are also currently exploring how responsibilities under the victims code are being met by the relevant service providers, and how better to support them in the delivery of that code.

I'd also like to make it clear to hon. Members that we are seeking views through the ongoing victims code consultation, which ends at the end of April, on whether current processes for providing bail information are working as intended to strengthen this further once commenced. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 will introduce a compliance framework requiring all criminal justice bodies to keep the delivery of the code under review. Taken together, these operational and legislative measures address the core concern around timely and sufficient provision on bail information far more effectively than introducing that through a statutory duty to provide transcripts of bail hearings.

Secondly, on the routes to verdict now, providing victims with these would actually be unlikely to add significant value, which is why we need to discuss with victims on what would be of most value to them. A route to verdict is typically a very short document, sometimes not even a document at all. Its purpose is not to explain the outcome of a case, but to guide the jury through a series of legal questions that they must consider privately when applying the law to the facts.

Crucially, juries do not provide their answers to these questions, nor do they even give a reason for their verdict. Victims would therefore only see the questions the jury was asked, not how they were answered, and they would gain no additional insight into the outcome of that decision. Turning now to Lords Amendment three. Madam Deputy Speaker, this would require the Crown Court to publish sentencing remarks transcripts online, in public, within 14 days of requests being made, and inform relevant victims of their right to request anonymity before that publication.

Now, whilst the government is fully committed to strengthening transparency here, and I want to make that commitment, this amendment actually would create significant operational and financial pressures on victims as well at a very difficult time. Public release demands a higher standard of anonymisation to remove both direct and indirect identifiers of victims and witnesses. This is very detailed, skilled work. Current AI based tools cannot reliably carry out anonymization for the complex and sensitive material heard in the criminal courts, and still requires trained staff to manually review each and every transcript.

This means that even modest increases in publication would create disproportionate pressures on operational capacity. Furthermore, requiring the court to make the victims aware of their right to request anonymity makes appropriate redactions and published transcript online, all within 14 days of sentencing. Remark transcript requests being made is not operationally viable at this time. Our immediate priority, as I have said, must be delivering the sentencing remarks expansion for victims properly and at pace. Adding substantial new duties at this stage would divert the very resources needed to deliver these important commitments for victims, which victims have asked us directly to provide.

I now turn to Lords Amendment two, which proposes the creation of an appendix to the Victims Code, setting out how that code applies to close relatives of a British national victim of murder, manslaughter and infanticide outside of the UK, where the victim was resident in England and Wales. The government cannot support this amendment as it risks placing obligations on agencies to provide services to bereaved families that are impossible to deliver in practice, and in some places go further than the actual victims code itself.

It also risks confusing the existing legislative framework and therefore the workability of the code itself, and could raise the expectations of victims. The victims code already applies to some families bereaved by homicide abroad, namely where the offence is murder or manslaughter, and the perpetrator is a British national or a British resident. This is because in these circumstances, the case is capable of prosecution. In England and Wales, where offences are not capable of prosecution. In the UK, for example, where the crime is committed overseas by a foreign national.

Most entitlements to the victims code do not apply. I want to pay tribute here to the hon. Member for Maidenhead, who is in his place and all the work that he has done working with the brilliant organisation Murdered Abroad, representing the views of all of the families here. Whilst I appreciate that the code does not capture the whole of the cohort covered by the amendment, I want to give him and the House my absolute assurance that the government recognises the particular challenges faced by all families bereaved by homicide abroad, including those having to navigate a very complicated, complex, often in different languages, overseas criminal justice processes.

And we are committed to working with agencies to improve the support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

available to them in England and Wales. I will give way. Chris Vince. I thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the Minister for giving way. thank the Minister for giving way. Can I join her in thanking the hon. Member for Maidenhead for his work on this particular issue? Can I on this particular issue? Can I also take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend from Bolsover for her work on the part of this bill, her work on the part of this bill, which ensures that there is no parental rights for child sex offenders, and also those who have offenders, and also those who have had their child conceived by committing rape, which is absolutely abhorrent.

And I thank her for taking those things forward

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and her work in making sure that victims are at the centre of this bill. I thank my hon. Friend for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He's right. This is this is called the victims Bill. This is a bill for victims built by victims, sadly, by their experiences of how the criminal justice system hasn't supported them, how it has failed them. And them, how it has failed them. And that is why it is important that we build on this bill to ensure that we get this right, workable and effective and deliverable for them effective and deliverable for them in their everyday lives and for, sadly, the future victims that will inevitably be created by crime committed here or overseas.

Now, I want to go back to the victims of homicide abroad and confirm to the House that in January of this year, the government published guidance which does bring together clear and accessible information for families about the services that can support them. Alongside this, we have clarified the roles and responsibilities in further documentation online, which sets out exactly how the foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the National Police Chiefs Council, the Ministry of Justice and the Chief Coroner and Coroner Service will work together when a British national is the victim of murder or manslaughter abroad, whilst every single case is considered on its individual circumstances, this document will seek to ensure a consistent level of service for bereaved families.

Throughout the debates on this topic, we have listened carefully to the concerns raised and we are committed to addressing them to improve the consistency of support offered from consular services, the FCDO has committed to review and refresh its training provision for all consular staff. We need to improve access to translated documents, and the Ministry of Justice will review how translation is provided in the course of delivering the new Homicide Service contract in 2027. Finally, to ensure that there is an independent view of the approach by agencies which support this cohort, the FCDO's senior official for consular services will meet the Victims' Commissioner herself or a representative when particular issues arise that merit further discussion.

And for this, I wish to thank the Victims' Commissioner and the previous Victims' Commissioner for continuing to engage with the FCDO and other agencies to advocate for families on their behalf. While we remain committed to strengthening support for families bereaved by homicide abroad. This amendment sadly confuses the purpose of the code in terms of its intended application to crimes capable of prosecution in England and Wales. It also risks creating obligations on agencies that are impossible to deliver, given that many of these cases will be handled overseas and therefore fall entirely outside of the agencies within the code's control.

Instead, we are determined to directly address the concerns faced by bereaved families. Turning now to Lords Amendments four and seven, these amendments remove clause 12 entirely from the bill, meaning that the Lord Chancellor would not have the power to set the rates of private prosecution costs recoverable from central funds. As such, the government cannot support them. Retaining the current arrangements for private prosecutions would preserve a system that is inconsistent and places an unnecessary burden on the courts. Currently, when a private prosecution prosecutor applies for their costs to be paid from central funds, there is no prescribed rate.

The court or the legal aid agency, acting on behalf of the court, has to work out in each individual case what that level of reimbursement is reasonably sufficient. That lack of clarity leads to unnecessary disputes, appeals and delays in an already delayed court process. By introducing transparent, consistent rates, we will give prosecutors clarity and certainty about what they will be paid, thereby reducing the need for cost appeals. Valuable court time is sadly taken up determining costs because of the lack of prescribed rates, imposing an unnecessary burden on the courts.

It is important to stress again that the majority of private prosecutions never result in a claim from central funds, and will be entirely unaffected by this measure. Most private prosecutors act responsibly applying the code test properly, and they pursue cases in the public interest. But we cannot ignore the evidence that in a small number of cases, the near-certainty of recovering a large cost from central funds may cause private prosecutions to be pursued, and that is disproportionate or unsustainable remedy to the presenting legal issues.

We have seen examples, Madam Deputy Speaker, where the costs claimed bear little resemblance to the actual scale of the seriousness of the case, such as a £90,000 claim in a fraud prosecution where the loss was merely £5,000. That is not what the system was intended for. But let me be clear clause 12 does not set any rates and it does not alter the long established right to bring a private prosecution. That right remains protected under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and it will not be affected before any rates are set.

There will be extensive engagement with stakeholders and a full public consultation. The government remains open minded about where the rates should ultimately be set, and the rates will reflect the complexity and seriousness of cases and will be shaped by the evidence that we gather. A number of respected charities bring private prosecutions to protect the public and to pursue wrongdoing, but it is important to note that charities represent only about 10 to 15% of private prosecutions that result in claims on a central fund, and that they will be able to continue to bring private prosecutions.

Nothing in this clause within the Bill alters that fundamental right to bring a private prosecution. That right is long standing, preserved in statute, and the government has no intention of changing it. Clause 12 is measured and necessary in stepping towards reform. It will bring clarity in an unclear system. It will improve efficiency, reduce unnecessary burdens on the courts and help ensure that taxpayers money is used responsibly. It does all of this while safeguarding access to justice and maintaining fully and unequivocally the fundamental right to bring a private prosecution.

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, turning to the unduly lenient Sentencing Scheme and Lords amendments five and six, I want to first send my gratitude to bury victims and campaigners, particularly Katy Brett and Tracy Hanson, who have so tirelessly raised these issues with the ULS scheme with great commitment on behalf of victims. I also want to thank the Victims' Commissioner for her support on behalf of victims everywhere in raising this consistently. I also want to thank all hon. Members in this place who have drawn the government's attention to the problems in the unduly lenient sentencing scheme.

We have heard you. This is a government that listens to victims. We are committed to making these changes that will address the issues that have been raised. The rights of victims to make a request under the unduly lenient sentencing scheme is not a right unless they are told about it on. That is something we can all agree. The government accepts fully the intention behind these amendments. I have heard personally powerful first hand testimony as to how important these changes will be for victims coming into contact with the ULS scheme.

However, the government cannot accept these amendments today as drafted for legal and operational reasons. The drafting of amendment five identifies circumstances which are not in fact exceptional for current law and provides no long stop date. This would create uncertainty for victims, offenders and the courts, and it would risk a large number of very late and unmeritorious requests to the Attorney General's office. Amendment six would. Duplicate duties that are already set out in the Victims code, creating a parallel statutory duty on an unspecified government department, which risks confusion and also risks where the responsibility actually lies and would cut across existing operational practice.

We instead, and I make this commitment today, working closely and directly with the victims and bereaved and with operational partners and other government departments to develop a practical and practical and workable legislative change that will address the issues that we have heard around notification and applying to the scheme out of time. We already have the commitment from the Attorney General's Office, the CPS, the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs Council to work with us to further improve awareness of the ULS scheme.

They have all urgently assessed what actions can be taken in their respective areas. The plan is to deliver positive change in three clear areas of reform, and we will be bringing in legislative changes to this effect. First, we are strengthening guidance and frontline practice. The CPS is considering updates to its guidance to encourage advocates and CPS staff to draw victim's attention to the scheme when they are present at sentencing hearings. The Police and Home Office have committed to exploring, reviewing and updating the letters that are sent by the witness care units to which the Victims' Commissioner has offered her direct support in ensuring that information is communicated in a trauma informed way.

Both the CPS and the police also plan to enhance operational guidance so that frontline staff fully understand the process and the importance of that 28 day window, including what victims must be referred to in a timely fashion by the CPS. By Witness Care Unit if they cannot answer questions on the scheme. Second, we want to raise awareness across the system. We are going to work with victim support organisations to strengthen their understanding of the unduly lenient sentencing scheme and improve the materials that they provide to families.

We will also consider how to enhance the visibility and usability of the scheme on Gov.uk, making it easier to find and easier to navigate. We will also consider how to build a ULS scheme messaging into any future waves of wider victims. Code awareness campaigns, including material that is used directly by the witness care units. Third, we will consider how to embed these improvements throughout the Statutory Victims code and the forthcoming duty on agencies to promote awareness of the victims code. We are currently consulting on a new victims code to make sure that we get the foundations for victims right.

I encourage all hon. Members to respond to that consultation to represent the views of victims that they are hearing from in their own constituencies. We will continue to test if we are getting this right, as any change to the scheme must be right for victims first and foremost. I will happily give away.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister will forgive me if I describe what she has announced as a whole load of waffle. Yes. The as a whole load of waffle. Yes. The problem. The problem is that the 28 problem. The problem is that the 28 day period is too short, and therefore she should consider some mechanism to allow that to be mechanism to allow that to be extended and providing for training and providing for notices and providing for stuff on websites is not going to help many victims, who just need more time to consider their legal position.

So at this late stage, would she consider

**** Possible New Speaker ****

extending that 28 day period? Mr Hehir I'm afraid the hon. Member couldn't have heard what I said in my remarks before the non-legislative changes. The government is committed to bringing forward legislative changes on that time limit. On looking at out of time applications by families, because the government has listened to the families directly about what they wanted, we could have brought forward an amendment that simply forward an amendment that simply extended the time limit. However, the families directly told us that was not what they wanted.

I listened to victims, the government listened to victims, the government listened to victims. And we will do as the victims ask and the victims bill. We will continue to test on getting this right, because it is important that we get this right first time. We are confident that we will soon be able to update this House on a workable legislative solution. And for those reasons, the government cannot accept Lords amendments five and six. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
14:20
Nick Timothy Portrait Nick Timothy MP (West Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
The question is that this House disagrees with the laws in their amendment one, and I call the amendment one, and I call the Timothy. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a week when the government has been reprimanded for letting foreign criminals out of prison without proper checks or safeguards, has been found to have watched a firm due to build thousands of prison places, go bust 18 months ago and do absolutely nothing, and ended short term sentences allowing criminals like prolific shoplifters to escape prison.

It is beyond disappointing that today it seeks to overturn perfectly sensible amendments made in the House of Lords, amendments to make the criminal justice system more transparent and giving victims stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences. So we have to ask, why is this government so afraid of the public? Why do Ministers not trust the people? Why do they want to keep injustice from the rape gangs to the serious criminals getting away with a few brief years in prison out of the spotlight.

They sigh and they moan. When I raise the rape gangs. This is exactly the mentality the country is sick of and lay behind the failure to prosecute those cases. Madam Deputy Speaker, we support Lords Amendment two on expanding the victims code for murder, manslaughter and infanticide abroad. We support Lords Amendment four to remove clause 12 from the bill because it will deliver few savings while undermining access to justice, and we support amendments five and six which strengthen the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

Amendment five introduces an exceptional circumstances clause that allows the deadline to be extended beyond 28 days, and amendment six requires the Justice Secretary to ensure victims and their families are aware of their rights under the scheme. These are welcome suggestions and I want to pay tribute to Katy, Brett and the rest of justice for victims and to Tracey Hanson for their campaigning on this front. They have been consistent in making clear that they want meaningful change and not half measures.

Just last week, I wrote to the Attorney General about the case of Mohammed Abdul Razzak, who dragged a five year old girl off the street so he could sexually assault her. He was sentenced to only 11 years in prison, and in all probability, he will be out in just seven. Monsters like him need to be kept away from children. The government's opposition to these amendments weakens justice and reduces public protection. I heard what the Minister said about looking at legislation. In the future, we will hold her to those words.

Madam Deputy Speaker. The failure to trust the people goes not just for the unduly lenient sentence scheme, but wider transparency in the justice system. And it's to this that I want to direct the rest of my remarks, because on this side of the House, we do trust the people. And so we support Lords Amendment one, which entitles victims to free transcripts of route to verdict and bail decisions. And we support Lords Amendment three, which requires the publication of Crown Court transcripts of judges sentences, remarks online and for free within 14 days of request made by any member of the public.

The Minister for victims explained the government's position on these amendments, and amid the verbiage, I could discern only excuses. She sounded like the driver of a broken down train, with passengers stranded miles from the nearest station, doing her best to assure everyone on the train that it was indeed moving. But Madam Deputy Speaker, of course everyone knows that there isn't any movement. The train we are on is entirely stationary, and this is an important lesson for the hon. Lady, as indeed it is for other members of this government.

The repetition of fiction does not make something fact. We can all see exactly what is and what is not happening. I want to explain why this is so important. Of course, we want to see how the provisions of the Sentencing Act are implemented, but it's simply not acceptable for victims to be charged as much as £7,000 for a transcript. And it's vital that we allow transparency to make it easier for victims, for journalists, for the wider public to see what is going on in our courts and detect patterns, because we know from too many tragedies and too many cover ups that sunlight is always the best disinfectant.

Take the court's desk scandal. When the justice secretary tries to shut down this vital, searchable archive of court hearings, he caused an outcry before courts desk. Official court listings matched reality just 4.2% of the time, two thirds of courts routinely heard cases the media never knew about from crimes committed by illegal immigrants in asylum hotels to weak sentences for paedophiles from the people dragged through the courts for breaking lockdown rules years after the pandemic, to offending by convicted criminals who should have been tagged but were not.

Courts desk helped journalists to join the dots, securing justice for victims and exposing failures in policy. I still want to know why the justice Secretary wanted to delete this archive, and I want to know why. Ministers blamed courts desk for a serious data breach when documents released since show that the MoJ considered the breach low risk and not worthy of a referral to the Information Commissioner. The Minister can explain if she wishes, I will be willing to intervene.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course. Yes, yes. Wait. Excuse me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No protocol is that the other member would want to intervene. But I take the encouragement and the Minister rose to it as well. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister rose to it as well. So well done. Well done to the shadow Justice. Secretary. Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On courts, specifically, the the Shadow Secretary of State will know that this is a private company that this is a private company providing a subscription based specialist data platform that provides specialist services to journalists. It is aggregating Magistrates' court data. This was not stopping data sharing with Courts desk at all. It does. This was not about reducing transparency. This was merely a commercial sensitivity proposal that was taken temporarily offline whilst we were determining new contracts.

This was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not regarding transparency. ASB short. Nick Timothy Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nick Timothy Madam Deputy Speaker. I think she's been taking lessons from the Prime Minister. That answer might as well have been reading the phone book rather than reading the phone book rather than answering the question. I don't think. I don't think we are. Well, the answer, the answer the Minister the answer, the answer the Minister just gave was completely unsatisfactory. There was an attempt to delete the archive. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I wonder if he agrees with me that if there was no intention to delete any data, why was it that the chairman of the Justice Affairs Select Committee, with the support of that committee, wrote to the Lord Chancellor asking him to stop the deletion of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

data? Well, that is indeed a very good point. I mean, the Minister has her point. I mean, the Minister has her side of the argument. On the other side of the argument is the Justice Select Committee. Pretty much every journalist involved in crime and journalist involved in crime and court reporting, the company involved and opposition parties of all colours. So I think I think we know what is going on. I was relieved, Madam Deputy Speaker, relieved, Madam Deputy Speaker, that after the conservative campaign to save courts desk, the Justice Secretary did in fact bottle it and back down.

He should do the same today. And back amendments one and three. The lack of transparency in our criminal justice system explains some of the darkest moments in our history. The crimes of the rape gangs were despicable, racially and religiously aggravated with victims targeted because of their vulnerability. And the criminals were not just the rapists, but all those who colluded and were complicit in these depraved, sustained attacks the police officers, the social workers, the local officials and the counsellors. Some were guilty because they abused those poor girls themselves, some because they helped others to abuse them, and some because they had the chance to stop it, but refused to do so.

Some were motivated by malice and some because they chose to tolerate evil because they didn't want to challenge the official narrative about diversity and multiculturalism. With the rape gangs and with other acts of corruption and criminality. We know the politics of communalism is so often lurking in parts of our country. Clan culture is corrupting our public institutions and the rule of law itself. As we saw in the West Midlands recently, the authorities chose not only to turn a blind eye, but to make themselves the willing tools of those they should confront.

And if we want to confront all these things, if we want to save our country from corruption and ruin, we need victims of crime journalists and campaigners and the general public to be given the information they need to expose the truth. We need government not to hinder this noble cause, but to use its power to ensure justice is done. That is why we need far more transparency in the justice system and why today we will vote in favour of Lords amendments one and three.

Madam Deputy Speaker, The Minister has told us that the government will not support any of these Lords amendments. However well reasoned, however thought through and however well scrutinised the response of this government to three months of consideration in the House of Lords is to overturn every single change their lordships have recommended. The changes to the bill made in the Other place would deliver more transparency and more access to justice for victims. They would give charities and victims abroad more support. They would give victims the power to ensure sentences are fairer.

They would show to anybody with an interest what is happening in our courts. They would help journalists and others to join the dots and expose the patterns of criminality and failures to enforce the law, but this government refuses them all without transparency. Madam Deputy Speaker, there can be no accountability, and without accountability there can be no justice. This is something we understand and it's something those on the benches opposite would do well to understand too. We will vote to support the Lords amendments this evening and so should they.
14:31
Kirith Entwistle Portrait Kirith Entwistle MP (Bolton North East, Labour)
-
-
Kirith Entwistle thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is a pleasure to speak in today's debate. pleasure to speak in today's debate. I first spoke on this bill at Second Reading when I said that victims in Bolton had waited far too long for a system that truly works for them. This bill delivers critical reforms to protect victims and rebuild confidence in our justice system, from powers to tackle non-attendance at hearings, to measures strengthening the rights of victims. It will help victims get the justice that they deserve, and I am pleased that this Labour government is getting on with the changes that victims and campaigners have needed for far too long.

I'm particularly pleased to support the measures in this Bill that strengthen victims rights to receive information, the dedicated victim helpline and the updated Victim Contact Scheme will help end uncertainty and stop victims having to keep chasing for basic updates. That is also why I can understand the intention behind laws amendments one and three on court transcripts. They are trying to address the same basic problem victims not getting clear enough information about decisions that affect them. But Madam Deputy Speaker, victims deserve clarity and the process must be more transparent.

But the government has been consistent in saying that these amendments go further than is currently operational, operationally feasible. If we create duties that the courts do not have the capacity to fill safely. Victims will be let down once again, and if we promise a process that cannot be delivered in practice, we are not building trust, we are undermining it. This bill marks an important step forward in strengthening the rights of victims, ensuring offenders are held to account and rebuilding confidence in our justice system.

For victims in Bolton, who have waited far too long to be properly informed, supported and heard, this bill will make a real difference and I am proud to support it.
14:33
Ben Maguire Portrait Ben Maguire MP (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson Ben Maguire. >> Deputy Speaker. This bill returns to us from the other place where Liberal Democrat colleagues have championed a number of crucial have championed a number of crucial amendments which come before us today concerning changes to the unduly lenient Sentencing scheme, unduly lenient Sentencing scheme, the victims code. Access to free court transcripts and more. It's really positive and I'm really pleased to hear the Minister supporting those amendments today in principle and hearing her commitment that she will take those away with her team to make sure that they're workable before bringing them back to this place.

And, of course, Liberal Democrats will hold the government to account on all of those amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker, and make sure that is done as quickly as possible. For the sake of the victims on Lords Amendment one, I'm proud my colleagues in the other place have been building on the successes of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park and her long running campaign for free court transcripts for victims. This amendment would give victims a right to receive court transcripts of the route to verdict and bail decisions relating to their particular case, free of charge.

This compares to a victim's right at present, whereby this is only available where a defendant has actually been convicted of an offence. Liberal Democrats will be voting for this amendment today to build on this act and make further, much needed progress by extending the current scheme. I would urge all colleagues from across the House to join us in doing so. Regarding Lords amendments five and seven, we Liberal Democrats, led by Baroness Brinton and the Other place, have sought to clarify and amend the unduly lenient sentencing scheme.

This scheme ensures that victims who fail a sentence to an offender is unduly lenient and unduly unduly lenient can appeal to the court. However, in practice, many victims are completely unaware that this mechanism even exists, often being told after their short 28 day appeal window has closed. And some of these cases involve families of victims who have faced faced some of the most horrific crimes, including brutal murder cases, with harrowing details about what has happened to them or members of their their family laid out before them in court in full for the first time.

Understandably, this can put them through severe emotional strain trauma and have other distressing effects. And for many, the last thing on their mind would be on procedures like appeals. Once they reach a stage where they process their grief. The short 28 day window has sometimes already passed, if there are even aware that they could appeal at all. Therefore, to address these issues, our Liberal Democrat new clauses seek to make allowances for this 28 day time frame to be extended in exceptional circumstances and place much greater responsibility onto criminal justice agencies to ensure victims are fully aware of their rights to appeal and how quickly they must do so.

Greater awareness of victims rights in relation to the unduly unduly lenient sentence scheme could, for instance, form part of a judge's sentencing remarks following a trial, rather than left as an afterthought that might not be covered at all. Moving on to Lords Amendment two, relating to changes to the victim's code, which would require the Secretary of State to outline how the rights in the victim's code applies to the families of those killed as a result of murder, manslaughter or infanticide outside of the UK.

This amendment follows the outstanding work of my hon. Friend, the Member for Maidenhead, who pushed for these changes at an earlier stage of this bill. While I understand it would be unreasonable for us to mandate other countries to enforce the UK's victims code, what we are seeking is to afford the families of these victims the same rights and treat them as victims under the code. I'm therefore very pleased that our colleagues in the Other place have given this sensible and much needed amendment a chance here.

Once again, I'd urge all colleagues to vote for all of these excellent amendments. They are incredibly important to the victims and their families. I hope the Minister will come back to the House to confirm precisely when these can be brought forward by the government in workable legislation. And for the record, I would like to commend the work of our colleagues both in this House and the Other place Madam Deputy Speaker, on these issues that are so vital to victims rights and our justice system as a whole.

Yeah.
14:38
Pam Cox Portrait Pam Cox MP (Colchester, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Victims and Courts Bill is part The Victims and Courts Bill is part of this government's wider reforms of our justice system that will, in the round, better protect victims and improve their access to justice as well as that of defendants. So I really welcome its measures to improve communications with victims, to reform non-disclosure agreements, to ensure that defendants appear at sentencing hearings and to restrict the parental rights of child sex offenders. Today, I want to focus my remarks on proposed amendments to the Financing of Private Prosecutions Amendments four and seven.

The bill amends the 1985 Prosecution of Offenders Acts to provide a new power for the Lord Chancellor to prescribe the rates at which prosecutors, acting in private prosecutions, can recover expenses properly incurred by them from central funds. Now, this proposal draws on a related recommendation of the Justice Committee on which I serve. The rates themselves would not be set by the Lord Chancellor, but instead will be consulted upon and implemented through secondary legislation. So it's very important that the government, through the Lord Chancellor, has the power to control the rates that the rates that can be claimed and paid.

The conservative sorry, the Lords Amendment seeks to leave out clause 12, which therefore seeks to prevent that power from being accorded to the Lord Chancellor. Now, in my view, the Lord Chancellor needs that power. Ours is a public justice system, after all, albeit one which has a long which has long accommodated private prosecutions. The current arrangements contribute to inequity in our justice system, something that this bill seeks to address more broadly. In recent decades, we've seen some landmark private prosecutions.

The case brought by the parents of Stephen Lawrence. The case is brought by the RSPCA and other charities. The case is brought by the Cyclists Defence Fund and others. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, although we might argue that in a properly functioning justice system, we would no longer need private prosecutions, we clearly do need them and if we do still need them, we need to be able to exert proper control over the resources expended on them. Thank you.
14:40
Steve Barclay Portrait Rt Hon Steve Barclay MP (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
-
-
Steve Barclay thank. >> Steve Barclay thank. >> You, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think it'd be easy for anyone watching proceedings today with the watching proceedings today with the chamber not having many members here with talk of law amendments, for people to perhaps think this is just some technical issue, some minor point of debate. But actually the votes today really do matter. They matter to victims who currently are being charged, often thousands of pounds for the transcripts of court hearings in which they are involved.

It matters to our legal system in terms of how open it is, what transparency there is, and we also know it matters to the public. Over 200,000 people signed a public petition on this very issue that was debated in Westminster Hall just this week on Monday. So actually, whilst people might refer to the issue of law amendments, this actually is an important set of votes. And I just very gently say to the Minister, it did sound a bit like listening to an episode of Yes Minister where her remarks were.

I fully support giving victims more rights, and that is why today I'm going to vote against every one of the amendments to do so. And I, just as you were speaking, was writing down some of her phrases. So she said that this is legislation for victims, as if the amendments in the Lords aren't to empower victims when they clearly are. She said, and I quote that she wants to go further. Well, it's no wonder her own colleague the Member for Rotherham said she was confused.

She wasn't the only one confused by someone who says, I want to go further by voting against the amendments which enable us to go further. And she justifies that inconsistency by saying she needs to consult more. She needs to consult the judiciary as if the government's been ambushed by its own legislation. They control the timing of this legislation. They brought this legislation to the House and then they say, oh, actually, the timing's not right. We need more time to consult. Well, it's they themselves that are legislating and have controlled the time.

And if they needed to consult, they could have done that in a timely fashion. And then she said that she accepted the challenge that 14 days gives, you know, pressure in terms of the the interplay with the unduly lenient sentences where there's a 28 day time window. So again, just to explain that in in lay terms, if people want to appeal a sentence which they feel is unduly lenient, they have to do that within 28 days. But if they can't get access to the transcript in a timely fashion, their ability to do that is severely constrained.

And yet this is legislation the government controls is controlled, the timing of when it's been introduced. And yet they're going to ask Labour members to vote against these amendments today. Is it any wonder they keep U-turning Madam Deputy Speaker because they're saying one thing, then they're going to vote to do the opposite today on the basis that at some point in the future, there may come round to doing what they say they want to do at the moment. And she says that more, well, more can't be done now, whilst also pointing as the reason for that issues like technical issues and constraints, whilst also saying but we are overcoming those constraints in terms of sentencing remarks.

And again, there's no can do. There's lots of things in the court bundle ahead of a court hearing. There's witness statements, there's a huge amount of documentation. There's vastly more information that could be shared with victims in a timely way. And yet those discussions don't seem to be don't seem to have taken place. And instead what we're getting is it's no wonder my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater said that it was waffle. You know, what we got was we're going to have guidance, we're going to have work on awareness.

We're going to have that government capsule of a code as if this is a replacement to actually giving victims the access to the transcripts they want. And so the crux of the issue is this is legislation. The government is introducing. The Lords, quite rightly, has scrutinised it and seen that on the timescales there are constraints which the government doesn't dispute. It accepts that actually there is a good case for victims to have more access to transcripts. And indeed, on Monday, Westminster Hall, the the parliamentary Under-Secretary for justice, said, and I quote, there is an issue of transparency regarding court transcripts.

Isn't it therefore bizarre, Madam Speaker, that the government today will ask their own backbenchers to vote against doing what they accept is a real issue for victims of crime?
14:45
Lorraine Beavers Portrait Lorraine Beavers MP (Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Labour)
-
-
Lorraine Beavers thank you. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the progress that has been made on this bill. It is right that we are taking the steps to rebuild trust taking the steps to rebuild trust in in the system that for too long has left victims feeling invisible has left victims feeling invisible and unheard measures to compel offenders to attend their sentencing hearings are welcome. No family should be denied the chance to see justice, simply because an offender refuses to face what they have done and the protection for children, especially in cases of sexual violence, are long overdue.

I want to speak specifically in relation to the amendments five and six, and I want to speak about my constituent, Katy Brett, Katy's little sister, Sasha Marsden, was just 16 years old when she was brutally murdered, raped and then set on fire. The sheer horror of that crime is beyond words. The pain her family lives with every single day is unimaginable to most of us. And yet, after enduring the traumatic trial and the devastation of their loss, Katy and her family were faced with another injustice.

They had 28 days to challenge. The sentence they believed did not reflect the severity of the crime. What is worse, they weren't even told that they had this right for the family of a victim. The trial of the perpetrator is always traumatising. But in cases like these, where Sasha's family were heard, the brutal details of her murder for the first time at that trial, most of us would not be emotionally ready to fight another fight and understand the complex legal processes.

Within 28 days of hearing the sentence 28 days, 28 days to grieve, 28 days to understand the complex legal system, 28 days to find the strength to fight once more. This is not a meaningful right. This is a barrier. Katy has shown extraordinary courage in turning her grief into action. Through her campaign for Sasha's Law, she is asking for something perfectly reasonable more time for victims families to seek a review of sentences that they believe are unduly lenient.

The government is absolutely right to be looking at ways to improve communications to victims families, ensuring that they know their rights and to appeal under the unduly lenient sentencing scheme. But I must make a point to the front bench. 28 days is not enough. Even if you are informed of your rights to appeal, 28 days is how long you have to return a t shirt. The families deserve longer to consider whether they wish to appeal. I understand the government's concerns that they must still be an end date placed on this longer deadline, which is why amendments five and six before us cannot be supported.

But I urge the government to listen to Katy and the many other families who have suffered at the hands of the status quo, and ensure that the issue is revisited. And the bill, as the Bill continues to progress, offenders are afforded multiple opportunities to appeal. They are given time, process and support, but the victims families are given just one chance and very limited time on that. They. This cannot be right. It cannot reflect the values we say our justice system is built upon and the values that the Labour government was elected to put into action.

If we are serious about putting victims at the heart of the justice system, then we must ensure that the rights are real. This bill takes important steps forward, but it must not be the end of the conversation. It must be the beginning of doing better for Katy, for Sasha, for every family forced to navigate the grief and injustice at the same time, let us make sure that our justice system does not just deliver outcomes, but delivers humanity, fairness, and a time that victims need to truly seek justice.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Final Black Rod contribution. Joshua Reynolds. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. Today I'll be speaking in regards to Lords Amendment two, requiring the Secretary of State to issue an Secretary of State to issue an appendix to the Victims Code, setting out how that code applies to families of British nationals who are the victim of murder, who are the victim of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad. This is not a new argument in this chamber. I tabled amendments at
14:49
Joshua Reynolds Portrait Mr Joshua Reynolds MP (Maidenhead, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
chamber. I tabled amendments at Report stage making precisely this case, as well as holding an adjournment debate last year and raising the question to this Minister several times. And I do thank her for her work with me and with others on this topic. It's also important to thank the charity Murdered Abroad, and specifically Eve Henderson, who'd been working for a long time on this issue, as well as the late Baroness Newlove, who her time as Victims' Commissioner worked with, Murdered Abroad and myself to be able to make sure that amendments that were brought to this bill were workable within the view of the Victims Commission.

Murdered abroad is a campaign made up of bereaved families who have turned their grief into a distinct call for change. Families who are part of murdered abroad all have one thing in common a family member of theirs, a British citizen who was murdered whilst they were outside of the UK and their calls are asking for one simple thing equal treatment. They're asking for structured statutory support that any family would receive if tragedy struck on British soil. Because, Madam Deputy Speaker, a British life lost is a British life, no matter where in the world it.

That loss occurred and each year around 80 families received the news that one of their loved ones has been murdered abroad. Sometimes this is via a police officer, but all too often it is given to them by a journalist who found out the news first and is asking for their comment. When this tragedy strikes, it sends any family into an unimaginable position. When this happens outside of the UK, families are left with so many other complications that they must contend with.

They need to navigate foreign legal procedures, untranslated documents and distant court proceedings with patchy and often inconsistent support from their own government, all at times of trauma, vulnerability and mourning. Matthew was sitting in a bar when two door staff rushed over and grabbed him. They were joined by two more, who threw him down a metal staircase at the bottom. He was. Witnesses saw them kicking and hitting him and a UK post mortem identified over 20 injuries on Matthew's body. When his mother called the FCDO, she was told he died of alcohol consumption.

The same morning, newspapers in Greece ran the headline teen drinks himself to death. Matthew's mum had to fight tooth and nail to get a family liaison officer. She had to fight tooth and nail for translation support, getting documents into English, which ended up being paid for by Derbyshire Police because the FCDO would not pay for it themselves. Alison and Paul's son Danny was killed in Amsterdam in 2022, aged just 22 years old. They explained how navigating lengthy and complex Dutch judicial procedures in foreign languages, whilst also having to arrange matters such as repatriation without any support given to them, was an immense challenge, all whilst they were dealing with the trauma of having their son killed.

They do not know the the amount of untold stress that that added on to them and their daughter at a time where they needed the support from our government. In these circumstances, the government should be supporting these families in any way that they can. Let me be clear what laws amendment two does and what it does not do. It does not seek to interfere with foreign judicial systems and does not place unworkable demands on the FCDO. What it does do, however, is establish a statutory baseline, ensuring that bereaved families have access to support and guidance that any other family of homicide would receive.

What this amendment does specifically is put an appendix into the victim's code to say that we must provide specific guidance explaining to these families what support they can access. It explains that families must be given information by the British government about how the foreign criminal justice process works, not getting involved in that process, not interfering with it, but explaining what these families can expect, outlining how families should be given a dedicated family liaison officer supporting families at the worst time.

Some police forces do this already, but many don't, and many police forces, we have heard will tell families they are not entitled to family liaison officers at all, only for immense pressure from families to end up having those police forces back down and giving them the flow that they need. When everything else in the world has gone wrong. It should not be for these British families to have to push the police, to give them the flow that they should be entitled to. It also outlines how the government will need to provide translation services for these families.

Far too many families have spoken to me and have told me how they've been told by the government to use Google Translate to get death certificates back into English. It's not acceptable. It is not something that we can accept ever again. And one family who I heard from recently telling me how they had to go onto Google Translate to find out that their son's organs had been removed from his body. That was Google Translate telling them that's not acceptable. It's not something we can accept, and the government need to go further to provide translation services for these families.

Now, the government's position, set out in a letter to members on the 23rd of March, has said that this amendment would raise expectations that cannot be met and risk confusing the legislative framework. Madam Deputy Speaker. These arguments are remarkable when what we're talking about is an appendix to the Victims Code, laying out what support these families can expect from the British government. The suggestion that setting out in statute what support bereaved families can expect will somehow undermine the entire victim's code does not stand up to scrutiny.

And that's not saying that, just that I'm saying or that we all Democrats are saying. But it's something that the Victims' Commissioner must believe. When the Victims' Commissioner was pleased to see that this amendment was voted on and succeeded by the Lords, if I cannot understand how this amendment would raise expectations that cannot be met and confuse the legislative framework, and neither can the Victims' Commissioner, I do not understand how the government could do so. The Minister also points to guidance published in January 2026 as evidence that the government's commitment and I do welcome this guidance.

But guidance is guidance. Guidance is not the law. Guidance can be ignored and guidance has no real enforcement mechanism. If the government genuinely believes that these families deserve support, then we must ask the question why they don't say so in statute. Last month, I met with families from across the country whose loved ones were murdered abroad, and among this group were families who lost loved ones. This year, after the guidance had come into force. That guidance hasn't protected them. They've fallen through exactly the same gaps that are in the system before this guidance and as are in place since this guidance and that reason is clear.

Guidance is not statutory, guidance is a guide. It can be ignored and too often is. What we need is a statutory appendix to the victims code. Setting out what those victims said, what support those victims will receive, and how the Victims' Commissioner and their team can support it. Like a consistency that we are seeing when families meet together and some families are given a flow and some families are told they cannot receive a flow, that is the problem that we are looking towards, because we must be able to do better than the position that we currently are doing.

I would ask Madam Speaker one question of the Minister. I'd like to find out from the Minister about the transparency that is that comes through in the needs assessment carried out by the Victim Support Homicide Service. What criteria are used to decide on the family's needs following homicide abroad? Because that is something that neither the Victims' Commissioner or murdered abroad charity members are able to find out what is in there, what results are coming through, what criteria are being used. And that's why families feel that this uneven, this lack of consistency in accountability is coming out so often.
14:57
Alex Davies-Jones Portrait Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
-
Minister Davies Jones. >> Yes, Madam Deputy. >> Speaker and I thank all honourable and right hon. Members who contributed to this debate today to answer the questions of today to answer the questions of the hon. Member for Maidenhead first, as he spoke last, and they are fresh in my mind. I will get him. I will endeavour to get him that information that he asks for. He may not have seen or be aware of the new draft victims code that has been published and is out for consultation at the moment, but page eight, in black and white, contains the provisions that will now apply to those who are bereaved due to homicide or manslaughter abroad.

And we are building on this victims code through the consultation, and I look forward to hearing his views as the consultation is open until the 30th of April, but we are determined to do more, as I said on translation as well, once the contract ends on the homicide service in 2027 so that we can support these victims and family members so they never have to go through some of the horrific examples that the hon. Member cites. Can I thank our place on record? My sincere gratitude to my friend the hon.

Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood, for her unwavering campaigning on behalf of her constituent, Katy Brett. I was very, very grateful to her for coming to the meeting that the Ministry of Justice convened with victims recently on the unduly lenient sentencing scheme, so that we could hear directly from Katy and Tracey Hanson and others on what would be most beneficial in terms of legislative changes going forward, not just that statutory duty to be notified and specify who would notify you, but on that time limit and how best it can be applied in circumstances like Katy, so that Sasha's law can be properly looked at and to the point that the right hon.

Gentleman the Member for North East Cambridgeshire, made. I understand it can be difficult for him, given that when he was in government, the legislation passed clearly was not workable or sound or had any efficiency on the ground. This government takes a different approach, which is why, although we agree with the sentiment in the Other place on a number of these amendments, we have to make sure that they are legally workable, sound, responsible and effective. That is what a responsible government does, and that is what I am determined to do.

As the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister responsible, I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman. Highlighting was just the inherent contradictions in her inherent contradictions in her remarks. Even then, just summing up, she said, we're going to go further in 2027. In her opening remarks, in 2027. In her opening remarks, she said we can't go further because there's technical impediments. So the point is there's just inherent contradictions in the government's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

narrative. So I'll try to break it down. Simpler for the right hon. Gentleman. Clearly he's not listening, patronising, but truthful, given that what I'm saying is the government is determined to go further in the right way, we agree with the sentiments in the laws. However, those amendments are not workable. They will not work in this legislation where practically possible. We will be bringing legislative changes forward. We will be working with right hon. Members across this House to make sure this happens, but not not in a not in a way that is would be a dereliction of duty and disrespectful to the victims for which this government represents.

They are at the forefront of this legislation, and we need to make sure that the bill works in practice. I appreciate that he was part of a government that clearly did not do that. I'm also incredibly grateful to those who have supported the measures within this bill going forward, particularly the victims who have waited far too long for change. They want a justice system that treats them with dignity, keeps them informed and ensures that offenders are properly held to account. This bill does deliver on tangible improvements that can be implemented while sitting alongside those wider reforms that will modernise our court process and put victims at the heart of the system.

Today, this House has the opportunity to support and protect victims and restore confidence in our justice system, and I urge the House to support this bill and reject the the Lords amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

EA the question is, Mr. Wood, if you're ready, I will continue with you're ready, I will continue with your permission. Obviously, the question is that this House disagrees with the laws in their disagrees with the laws in their amendment one. As many as I say, I. I of the contrary, no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, no.
15:01
15:02
None Portrait Division
-

No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I say.
15:14
None Portrait Division:Victims and Courts Bill: Lords Amendment 1:Gov. Motion to disagree.
-

>> >> Good.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Good.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! The Ayes to the right 291. The Noes to the left.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

158. The Ayes to the right 291. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noes to the left 158. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock. A very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A very. Very. Important work.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Important work. We now come to the motion to disagree with Lords Amendment two. I call the Minister to move the motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion. To move. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment two. As many of their no. Know.
15:15
15:27
15:37
15:38
15:48
16:00
None Portrait Division:Division:Division:Victims and Courts Bill: Lords Amendment 6:Gov. Motion to disagree.
-

The The question The question is, The question is, as The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. no tellers for the ayes Gregor Poynton Jade Botterill Tellers for the noes. David Reed Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 290. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noes to the left 163. The ayes to the right for 290

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right for 290 the nerve to the left were 163. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment seven. I call the Minister to move the motion. I beg to move. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendment. Seven. As many as are of amendment. Seven. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it Minister to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it, the ayes have it Minister to move the committee be appointed to draw up reasons. I beg to move that the committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments that Alex Davies-Jones Jake Richards Phil Brickell, Joe Powell, Melanie Ward, Nick Timothy and Zoe Franklin be members of the Committee that Alex Davies-Jones be the chair of the Committee, that three be the quorum of the Committee, that the Committee do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw immediately. The question is that a committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments. 1 disagreeing to their amendments. 1 to 7 that Alex Davies-Jones Jake Richards, Phil Brickell, Joe Powell, Melanie Ward, Nick Timothy and Zoe Melanie Ward, Nick Timothy and Zoe Franklin be members of the Committee that Alex Davies-Jones be chair of the Committee, that three chair of the Committee, that three be the quorum of the Committee, that the Committee do withdraw immediately, as many as are of that opinion say aye.

of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. That concludes consideration of the Lords amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill. I give the front benches a few moments to settle. We now come to the presentation of public petitions. Petition. Mr. Lee Dillon.
16:12
None Portrait
-

>> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Having tabled an EDM, a presentation bill and hosted a Westminster Hall debate on equine road safety, I'm now pleased to be able to submit this petition that declares that horses and riders declares that horses and riders face significant risk on UK roads due to inadequate enforcement of passing distances and limited passing distances and limited driver education. We therefore request that the House of Commons urges the government to introduce legislation to make the minimum passing speeds and distances for horses in the Highway Code a legal requirement to require equine safety to feature in all driving theory tests, and to introduce standards for the teaching of equestrian safety in driver education.

And the petitioners remain, etc. remain, etc.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Road safety of horses and others. Petition James Naish. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. From October 2024 onwards, I did my best to engage fully and properly with the assisted dying debate with the assisted dying debate which took place across England and Wales. I met campaigners on both sides of the debate and my constituency of Rushcliffe, and did my best to explain to my constituents the conclusions that I came to at all times. Today I am bringing forward a petition signed by residents from my constituency who track me down in the pouring rain while I was doorknocking in Kilworth a few weeks ago.

Such was their commitment to this cause. They wanted me to know that while they respect the need for the scrutiny of the terminally ill adults end of life bill, they are concerned that the bill will not become law because the parliamentary session is likely to end in the coming weeks before the Bill has returned to this chamber. They do not want to return to second and Third Reading debates in future. And like many ordinary people who would like to see the law change or laws change from this place, they are finding the processes opaque and slow.

Their trust in the system is waning. To that end, Hillary, Joe, Robert, Patricia, Eve, Karen and many other constituents who signed this petition asked whether I would formally put their concerns on the parliamentary record, which I am. The petition is therefore. Request that the House of Commons urge the government to take such actions as are within its power to facilitate the progress of the terminally ill adults end of Life Bill and the adults end of Life Bill and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

petitioners remain, etc. Petition terminally ill adults end of life Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

end of life Bill. Petition Bell Ribeiro-Addy. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise on this day, the 25th of March, very deliberately, the UN's International Day of Remembrance of International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade. The very day a UN resolution formally declaring the transatlantic slave trade a crime against humanity is being debated, a resolution we are yet to confirm that the UK will support further to the all party parliamentary Group for African Reparations online petition that has received almost 2000 signatures.

I present this petition on behalf of British residents who are outraged that this government has never issued an unequivocal apology for Britain's central role in African chattel enslavement and colonialism. Expressions of sorrow and regret are not an apology. Neither are they befitting of the crimes that were committed or Britain's role in one of the gravest crimes in human history. We cannot begin to address the legacy of this injustice without first having the courage to acknowledge it. Atonement must start with truth.

The position petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons urge the government to issue a full and meaningful apology on behalf of the UK government for Britain's role in African chattel enslavement and colonisation, and establish an all party Parliamentary Commission justice.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition. Britain's role in African chattel enslavement and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

colonialism. Petition Olly Glover.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. I wish to present a petition signed by 65 residents of Derwent Avenue, Firm residents of Derwent Avenue, Firm View and Eden Court in Didcot, relating to years of flooding on their streets and the perennial risk of flooding to their risk of flooding to their properties. I hope that Thames Water and the government will take note. The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons urges the government to ensure that Thames Water confirms that all possible measures will be put in place to mitigate against future sewage flood events from manhole 2201 and the petitioners remain.

ET cetera.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excellent. 2201. Petition flooding in Ladygrove,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Didcot. Petition Dave Robertson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sure. Members and hon. Members across the House will agree that one of the best things of this job is the best things of this job is working with people in our constituencies who see something that they want to change and want to do something about it. I hold my to do something about it. I hold my hands. A wonderful example of 256. My residents who want to do exactly that for Walsall Road in Lichfield, the petitioners request that the House of Commons urge the government to encourage Staffordshire County Council to place a seven and a half ton weight limit upon the section of Walsall Road, between its junction with Lindbergh Avenue and its northern junction with Friary Road, and on that ongoing section of Friary Road to its junction with the Bowling Green roundabout and the petitioners remain, etc.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hey!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition Walsall Road Lichfield.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition Walsall Road Lichfield. Thank you very much. I beg to move that this House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do now adjourn. The question is that this house do now adjourn. Rebecca Long-Bailey thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Now, I nearly wasn't here today. My mum, Oona has been critically ill in hospital, and if you'll indulge me for a few seconds. I just want to thank from
16:19
16:19
Rebecca Long Bailey Portrait Rebecca Long Bailey MP (Salford, Labour)
-
-
of Chester Hospital, who've been working round the clock to make a stable and give us the gift of a stable and give us the gift of a bit more time with my mum. Now she's doing really well now she's stable, she's watching this debate stable, she's watching this debate on the laptop. My husband's managed to get it set up for her, and she told me herself last night that I'd told me herself last night that I'd better get down here and do this debate or else.

Because like most debate or else. Because like most of the public, she's deeply angry about this issue. And she's right to be angry. It's one of the biggest scandals of our generation, decades of suffering, unimaginable loss, and ultimately injustice inflicted upon our own servicemen, their families and the communities affected by Britain's nuclear testing programme. And I want to expressly thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings for his years of work and support on this issue.

He's done far more than most. Lord Watson of Wyre Forest for his relentless work in the Other place, the hon. Member for South Shields and so many other supportive members who were here today. I also want to, importantly, thank the Nuclear Testing Veterans campaign team themselves, Alan Owen and lab rats, John Morris and his lovely family, Steve Pearce and his mum, and most of all, journalist Susie Boniface, who's been relentless in her search for truth and justice. She's never wavered, never given up.

And it's because of her groundbreaking search for the truth that I am stood here today to talk to you about the pivotal information that she's recently uncovered. And of course, I also want to thank the Minister and the Defence Secretary for their work and support on this issue so far, but I hope that soon, Susie's recent work will now act as the catalyst for urgent government action. I also want to thank the speaker for granting this important debate.

I know he's long supported the nuclear testing veterans, and I hope that given the gravity of recent developments that I'm about to outline, that he will look favourably on my friend the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings request for a longer debate on this issue. There are so many members who've contacted us both in the past few days, wanting to represent their constituents on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this very, very important issue. And that point got my hon. Friend, of course I will. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. my hon. Friend for giving way. Firstly, I would like to pay tribute to all those who served and our armed forces as part of the nuclear tests overseas and those nuclear tests overseas and those who suffered illness or die prematurely as a result of these tests, as well as the bereaved families and family members who were born with their disabilities as a result of the radiation on nuclear test veterans face.

I am nuclear test veterans face. I am fortunate enough to have worked closely with some of the nuclear test veterans and families due to the Hillsborough Law campaign, and thank them for their incredible solidarity with the Hillsborough families and survivors. So I ask my hon. Friend who I thank for their outstanding work in trying to gain truth and justice for those veterans who have been victims of a state cover up if she'll join me. The nuclear test veterans and the Lab Rats campaign in calling on the government to deliver the Hillsborough law in full, without carve outs for any state institutions as a matter of urgency to bring justice for our nuclear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

test veterans and their families. Thank you very much. Thank the hon. Member for his intervention hon. Member for his intervention and for his hard work and support of the Hillsborough Law campaign. Over the years, he's done an Over the years, he's done an inordinate amount of work to try and make justice for them a reality. And I know he continues this work And I know he continues this work on a daily basis. But he's right. Injustice is injustice. And for that injustice to be rectified, it that injustice to be rectified, it only comes with full transparency.

And there can't be any carve outs for sensitive information or otherwise as part of the Hillsborough law, because that denies justice to those who need it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

most. Just. Just yes, I will. I'm extremely grateful to Our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm extremely grateful to Our Lady for the warm words she offered, and she gave me too much praise. Really. This is a team effort. She's absolutely right, and the veterans deserve most praise, as she said. But our friendship in she said. But our friendship in this place was formed in our joint this place was formed in our joint and our shared outrage that over successive governments for decades, information was withheld, withdrawn, even distorted. I know she will speak more about that in the short time we have today, but I do hope we get that longer debate.

It deserves that sort of scrutiny from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people from across this chamber. Yes. My right hon. Friend is spot on,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right hon. Friend is spot on, and I often refer to him as my partner in crime on this issue and a number of other issues in this a number of other issues in this House. It definitely demonstrates Parliament working at its very best when we come together on these when we come together on these issues of injustice and try to fight for those who've been affected by it, but he's spot on. We need to have a longer debate in We need to have a longer debate in this House on this important issue.

The information that I'm about to talk about today is a turning point. It's pivotal and it should spur on the government of today into taking the necessary action to compensate the victims of this scandal and to give them the inquiry that they so very much deserve. And at best, there's been a systemic failure over the years. At worst, there's been a cover up. But now is the time to implement a full inquiry and uncover the real truth. Because for 70 years, governments of all colours through the Ministry of Defence, the atomic weapons establishment and successive administrations have maintained a singular, consistent line that radiation exposure at Christmas Island was negligible, that any contamination was minimal, contained and harmless, and that those who served there were not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

placed at any meaningful risk. Yes. I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend, and I just wondered if Friend, and I just wondered if she'd join with me in commemorating the life and legacy of Alan Dawson, who until very recently was a who until very recently was a councillor in my constituency, first elected in 1971 and served as a Labour councillor for most of the intervening years. And when he was intervening years. And when he was 19 years old, he was one of those veterans who observed that on Christmas Island several times.

He Christmas Island several times. He talked many times about how you could see the bones in your hands from the level of light that was coming through. And he has campaigned on this issue for so many years, and I just wanted to record.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And full respect to to his constituent. I can only imagine constituent. I can only imagine what what he suffered, even the tales of serving on Christmas Island and seeing the bones in your hand, that would have a considerable psychological effect on you for the rest of your life. But it's what these men and their But it's what these men and their families suffered when they came home that was so brutal and so disturbing because the men knew that they were exposed to radiation.

Studies show that they were subjected to the same level of radiation as clean up workers at Chernobyl. They suffered cancer after cancer. Many of them died young, and those who were lucky enough to live longer faced miscarriages, a raft of medical problems and worse. Many of their children were born with defects or health issues due to the altered DNA, and today they claim that they suffered. No risk is wrong. It's been fundamentally undermined. And that's, as I said, is thanks to Susie Boniface's groundbreaking work, a previously undisclosed 2014 Atomic Weapons Establishment report was only released in February of this year after months of resistance reveals that radiation was in fact present across inhabited areas of Christmas Island, not just in isolated, uninhabited zones, not just in trace amounts, but in the sea, in the fish, in the lagoons, near water sources and, crucially, within the main camp where British personnel lived and worked.

And let me be clear about what this means. For decades, the veterans were told that no fallout had been recorded. Families grieving the loss of loved ones young men like Sapper Billy Morris, who died at just 18 from leukaemia, were told that there was no link. Courts were told the same, parliament was told the same. The public was told the same. But this data reveals a very different story. It shows elevated radiation levels in fish up to seven times background levels.

By some measures, it shows contamination in the very food that servicemen were eating regularly. It shows that drinking water sources were potentially exposed. It shows that monitoring systems were incomplete, inconsistent and in some cases entirely absent. And most damning of all, it shows that many of those living and working in these areas were even issued with film badges to measure their exposure. So when government Ministers stood at this despatch box over the years and reassured the House that doses were indistinguishable from background radiation, what exactly were those reassurances based on? Because the data was there, the authors of this 2014 report are unequivocal.

The earlier reports from 1990 and 1993, the very documents relied upon in court cases and pension claims were incomplete and inaccurate, incomplete and inaccurate. But yet they were used as the very foundation for denying these men and their family justice. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, this isn't just a technical discrepancy. It's not a minor administrative oversight. At best, it's a systemic failure, but at worst, it's a cover

**** Possible New Speaker ****

up. Yeah. Yes. I thank you so much for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you so much for giving me. And I pay tribute to, you know, Susie Boniface for the amount, incredible amounts of work she's been doing and all members across been doing and all members across the house for this really important work. I was utterly astounded when I read the report and understood I read the report and understood that this, even though the reports weren't available until much later. But the evidence has been there But the evidence has been there since 1957, right? We have known that there has been readings that I read, you know, double the amount.

You said seven times the amount for this length of time. We know that these people have been exposed. And yet for one reason or another, whether cover up, whether just through lack of, you know, a systemic kind of good filing system, whatever it is. And this information has not come to light. And now I appreciate that the Prime Minister has given lots of good words of support. And the the the Minister, Secretary of State for defence has also given lots of warm words.

But quite frankly, right now what we need is our heroes, our British veterans, to get the support that they need. Some of them are not going to live much longer, and we absolutely need a one year rapid review right now so that they can get the justice that they deserve. It is far too long. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that this is a matter of immediate urgency? Thank you. And I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She's been a doughty campaigner on behalf of her own party on this very issue, and I thank her for the work that she's done in this House.

But she's right. The veterans aren't asking for special treatment. They're just asking for the truth and they're asking for justice. Many of these men, if they are lucky enough to still be alive, are in their 80s. Time is running out for them, and they need to see justice now. And that's why it's so important to have the urgent one year inquiry. And I'll come on to that point later in my contribution. I just wanted to go back to Christmas Island and look at the lived reality of those servicemen.

The men fished daily. That's known they ate that fish sometimes every day. They drank desalinated water drawn from a marine environment now known to have been contaminated. They worked in extreme heat, increasing their intake of water and food, as you do when you get hot, and therefore increasing the pathways through which radioactive material could enter their bodies. And this is a critical point. Ingested radiation is not the same as background exposure. It doesn't simply pass by. It lodges deep within the body.

It decays slowly. It damages tissue. It alters DNA. And governments over the years have long relied on averages, on comparisons to natural background radiation, to sunlight, to medical imaging, for example. But those comparisons are fundamentally flawed because you can step out of sunlight if it's too hot, you can leave a room that's got radon gas in it. You can decline a medical scan if you're worried about it, but you can't remove radioactive particles that have been ingested and embedded deep within your body.

And that distinction matters. But it's been completely ignored over the years. And what's equally troubling isn't just the existence of this data, which has been around for decades, but it's the pattern of its concealment. This information could have been disclosed at multiple points in the 1950s. During the inquest into early deaths in the 1980s, when the public concern was first intensified in the 1990 and 1993 reports in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights. In High Court cases, in pension appeals and as recently as 2024, when veterans saw access to their medical records at every stage, the same narrative was maintained.

At every stage, the data was absent. The 2014 report itself warned that the information could challenge the validity of statements made by government, and could potentially overturn previous judicial decisions. And yet, instead of it being published instead of coming clean, it was buried. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, we've got to ask ourselves why? Why was a report that raised reasonable doubt, not disclosed to the very people whose lives depended on its findings? Why were veterans denied access to that information that could have supported their claims for justice and compensation? Why were the courts allowed to rely on evidence that we now know to be fundamentally flawed? These aren't abstract questions.

They go right to the heart of trust between the states and those who serve it, because men and women in uniform are sent to carry out dangerous duties, they do so on the understanding that their government will act with honesty, with transparency and with integrity. But that trust has been broken. And now we've got a duty, not just a moral duty, but a political and a legal duty to put this right. So let me be clear about what the government must do next.

First, there must be a full, independent public inquiry into the handling of radiation data from the nuclear testing programme. Not a limited review, not an internal investigation, a full inquiry with the power to compel evidence and testimony. Second, all relevant documents must be declassified and placed in the public domain. No more partial disclosures, no more work in progress. Justifications. The public interest in transparency far outweighs any institutional discomfort. Third, there must be a comprehensive review of all past legal cases and pension decisions that relied on the 1990 and 1993 reports where decisions were made on the basis of incomplete or inaccurate evidence.

They must be revisited. And fourth, and most importantly, there must be a fair and just compensation scheme for nuclear testing, testing veterans and their families. And yes, I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I intervened well, first of all, to send my love to your mum simply.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to send my love to your mum simply. But the other issue is we've always emphasised in our debates over the years the urgency because over the years the urgency because of the age of the victims, what we need to do as well is recognise and need to do as well is recognise and make sure any inquiry recognises that this has gone down two generations now and we've met the families, we've met the sons and daughters, we've met the grandchildren who have suffered extreme, extreme conditions as a result of as just as my hon.

Friend. Right, hon. Friend said, this has penetrated into the DNA of whole families. So it's not. There is a sense of urgency, but there's got to be a recognition of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

significance of this. Through these three generations that we've witnessed. Yeah. My right hon. Friend is right. My mum will be very excited right. My mum will be very excited that you've sent her a love. There'll be a pandemonium going on on wall 47 at the moment, I'll tell on wall 47 at the moment, I'll tell you. But my hon. Friend is right, and there are certainly the urgent issues that the government must consider today. But beyond today and beyond issuing an urgent and fast compensation scheme and a one year inquiry.

And the other points that I've referenced, I think there also needs to be a wider research project into the impact of the radiation on descendants and the support that's needed for them from governments over the years, because they've been completely neglected so far. But we know from our constituency surgeries the effects that have been felt right within families, and it's quite upsetting and harrowing sometimes to hear those stories and the fact that they receive very little government recognition for what they've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suffered. Yes, I know about. This case, obviously, and it's a terrible history going back a number of years, of cancers and other illnesses caused by this exposure. I wonder if the hon. Member would forgive me for asking Member would forgive me for asking to raise a similar, but a more contemporary situation affecting contemporary situation affecting aircrew on military helicopters who are getting blood cancer. I've been struggling with getting data from the MoD on number of numbers of cases and testing of helicopter emissions, and we want to raise awareness for others flying those helicopters now, particularly the seeking, because blood cancers, particularly myeloma, do seem to be arising in young people when that's normally not the case at all.

And to encourage those people to seek testing for unusual symptoms like blood clots and requests that the MoD dig deeper for that data.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend raises another very important issue. And and it goes to the heart of the point of goes to the heart of the point of today's debate, really, is that the government needs to be in a good government needs to be in a good place on this, acknowledge that mistakes were made historically, but restore faith to all servicemen but restore faith to all servicemen and women who put their lives at risk on a daily basis to keep us safe. That where it's found that safe.

That where it's found that their lives are put at risk by the actions of their government themselves, that would be made right, and they will get the support and the care that they deserve. And hopefully that will be at the heart of the minister's response today. But finally, there's a number of very brief questions that I'd also like the Minister to answer today in relation to the 2014 report. Firstly, on what date did the atomic weapons establishment tell the Ministry of Defence of this report's existence? Was the document ever produced to any judge? What steps are the government now taking to inform the judges and courts concerned, and to inform more pensions in the future? In the past six months, what impact assessments have been produced by the AWA or Ministry of Defence about costs, compensation and the number of people affected? What efforts have the AWI or the Ministry of Defence made to bring in the authors of the actual report, both of whom have since left the AWI to discuss their findings? Who at the Ministry of Defence knew of the report at the time it was drafted? And did any government Ministers know of the report? What steps is the government taking to look at the Athena database at Porton Down, which has confirmed it holds information relevant to nuclear veteran service, which has provided heavily redacted disclosures in Freedom of information requests.

What steps are underway to locating the research on radiation effects on UK service personnel, which the Ministry of Defence has confirmed is held by Technical Cooperation program in an allied country? When will the Defence Secretary and Prime Minister sit down with nuclear veterans and discuss their offer of a one year special inquiry, with capped costs to limit both the time and expense of ending this cover up once and for all. And finally, on Hillsborough law, can the Minister confirm that all information relating to nuclear testing veterans will not be hidden behind national security concerns? Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, For too long, nuclear testing veterans have been forced to fight for recognition.

For too long, they've been told there's no evidence to support their claims. For too long, they've had to carry the burden of proof themselves. When it's the state who held the evidence all along, and that injustice cannot continue. We're the only nuclear power in the world not to compensate our nuclear test. Only nuclear power in the world. So this is not about rewriting history. It's about acknowledging it. It's about recognising mistakes were made, serious mistakes. And those mistakes were compounded by decades of denial.

It's about ensuring that those who serve this country are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve. And it's about restoring faith in our institutions by demonstrating that when confronted with the truth, we are willing to act on it. The veterans and their families are not asking for special treatment. All they're asking for is fairness, honesty, and for justice. And after 70 years, that is the very least

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that we owe them. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And before I call the Minister,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And before I call the Minister, I'm sure I speak for the whole House in sending our very best wishes to your mum. Yeah. Minister. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, can I thank my hon. Friend First, can I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for all her tireless work on behalf of our nuclear test veterans. And I our nuclear test veterans. And I just want to extend my best wishes to her mum as well. Madam Deputy Speaker, When we come to this House and when we speak, we have our intent, but it is very important that we acknowledge the impact of what we say.

And I would just like to say very firmly on the record, how deeply I feel about this issue and how committed I am to the nuclear test veterans and their fight for transparency. Excuse me. They've had a very long fight, and I really recognise how difficult it has been for them, and I want them to understand that I am committed to them. Thank you. I'd also like to extend my thanks to the Member for the South Holland and The Deepings for his work.

If I may, I would also like.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To compose herself. Principally. Her emotion, her commitment is Her emotion, her commitment is evident. I've stood at the stat box over 19 years on both sides of this over 19 years on both sides of this chamber, and I know what it's like to be a Minister, I simply say to her, echoing the hon. Lady's call, this is a real opportunity. It's an opportunity to. Right or wrong, she
16:44
Louise Sandher-Jones Portrait Louise Sandher-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (North East Derbyshire, Labour)
-
-
opportunity to. Right or wrong, she would stand proud and she'd do the government proud. But most importantly, she'd be the veterans of the country, proud if she can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right that wrong. Thank you. And I thank him for his hugely important and tireless his hugely important and tireless work on this issue. This whole country owes a profound and country owes a profound and enduring debt of gratitude to this generation who helped pioneer this technology the very dawn of the technology the very dawn of the nuclear age, and their immense contribution remains as important to UK defence today as it was seven to UK defence today as it was seven decades ago.

I've served myself as a veteran. I served in Afghanistan and nothing is more important to me than the welfare of those who make up our armed forces. I know how it'd be important to me as a veteran, where if I felt that the MoD hadn't done its duty by me to protect me and those I served with and the things that they asked me to do, which I was happy to do in defence of this country, that the MoD would nonetheless be there for me to.

So let me assure my hon. Friend and the rest of people in this House, I take these issues exceptionally seriously. The Defence Secretary and the PM has been clear to the Department, and I continue to reinforce this message that we should be operating on a principle of maximum transparency on this issue, and I really want to repeat and emphasise maximum transparency on this issue, because it is abundantly clear over many decades, some nuclear test veterans feel that they have been mistreated, misunderstood and undervalued by successive governments.

This is something that we are addressing. And again, I will repeat, I am a veteran and it is something that I'm deeply passionate about as well. We published our Veterans Strategy last year, which outlined outlined the ambitions that we have for veterans in society, how they should feel, pride in their service, that their lives and challenges that they faced are better understood and valued. And that is why, since we came to office, we've sought to build the relationship between this government and the nuclear test veterans because we want that open dialogue and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meaningful collaboration. Yeah. And I totally feel that, you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I totally feel that, you know, empathy that she's giving in her in really important speech. But her in really important speech. But I just wanted to ask on that sort of collaborating, they have asked for a meeting with the Prime for a meeting with the Prime Minister, and I know that hasn't been forthcoming yet. And I wondered, considering how important this is, if she might be able to this is, if she might be able to push that a little further to try to get that really important meeting, because I know how important it would be for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nuclear test veterans. Absolutely. For sure. And I know we're in constant dialogue with we're in constant dialogue with them about when is the right time to have that meeting and absolutely to have that meeting and absolutely aware of the importance of that to them, to, to, to the veterans. The Secretary of State, as well as my own predecessor as Minister for veterans people, and I have met with nuclear test veterans during with nuclear test veterans during this Parliament. And I met representatives just today to discuss the IR report, to hear their concerns and keep them updated on the work that we are doing.

And my officials do meet with nuclear test veteran representatives on a weekly basis. So, for example, in the last week alone, they have met with lab rats and the nuclear community Charity fund. In addition, we have reviewed and now twice extended the criteria for the nuclear Test Medal to include those UQ UK personnel who took part in atmospheric tests by the United States and those who observed tests by the nation's more than 5000 veterans or their next of kin, have received medals in recognition of their service, and the oral history of nuclear test veterans has also been recently completed.

This is a vital document, a veterans history, permanently preserving their testimony and their legacy for future generations. It includes 41 interviews with test veterans to capture their experiences, and how the nuclear program has affected the rest of their lives. These measures are to improve our understanding and appreciation of the test veterans contribution to national security. As I've made clear, this government has committed to maximum transparency and we recognise that swiftness of action is so important to this community after so many decades.

That's why in September 2025, we started the transfer of records from the Merlin database to the National Archives. These are historical, technical and scientific records relating to the UK's nuclear testing program. Over 16,300 of these records are already listed and accessible on the National Archives website, and this work is ongoing. In a bid to address wider concerns about records, my predecessor, the current Minister for our Armed Forces, launched an examination of the department's records in three key areas the policy of blood and urine testing.

Between 1952 and 1967. The information that was captured from these tests, and if records did exist, to find out what happened to them. The previous Minister of Veterans people updated the House last year on progress, noting that tens of thousands of files have already been reviewed. And I can tell the House today that this significant undertaking is now nearing completion, and I hope to share the findings with you in the very near future. I would now like to turn to some of the specific issues raised about the recent release by the atomic weapons establishment of a draft document in response to an information request concerning historic nuclear testing at Christmas Island.

The release of this document aligns with the government's commitment to that transparency, and it was very important to me when I decided this document had to be released. My hon. Friend, along with others including lab rats, have raised some very important questions about the document. Incredibly important questions that must have answers. I can give a commitment to her and to them, that I am determined to fully understand the implications of what's in the document and its handling, and to take action if necessary.

I will be frank with the House that I do not have all the answers to these questions right now, and I do not wish to suggest anything which may then subsequently need updating should new information emerge. Excuse me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Again. I don't know. I'm very grateful. I feel I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful. I feel I'm doing a service to the government tonight, but it is absolutely right tonight, but it is absolutely right that the specific answers are given to the questions were posed by the move of this debate. I congratulate move of this debate. I congratulate for securing it. By the way, the key here is that we've met key here is that we've met successive Ministers. I first met the now Lord Beamish when he was a member of this House. Ministers were, generally speaking, sympathetic, but they weren't always given the information.

And in truth, had it not been for David Cameron and giving them money. When I was at the Cabinet Office for the charity and Boris Johnson, who was met by my my friend, she's not technically my hon. Friend, but she is my friend, by the way, in Downing Street we wouldn't have got the medal. So it does sometimes take those personal interventions, and I'm sure the hon. Lady is more than capable of it, from what she said already, to cut through the bureaucracy, the red tape and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

obfuscation and to get to the heart of the matter. Thank you. And I'm very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. And I'm very conscious, you know, how long the nuclear test veterans have been fighting for this? How many veteran. fighting for this? How many veteran. How many Ministers have veterans and people that they they have met. And I do recognise that the onus is And I do recognise that the onus is on us to deliver and not just have on us to deliver and not just have words. I'll be frank with the House. I don't have all the answers to these questions right now, and I would not wish to suggest something which may need updating should new information emerge.

But I do want to give the House my assurances that this work is being undertaken, and I will stress the system as far as it needs to go to get to the answers. However, let me explain
11:00
None Portrait Notice of Motion for an Unopposed Return
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page