Commons Chamber

Monday 20th April 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:33
14:34
14:35
14:35
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With permission, I'd like to provide the permission, I'd like to provide the House with information that I now have about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador to the United States. But, Mr. Speaker, before I go into the details, I want to be very clear with this House that while this statement will focus on the process surrounding Peter Mandelson's vetting an appointment, at the heart of this, there is also a judgement I made that was wrong.

I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. I take responsibility for that decision and I apologise again to the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who were clearly failed by my decision. Mr. speaker, last Tuesday evening, the 14th of April, I found out for the first time that on the 29th of January 2025, before Peter Mandelson took up his position as ambassador, the Foreign Office officials granted him developed vetting clearance against the specific recommendation of the United Kingdom security.

Vetting that developed vetting clearance should be denied. Not only that, the Foreign Office officials who made that decision did not pass this information to me, to the Foreign Secretary, to her predecessor, the deputy Prime Minister, to any other Minister, or even to the former Cabinet secretary, Sir Chris Wormald. I found this staggering. And therefore, last Tuesday, I immediately instructed officials in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office to urgently establish the facts on my authority.

I wanted to know who made the decision, on what basis. Who knew? And, Mr. Speaker, I wanted that information for the precise and explicit purpose of updating this House, because this is information I should have had a long time ago, and it is information that this House should have had a long time ago. It is information that I and the House had the right to know. I will now set out a full timeline of the events in the Peter Mandelson process, including from the fact finding exercise I instructed last Tuesday.

Before doing so, I want to remind and reassure the House that the government will comply fully with the Humble Address Minister for Illegal Migration of the 4th of February. Mr. speaker, in December 2024, I was in the process of appointing a new ambassador for Washington. A due diligence exercise was conducted by the Cabinet Office into Peter Mandelson suitability, including questions put to him by my staff in number ten. Peter Mandelson answered those questions on the 10th of December, and I received final advice on the due diligence process.

On the 11th I made the decision to appoint him. On the 18th of December. The appointment was announced on the 20th and the security vetting process began on the 23rd of December 2024. Mr. speaker, I want to make clear to the House that for a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment, but before starting in post. That was the process in place at the time. Mr. speaker, this was confirmed by the former Cabinet secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the 3rd of November 2025, when he gave evidence, Sir Chris made clear, and I'm quoting him now, when we are making appointments from outside the civil service, the normal thing is for security clearance to happen after appointment, but before the person signs a contract and takes up post at the same hearing of the same Select Committee, the former Permanent Secretary to the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, said, and I quote again, Peter Mandelson did not hold national security vetting when he was appointed.

But he went on, as is normally the case with external appointments to my department and the wider civil service, the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance. Mr. speaker, after I sacked Peter Mandelson, I changed that process so that now an appointment cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed. Mr. speaker, the security vetting was carried out by UK Security Vetting UK ASB between the 23rd of December 2024 and the 28th of January 2025, UK.

ASB conducted vetting in the normal way, collecting relevant information as well as interviewing the applicant well as interviewing the applicant in this case on two occasions. Then, on the 28th of January 2025, UK, ASB recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson the following day, on the 29th of January 2025. Notwithstanding the UK ASB recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied. Foreign office officials made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson.

To be clear, for many departments, a decision from UK ASB is binding, but for the Foreign Office, the final decision on developed vetting clearance is made by Foreign Office officials, not UK s p. However, once the decision in this case came to light, the Foreign Office's power to make the final decision on developed vetting clearance was immediately suspended by my Chief Secretary last week. Mr. speaker, I accept that the sensitive personal information provided by an individual being vetted must be protected from disclosure.

If that were not the case, the integrity of the whole process would be compromised. What I do not accept is that the appointing Minister cannot be told of the recommendation by UK ASB. Indeed, given the seriousness of these issues and the significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed me of UK SDS recommendations, whilst also maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires. There is no law that stops civil servants sensibly flagging UK ASB recommendations while protecting detailed, sensitive vetting information to allow Ministers to make judgements on appointments or explaining matters to Parliament.

So let me be very clear. The recommendation in the Peter Mandelson case could and should have been shared with me before he took up his post. Mr. speaker, let me make a second point. If I had known before he took up his post that UK ASB recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment. Mr. speaker. Mr. speaker, let me now move to September 2025 because events then and subsequently show with even starker clarity the opportunities missed by Foreign Office officials to make the position clear.

Mr. speaker, on September the 10th, Bloomberg reported fresh details of Mandelson's history with Epstein, and it was then clear to me that Peter Mandelson's answers to my staff in the due diligence exercise were not truthful, and I sacked him. I also changed the direct ministerial appointments process, so full due diligence is now required, a standard where risks are identified. An interview must be taken pre appointment to discuss any risks and conflicts of interest, and a summary of this should be provided to the appointing Minister.

I also made clear that public announcements should not now be made until security vetting has been completed. Mr. speaker, in light of the revelations in September of last year, I also agreed with the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, that he would carry out a review of the appointment process in the Peter Mandelson case, including the vetting. He set out his findings and conclusions in a letter to me on the 16th of September. He advised me in that letter and again I quote the evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate processes were followed in both the appointment and the withdrawal of the former.

A Washington when he was asked about this, Mr. Speaker, last week, the then Cabinet Secretary was clear that when he carried out his review, the Foreign Office did not tell him about the UK. ASB recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson. I find that astonishing. As I said at Olitay, I do not accept that I could not have been told about the recommendation before Peter Mandelson took up his post. I absolutely do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary, an official, not a politician, when carrying out his review, could not have been told that UK ASB recommended that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance.

It was a vital part of the process that I had asked him to review. Clearly he could have been told and he should have been told. Mr. Speaker, on the same day as the then Cabinet secretary wrote to me. So that's the 16th of September, 2025. The Foreign Secretary and the then Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, provided a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. The statement says, and again, I quote, the vetting process was undertaken by UK security Vetting on behalf of FCDO and concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up post in February.

It went on to say and again, I quote Peter Mandelson, security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for developed vetting in line with established Cabinet Office policy. Mr. speaker, let me be very clear to the House. This was in response to questions which included whether concerns were raised, what the Foreign Office's response was and whether they were dismissed. Mr. speaker, that the Foreign Secretary was advised on and allowed to sign this statement by Foreign Office officials without being told that UK SP had recommended Peter Mandelson be denied develop.

Vetting clearance is absolutely unforgivable. This is a senior Cabinet member giving evidence to Parliament on the very issue in question. Mr. speaker, in light of further revelations about Peter Mandelson in February of this year, I was very concerned about the fact that developed vetting clearance had been granted to him, not knowing that, in fact, UK SP had recommended denial of developed vetting clearance. I instructed my officials to carry out a review of the national security vetting process as I set out.

I do not accept that I could not have been told about UK's fees. Denial of security vetting before Peter Mandelson took up his post in January 25th. I do not accept that the then Cabinet secretary could not have been told in September 2025 when he carried out his review into the process. I do not accept that the Foreign Secretary could not have been told when making statements to the Select Committee again in 2025. But, Mr. Speaker, on top of that, the fact that I was not told, even when I ordered a review of the UK SP process is frankly staggering.

And I can tell the House that I've now updated the terms of reference for the review into security vetting to make sure it covers the means by which all decisions are made in relation to national security vetting. I have appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead the review. Separately, I have asked the government security group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson's tenure. Mr. speaker, I know many members across the House will find these facts to be incredible.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

So that to that to that. I can only say they are right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can only say they are right. It beggars belief that throughout the whole timeline of events, the whole timeline of events, officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior Ministers in from the most senior Ministers in our system. In government. That is not how the vast majority of people in this country expect politics, government or accountability to work. And I do not think it's how most public servants think it should work either.

I work with hundreds of civil servants, thousands, even, all of whom act with the utmost integrity, dedication and pride to serve this country, including officials from the Foreign Office who, as we speak, are doing a phenomenal job representing our national interest in a dangerous world in Ukraine, in the Middle East, and all around the world. This is not about them, but yet it is surely beyond doubt that the recommendation from UK ASB that Peter Mandelson should be denied Development.com clearance was information that could and should have been shared with me on repeated occasions and therefore should have been available to this House and ultimately to the British people.

And I commend this statement to the House.
15:49
Kemi Badenoch Portrait Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)
-
-
Kemi Badenoch Leader of the Opposition. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Prime Minister for thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. His reputation is at stake. Everyone is watching. It is finally time for the truth. Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, Downing Street admitted that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House. The Prime Minister has chosen not to repeat that from the despatch box. I will remind him that under the ministerial code, he has a duty to correct the record at the earliest opportunity.

The Prime Minister says he only found out on Tuesday that Peter Mandelson failed the security vetting. The earliest opportunity to correct the record was Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, almost a week ago. This is a breach of the ministerial code. Under that code, he is bound to be as open as possible with Parliament and the public in answering questions today. So let me start with what we do know. We know the Prime Minister personally appointed Peter Mandelson to be our ambassador to the United States.

We know that Mandelson had a close relationship with a convicted paedophile. We know that he had concerning links with Russia and China, links that had already raised red flags. We know that the Prime Minister announced the appointment before vetting was complete and extraordinary and unprecedented step for the role of US ambassador. The Prime Minister says that it was usual for this because it was a political appointment. So I will remind him and the rest of the Labour frontbench who were heckling that Peter Mandelson was a politician who had been sacked twice from government for lying.

That meant he should have gone through the full security process. And we also know, finally, Mr. Speaker, that when Peter Mandelson failed the security vetting, he was allowed to continue in the role with access to top secret intelligence and security information. This goes beyond propriety and ethics. This is a matter of national security. So let me turn to what we do not know. We still do not know exactly why Peter Mandelson failed that vetting. We do not know what risks our country was exposed to, and we do not know how it is possible that the Prime Minister said repeatedly that this was a failure of vetting, went on television and said things that were blatantly incorrect and not a single advisor or a single official told him that what he was saying wasn't true at every turn, with every explanation, the government's story has become murkier and more contradictory.

It is time for the truth. There are too many questions to ask in the allotted time, Mr. Speaker, so I'm now going to ask the Prime Minister just six questions, and I have taken the unprecedented step of providing these questions to the Prime
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:53
Kemi Badenoch Portrait Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)
-
-
expect him to answer. The Prime Minister appointed a national security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic posts. Let's look at how diplomatic posts. Let's look at how this happened. The right hon. Gentleman told me at PMQs in Gentleman told me at PMQs in September 2025. That full due process was followed in this appointment. We now know that in November 2024, Lord case, the then Cabinet secretary, told him this process required security vetting to be done before the appointment. He did not mention any of what Lord K said in his statement earlier.

So first question, does the Prime Minister accept that when he said on the floor of the House, that full due process was followed, this was not true? Secondly, on the 11th of September last year, journalists asked his director of communications if it was true that Mandelson had failed security vetting. These allegations were on the front page of a national newspaper, and yet number ten did not deny the story. Why three? Will the Prime Minister repeat from the despatch box his words last week that no one in number ten was aware before Tuesday that Mandelson had failed his vetting.

The Prime Minister says he's furious that he wasn't told the recommendations of the vetting. Yet. On the 16th of September, a Foreign Office Minister told Parliament, and I quote, the national security vetting process is rightly independent of Ministers who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome. This was the government's stated process. So why is the Prime Minister so furious that it was followed on the 4th of February 2026, the Prime Minister fifth question. Mr. speaker, on the 4th of February 2026, the Prime Minister told me from the despatch box that the security vetting he had received had revealed Mandelson's relationship with Epstein.

How could he say that if he had not seen the security vetting? And finally, Mr. Speaker, Sistema is a Russian defence company closely linked to the Kremlin. And Vladimir Putin's war machine. Was the Prime Minister aware before the appointment that Peter Mandelson had remained a director of that company long after Russia's invasion of Crimea? Mr. speaker, everyone makes mistakes. It is how you face up to those mistakes that shows the character of a leader. Instead of taking responsibility for the decisions he made, the Prime Minister has thrown his staff and his officials under the bus.

This is a man who once said, I will carry the can for the mistakes of any organisation I lead. Instead, he has sacked his Cabinet secretary. He has sacked his director of communications, he has sacked his chief of staff, and he has now sacked the permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office. All of these people fired for a decision. He made the right hon. Gentleman's defence is that he, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, is so lacking in curiosity that he chose to ask no questions about the vetting process.

He asked no questions about Mandelson's relationship with Epstein. He asked no questions about the security risk Mandelson posed. Apparently, he didn't even speak to Peter Mandelson before his appointment. It doesn't appear that he asked any questions at all. Why? Because he didn't want to know. He had taken the risk he had chosen his man. Whitehall had to follow. Yes, it is the duty of the Prime Minister to ensure he is telling the truth. Or does the ministerial code not apply to him? I'm only holding the Prime Minister to the same standard to which he held others.

Yeah. On the 26th of January 2022, the right hon. Gentleman said to a previous Prime Minister at this Dispatch Box, if he misled the House, he must resign. Does he stand by those words or is there one rule for him and another for everyone else?
15:57
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Speaker, let me respond to those points. Firstly, when I found those points. Firstly, when I found out what had happened on Tuesday evening last, I wanted to have answers to the question who made the decision to recommend to give clearance on develop vetting? Contrary to the advice, why that was done and who knew about it so I could provide the information to the House? Mr. speaker, that is the exercise that's been conducted since Tuesday evening and today, so that I could come here today to give the full account to the House, which I've just set out.

Mr. speaker, she asked me about vetting security clearance after the appointment. I've set out that that wasn't me saying that. I read out the evidence of the former permanent secretary about that and the former Cabinet secretary in relation to that. And I think the quotes that I've given to the House are clear enough in relation to that. She also asks why Peter Mandelson failed Mr Speaker it's important to make a distinction between the information provided to the review and the recommendation.

The information in the review must be protected and has been protected because otherwise the integrity of the entire system would fall away. But the recommendation doesn't need to be protected and should not have been protected. Mr. speaker, in relation to her questions, in relation to the answer about full due process, that was the information that I had that I put before the House, and it was confirmed to be by Sir Chris Wormald, because in September I asked him to conduct a review of the process to assure me that the process was correctly carried out.

He did that and wrote to me on the 16th of September, giving me that. His conclusions in relation Mr Speaker to reports in the media, number ten was repeatedly asked about the facts surrounding Peter Mandelson's clearance and was assured that the proper process was followed. In that case, Mr. speaker, in relation to those in number ten, let me give the answer. Nobody in number ten was informed about UK Sv's recommendation. Mr. speaker, just to be clear, and for the record, the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary did receive information recently and then sought the necessary and legal advice once those checks were completed by the Cabinet Office permanent Secretary, I was told that is in the last two weeks or so, that was entirely the right procedure to get the legal advice and then to bring it to my attention at the first opportunity.

It was the right procedure that was followed by my officials in the last few weeks. Mr. speaker, in relation to why I was furious about the process for the very reason, Mr. speaker, I strongly believe I should have been given this information at the very outset. I strongly believe there were repeated at times when I should have been told. I should have been told the appointment. I should have been told when Peter Mandelson was sacked, the Cabinet Secretary should have been told when he reviewed the process.

The Foreign Secretary should have been told before she was asked to sign a statement to the Select Committee. And I should have been told when I ordered a review of vetting, Mr. speaker, in relation to the point she makes about what I said in February, in answer to a question of hers, I make it very clear, Mr. Speaker. I had not seen the security vetting file. I did not know that UK ASB the question asked me about vetting. I knew about the due diligence, and that's why I put before the House what I knew about the due diligence in relation to Epstein.

The question asked me about vetting, and I knew what the due diligence had said. And therefore I told the House what the due diligence has said. I didn't tell them what security vetting had said, because I hadn't seen the file in relation to that. Mr. speaker, in relation to the particular details in relation to Peter Mandelson, I acted on all of the information I had available to me. The simple fact of the matter is I should have had more information. I didn't have that information.

The House should have had that information, and I've now set it out in full to the house.
16:01
Emily Thornberry Portrait Rt Hon Emily Thornberry MP (Islington South and Finsbury, Labour)
-
-
To the Select Committee. Dame Emily Thornberry. Emily Thornberry. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The truth is, is that my committee The truth is, is that my committee did ask we asked on the record, and we got a partial truth that could hardly be the whole truth. But we are on record as asking the very questions that hecklers on the other side say should have been asked. And the answers are there on the record to see just what we got. When we did ask.

Mr. Mr. speaker, may I just turn to my question? A month before Mandelson's appointment was announced, the then Cabinet secretary advised that the necessary security clearance should be acquired before confirming a political appointment. That doesn't seem to have been the usual practice. I'm glad that it's changed because it was clearly abused, because what happened was that somebody, probably Peter Mandelson himself, leaked to the press his appointment as US ambassador, effectively bouncing the government into confirming it. But then when the confirmation did come forward about his appointment, it did not make clear that it was subject to vetting in either the offer letter to Peter Mandelson or in the government's press release.

I'm afraid to say, doesn't this look like for certain members of the Prime Minister's team getting Peter Mandelson the job was a priority that overrode everything else and that security considerations were very much second order.
16:03
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
Prime Minister. >> Can I thank her for her question? The her committee did ask relevant questions and that's why I have questions and that's why I have indicated that it was it was unforgivable that the Foreign Secretary was asked to sign a statement in response to those very questions, without being told about the recommendation. The questions were asked. She was asked to advise and asked to sign a statement without being told the relevant information, and that is unforgivable. As for the appointment before develop vetting, I've changed that process now so that it can never happen again.

And she heard me quote the evidence of the former Cabinet secretary and the former permanent secretary in relation to that. Mr. speaker, can I just deal with the third point I just deal with the third point she makes? And that is that somehow the Downing Street's wish to appoint Peter Mandelson overrode security concerns. No, Mr. Speaker, Mr. speaker, Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. If I had been told that Peter Mandelson or anybody else had failed security that had not been given clearance on security vetting, I would not have appointed them a a deliberate decision was a deliberate decision was taken to withhold that material from me.

A withhold that material. This was not a lack of asking. This wasn't an oversight. It was a decision. It was a it was a decision taken not to share that information on repeated occasions. Democrats.
16:05
Ed Davey Portrait Rt Hon Ed Davey MP (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
EA thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's 2022 all over again. >> Yeah. >> Back then, when he stood on this side of the House, it was Boris Johnson who was accused of Johnson who was accused of misleading parliament and scapegoating senior officials. The then Leader of the Opposition couldn't have been clearer. The public need to know, he said, that not all politicians are the same, but not all politicians put themselves above their country and that honesty, integrity and accountability matter.

So he promised change. Mr. speaker. He promised to break the cycle and stop the chaos. And he promised a government with, and I quote, more focus on long term strategy, not the short term distractions that can animate Westminster. I'm afraid the fact that he even had to make the statement today shows how badly he has failed, how badly he has let down the millions of people across our country who are so desperate for change. He blames his officials. He says he had no idea.

He gives every impression of a Prime Minister in office, but not in power. The facts remain. Even on his own account. The Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States, even after he had been warned about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The Prime Minister announced the appointment before Mandelson had been vetted. Despite the clear risk to national security of putting someone unsuitable in that role and one of his top officials, just three weeks into the job, clearly believed the Prime Minister wanted Mandelson to be appointed.

Regardless of what the vetting process turned out, and the Prime Minister has relied on the vetting process to defend his decisions. So why did he ask so few questions personally about the vetting process itself? We all know the truth, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister knew that appointing Mandelson was an enormous risk. He decided it was a risk worth taking, a catastrophic error of judgement. And now that it's blown up in his face, the only decent thing to do is to take responsibility.

Yeah. Back in 2022, the Prime Minister rightly accused Boris Johnson of respecting others to take the blame while he clung on. That was not acceptable then and it's not acceptable now. So I hope the Prime Minister can at least tell the House this, and we'll be listening very carefully to his answer. Was he given advice by Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, that the necessary security clearances should be acquired before he confirmed his choice for U.S. ambassador? And did he follow that advice, yes or no? Mr.

speaker, after the years of chaos under the Conservatives, we needed a government focussed on the interests of the people, the cost of living crisis, the health care crisis, our national security. We needed a government honesty, integrity and accountability. So will the Prime Minister finally accept that the only way he can help to deliver that is to resign.
16:08
16:10
16:11
16:12
16:13
16:13
16:15
16:15
16:17
16:17
16:18
16:19
16:19
16:20
16:21
16:21
16:21
16:22
16:23
16:24
16:25
16:25
16:26
16:27
16:27
16:28
16:28
16:29
16:30
16:30
16:31
16:31
16:32
16:32
16:32
16:33
16:34
16:35
16:36
16:36
16:37
16:37
16:38
16:38
16:38
16:39
16:39
16:40
16:41
16:42
16:42
16:43
16:44
16:44
16:45
16:46
16:47
16:47
16:47
16:48
16:48
16:49
16:49
16:50
16:51
16:51
16:51
16:52
16:52
16:53
16:53
16:54
16:54
16:55
16:55
16:56
16:57
16:57
16:58
16:58
16:59
16:59
17:00
17:00
17:01
17:02
17:02
17:03
17:03
17:04
17:04
17:05
17:05
17:06
17:06
17:07
17:07
17:08
17:09
17:09
17:10
17:10
17:10
17:10
17:11
17:11
17:11
17:12
17:13
17:13
17:14
17:14
17:15
17:15
17:16
17:16
17:16
17:17
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:19
17:19
17:19
17:19
17:20
17:21
17:21
17:22
17:22
17:22
17:23
17:23
17:24
17:24
17:25
17:25
17:25
17:26
17:26
17:26
17:26
17:27
17:27
17:27
17:28
17:28
17:29
17:29
17:30
17:30
17:31
17:31
17:32
17:32
17:33
17:33
17:34
17:34
17:35
17:35
17:35
17:36
17:36
17:36
17:37
17:37
17:38
17:39
17:39
17:39
17:40
17:40
17:41
17:41
17:42
17:43
17:43
17:43
17:44
17:44
17:45
17:45
17:45
17:45
17:46
17:46
17:46
17:46
17:47
17:47
17:47
17:47
17:48
17:48
17:49
17:49
17:49
17:50
17:50
17:51
17:51
17:51
17:52
17:52
17:52
17:53
17:53
17:53
17:53
17:54
17:54
17:55
17:56
17:56
17:56
17:56
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
I will begin with the facts. Counter-Terrorism policing have confirmed that they are investigating a series of arson attacks and incidents that have occurred in London over recent days. These include an arson attack at a synagogue in Finchley on Wednesday the 15th of April, a suspected arson attack targeting a premises arson attack targeting a premises in Hendon linked to a Jewish charity. On Friday the 17th of April, a suspected arson attack targeting a synagogue in Harrow on the evening of Saturday the 18th of April, and a further incident in the early hours of yesterday morning outside a residential premises in Finchley and opposite a synagogue.

These events follow the arson attack on a volunteer led ambulance service run by the Jewish community in Golders Green on the 23rd of March, and last week there was also an attempted arson attack on a Persian language media organisation that has previously been the target of serious threats linked to the Iranian regime and their proxies. Eight arrests have now been made in connection with that incident, and four people have been charged. Now. Madam Deputy Speaker, Jewish communities across the UK will be distressed and dismayed by these abhorrent attacks, and I know that I speak for hon.

Members right across this House when I say that there is no place in British life for anti-Semitism, attacks on British Jews are an attack on all of us, and we will do whatever it takes to stop the cowards and the thugs who seek to intimidate our Jewish communities. For now, the police response over the weekend has been decisive. 15 arrests have already been made. In addition, a range of capabilities have been deployed to deter potential attackers and to reassure communities.

Over the weekend, the Metropolitan Police significantly increased the number of officers in and around northwest London. Uniformed and plain clothed officers have maintained a strong presence around Barnet, and additional stop and search powers have been introduced across the borough. Response vehicles and counter-terrorism policing resources have been deployed alongside local policing to respond to potential threats. Now to ensure the police response is a sustainable one, the government has already committed an additional £5 million for this financial year to support the deployment of specialist officers across the country to support vulnerable communities under project Servator.

That is in addition to the record 73.4 million annual funding for protective security. Jewish, Muslim and other faiths faith sites. This morning I visited Finchley Reform Synagogue with the Deputy Commissioner and the local MP member of this House. I met community leaders and saw firsthand the strengthened police presence and the resilience of those affected. I reaffirmed our commitment to protect all those who have been targeted. Now, the government's commitment to supporting British Jews is an enduring one.

We are taking firm steps to root out anti-Semitism wherever it appears across public life, from our public services to our universities, to our charities and beyond. We are backing up our words with action. This includes launching an urgent review of anti-Semitism within the NHS, introducing mandatory training and investing £7 million to tackle antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities. This is a whole of society effort grounded in close engagement with Jewish communities. We are determined to tackle the issues that have a daily impact on the lives of our Jewish communities.

Now, an amendment to existing powers will allow the police to deal with repeat protests by taking into account the cumulative effect of protest activity. And the Home Secretary has asked Lord McDonald to undertake a review of public order laws to ensure people can go about their lives without the fear of intimidation. The government has also set out its vision for a fair, tolerant and decent country. With the recent publication of Protecting What Matters, Our action plan to tackle threats to social cohesion and to counter the scourge of extremism.

The plan makes significant spending commitments, including 800 million to expand the Pride in Place programme to 40 new neighbourhoods, plus new investment in community resilience, schools linking and local media. This vital effort requires us to work collectively across government and with operational partners, and will be driven forward by my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary. Furthermore, we are actively protecting Persian language media organisations at risk. This includes tailored security advice and cyber protection through to armed police protection where necessary.

We have already seen a number of charges and convictions of those seeking to harm journalists in the UK and through implementation of the National Security Act and through other means, we are making the United Kingdom an even harder operating target for hostile actors. Madam Deputy Speaker, hon. Members will be aware that a group calling itself Ashab Al Amin, the Islamic movement of the companions of the right, has claimed responsibility for a number of these incidents. It has also claimed responsibility for attacks across Europe over recent months, targeting Jewish and Israeli interests.

I am aware of the public speculation linking that group to the Iranian state now, given that police investigations are ongoing, it would not be appropriate to comment on who may who may ultimately be beyond the specific incidents. More generally, we have and will continue to hold Iran to account for its hostile acts. But let me be absolutely clear, whether linked to Iran or to any other source, we will never tolerate hostile activity on British soil, alongside the police and our world leading security and intelligence agencies.

We will do what is necessary to keep our citizens safe. And for those criminal proxies who are used by states to do their dirty work, we will continue to ensure that their actions are met with the full weight of the law, as we saw with the conviction of the Chechen born Austrian national in 2023, who was imprisoned for conducting surveillance on Iran International's UK headquarters. And we've already seen the first convictions under the National Security Act for assisting a foreign intelligence service, including that of Dylan Earl, who in October received a sentence of 17 years for masterminding an arson campaign for Russia's Wagner Group.

So for anyone tempted by offers of financial reward from foreign states to conduct hostile acts against the UK, my advice and my message is unambiguous you will be discovered and the consequences will be severe. Turning a blind eye or pleading ignorance is no defence. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, anti-Semitism has existed in its many poisonous forms for centuries, but there is no doubt that we find ourselves at a critical juncture as fellow members of our society feel forced, in some cases, to live a smaller Jewish life.

Our response must be unflinching, and I ensure the House that under this government it always will be. We will work relentlessly to ensure that anti-Semites and those who threaten the Jewish community here have nowhere to hide, and to show British Jews that we stand with them and that we will do everything in our power to keep them safe. I commend this statement to the House. Vickers.
18:05
Matt Vickers Portrait Matt Vickers MP (Stockton West, Conservative)
-
-
Yes. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The attacks on our Jewish community have become on our Jewish community have become a national emergency in recent weeks. We've seen multiple attacks against cultural sites and synagogues. The Jewish community has been targeted again and again. As a result, many Jewish people are now tragically considering leaving the UK. When the shadow Home secretary visited the community in Golders Green just after the attack on the Hatzolah ambulances, he was told they feel abandoned by the government.

He spoke to a young mother that morning who said she was afraid to send her children to school. Matt Jukes, the Met Police deputy commissioner, said this morning that we've seen hate crimes in our communities before, but now what we've got is the prospect of a foreign state actually using that as a mechanism to sow discord and create anxiety in our communities. Harakat Ashab Al Amin Al-islamiyya, an Islamist militant group with links to Iran. Indeed, many would say a proxy for Iran has now claimed responsibility for five incidents targeting Jewish sites in London, including the firebombing of the Zola ambulances in Golders Green and the attempted drone attack on the Israeli embassy.

Vicki Evans, the senior national coordinator for counterterrorism, told reporters on Sunday. As the conflict in the Middle East continues to evolve, counter-terrorism police and our partners remain alive to the threat of Iranian hostile activity in the UK. How much more Iranian action on our UK soil is needed before the government acts to prescribe the IRGC in opposition, the Labour Party, including the then shadow Home Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary, said they would do this. But almost two years after winning power, they have done nothing.

Many other countries have acted by prescribing the IRGC, including the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and earlier this year, even the European Union. So why hasn't this government delivered on its election promise to proscribe the IRGC? If emergency legislation is needed, the Minister will have our support to get it rapidly through Parliament. Will he accept our offer now from the Dispatch Box? If Iran is behind these recent attacks, then large numbers of Iranian diplomats and those suspected of being Iranian spies in the UK must also be immediately expelled, as happened to Russian diplomats and spies after the Salisbury attack.

This would send a powerful message and degrade Iran's ability to act on UK soil. But besides foreign direct attacks, there's been a sickening tidal wave of domestic anti-Semitism as well. As the Leader of the Opposition said as a black woman in this country, she has never seen the level of racism, discrimination, intimidation and attacks that have been directed at Jewish communities. She said that if people were firebombing black churches, there were synagogues have been attacked, people being killed, ambulances being firebombed.

There would be a national emergency. This should be considered a national emergency. Anti-Semitism, of course, often goes hand in hand with Islamist extremism, a threat we know all too well. Some 75% of MI5's terrorism caseload relates to Islamist extremism, and 94% of terrorist murders in the last 25 years have been perpetrated by Islamist extremists. Yet only 10% of the caseload is Islamist. When we discuss the Hezbollah attacks a few weeks ago, the security Minister said the government are looking at what they can do about what he rightly admitted was the mismatch in prevent case loads.

Can the Minister update the House on the progress he's made since? Saying that? Madam Deputy Speaker, Will the government commit to using counter-terrorism surveillance techniques to disrupt anti-Semitic attacks before they occur? Will the government also commit to deporting any foreign national who expresses extremist views, sympathy for violence or terrorism, anti-Semitism, or any other such religious hatred? In October, the Home Secretary said that she was reviewing the use of this power under section three of the Immigration Act 1971 and promised to update the House, but we've heard nothing since.

Will the Minister please update the House today? Madam Deputy Speaker, anti-Semitism is a stain on our society. Warm words are no longer enough. Real action is needed. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm grateful to him for his response. I hope that he will accept that the
18:10
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
response from this government is not about warm words, it is about decisive, targeted, effective activity. And that's what we've seen over the past few days. But seen over the past few days. But let me agree with him in terms of recognising the fear and distress that exists within our Jewish communities. It is abhorrent that members of our Jewish community are considering that their long term future in the United Kingdom. And collectively, I am sure that we want to assure them that we will do everything that we possibly can to make sure that the United Kingdom is a safe place for them and their families.

But I do recognise the fear and the distress that they are feeling at the moment, and that that is why we're making sure that our response is proportionate and urgent in the way that I set out earlier in my remarks. Now, the shadow Minister entirely reasonably raised the spectre of the threat that we face from Iran. So let me say to him and to the House, and I've made these points previously, but for the purpose of clarification, let me tell him precisely what we're doing to combat the specific threat from Iran.

So if this government specified Iran under the enhanced tier of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme, which is a useful operational tool which will bolster our oversight of Iran's influence activities here in the UK, we have sanctioned more than 550 Iranian individuals and entities, including the IRGC, in its entirety, and he mentioned prescription. He will know that the government have committed to take forward the recommendations by Jonathan Hall KC, including the creation of a new prescription like power to help tackle malign activity by state and non-state linked actors.

We've also engaged in extensive activity to go after the criminal networks and enablers that the Iranian intelligence services used to carry out their work, as well as targeting those who assist the IRGC and others to launder their money here in the United Kingdom, the role of the police force right around the country is incredibly important in terms of this work, and that is why we've rolled out new training to all frontline police officers to increase their understanding of state threats, and we are strengthening our immigration system against Iranian infiltration, including those who promote Iranian interference in the UK.

We are also doing this in concert with our allies, and we are engaging internationally on transnational Iranian threats, including joining with 13 other countries in condemning Iranian intelligence activities, both in the United Kingdom and globally. Now, he mentioned the work that we're doing in prevent, and I know that he will have seen the Home Secretary confirm the appointment of a new independent. Prevent Commissioner Tim Jakes, to fulfil the role that has been done expertly by Lord Anderson. This is an important role, and we want to work very closely with him to ensure that the prevent programme is fit for purpose.

He will have seen the detail from phase one of the Southport inquiry, and will also have seen that the government immediately commissioned phase two, which will be conducted by Sir Adrian Fulford, and the government has made a commitment to respond in full by the summer. He also made, I think, an entirely reasonable and important point about extremism. The government is doing a lot of work led by. As I said in my earlier remarks, the Secretary of State for Mhclg. But there is a lot of work coordinated across government to target the threats that we face from extremists.

This work was set out just recently with the publication of the Protecting What Matters document, and that shows how the government is delivering a fundamental reset of how we counter extremism, ensuring that we have the tools, capabilities and partnership to match the scale and the nature of the threat that we face. I hope he and the House understands the seriousness with which we take this. These should not be matters of cross-party disagreement. We should work together to make sure that our Jewish communities feel safe, and that will be our approach.
18:15
18:16
18:17
Max Wilkinson Portrait Max Wilkinson MP (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Max Wilkinson. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I want to extend my sympathies to the Jewish community who will be understandably worried about the disturbing uptick in violence against their community across Britain. The series of arson attacks on Jewish sites in recent days is an abhorrent trend. The pattern of attacks on Britain's Jews is clear to see, and without serious intervention, it is only a matter of time before another attack like that seen in Manchester last year occurs again, and we are grateful to hear the minister's words today about the action that's being taken.

We must recognise that we have a huge anti-Semitism problem in this country. We must, in this House, restate it again and again until that problem has been stamped out. But that is not enough. The political system must take action to tackle its root causes. Earlier today, I met with groups that represent British Jews, including the Community Security Trust. They told me that British Jews are feeling extremely vulnerable, with some questioning their long term security in this country. That such sentiment is held by any minority group in Britain in 2026, must give this House pause for thought that this sentiment is held by the Jewish community, given the centuries of persecution they have suffered is a tragedy.

A group called Ashab Al Yamin has claimed responsibility for a number of attacks and others across Europe. What are Ministers doing with our European partners to tackle the cross country threat and the cross-continent threat that this organisation and others pose? Given the potential links with the IRGC, will the Minister act swiftly to proscribe the IRGC, and does he accept that if these links are substantiated, prescription would be more likely to deliver justice for the Jewish community? Now, we know that hostile foreign states sometimes try to recruit individuals online to carry out these kinds of attacks on British people, and there are rumours that social media has been the recruitment tool that's been used.

So does the Minister know what the social media companies are doing to identify, to monitor and clamp down on this practice? And what are Ministers doing to ensure social media companies are taking action themselves? Amen.
18:19
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Well, I'm grateful to him for a series of entirely sensible and constructive points that he's made. constructive points that he's made. And he's absolutely right about the abhorrent nature of the threat. And he's also right to raise the spectre of what happened in Manchester. Those of us who have the privilege of serving in government to keep our national security as safe and keep our public safe, have spent a lot of time looking very closely at what happened in Manchester, and I give him an absolute assurance that we work around the clock to try and ensure that these terrible attacks cannot happen, and we make sure that our intelligence services and our police have got the resources that they need in order to do the important job that we ask them to do.

I'm grateful to him for mentioning the Community Security Trust. I suspect every member of this House knows about the work of the Community Security Trust. I think that they are held in the very highest of regard. They do incredibly important work. I'm proud of the resource that this government has put into that work. But he is also right to make the point that we need to tackle this threat via the root causes. Walls and cameras and defences are an important part of our response, but it's not the only part of our response.

And that is why I made the remarks that I did just a moment ago with regard to tackling extremism. Now, he asked specifically about international engagement, and he's right to do so. I can give him an assurance that we work very closely with our international partners, particularly in Europe, but also in the Middle East and further afield as well. And there is a lot of activity, along with our partners, to identify the particular nature of the threat that we're facing collectively.

And I give him an assurance that whatever tools, whatever legislative arrangement is required, we will bring it forward.
18:21
18:22
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to her. She has raised her concerns in a very diligent way on a number of occasions with me, and I should say that I had the privilege of visiting J. W three in her constituency just recently. It is a truly inspiring place, and I do want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to Raymond, the CEO and all the staff and volunteers for the incredibly important work that they do. I know it is hugely appreciated in her community.

The threat that she described is is totally unacceptable, and I can give her an absolute assurance to go back to her constituents, to say how seriously we take that threat and to give her an absolute assurance that we will bring forward and use all of the tools at our disposal. Now, there has been a lot of commentary around prescribing the IRGC, and I completely understand why that is the case. She will understand that the government have made a commitment to bring forward a legislative tool that was recommended by Jonathan Hall.

It was this government's view that we did not have the appropriate legislative mechanism in order to prescribe a state backed entity, and that is why the government has made a commitment to bring forward that particular tool. But she should seek take assurance that we will not wait for that particular legislative tool to do everything that we need to combat and counter the work of the IRG. And I set out a moment ago the work that we're doing to counter the threat from Iran, and I hope that provides some constituents.
18:24
18:24
18:25
18:26
18:27
18:28
18:29
18:30
18:31
18:32
18:32
18:34
18:35
18:36
18:37
18:38
18:38
Bob Blackman Portrait Bob Blackman MP (Harrow East, Conservative)
-
-
Bob Blackman. >> Bob Blackman. >> Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker and I would like to commend the police and the fire brigade for their prompt action in the early their prompt action in the early hours of Sunday morning. It was a reassurance patrol that spotted the fire bombing of Kenton Shaw and actually prevented the shul from burning down completely. So that's welcome. Equally welcome is the extension of the SEC's and section 60 notice, not just to Barnet, but to Harrow and Brent, and that to update the Minister.

I think that's been announced while he's been on his feet. But what we have to recognise is that this is a series of terrorist attacks and terrorist attacks on the Jewish community, and I've got people contacting me saying, am I safe in my own home, let alone going to the synagogue? That is a disgrace to this country and we have to take action immediately. So will he not only look at prescription of the IRGC, but obviously look at the prescription of Ashraf Ali Amin immediately, so that membership of that organisation is a criminal offence.

And equally, make sure that the charities behind these, these people, the Algeria and the Arab, the Islamic Foundation, which I wrote to the Minister on a year ago, are actually prescribed as well, as well as the 16 other charities, Islamic charities that have been prescribed by the Arab states. The reality is that we have to take prompt and firm action to stop this terrorist attack activity. Now, what starts with the hate marches ends up with synagogues being burnt and Jewish people feeling unsafe.

Yeah.
18:40
18:41
Barry Gardiner Portrait Barry Gardiner MP (Brent West, Labour)
-
-
You, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hate filled attack on the Canton Synagogue in my constituency of Brent West is the latest in the series of disgusting attacks on Jewish buildings that the Minister outlined. But these are more than attacks on buildings. They are calculated attacks on the whole Jewish community designed to destabilise and instil widespread fear. This is the very definition of terrorism. I'm grateful to the police for their swift response and for the arrests that they've made in relation to some of the attacks, but I believe it's vital that the government and the met do treat these as terrorist attacks, not simply as criminal damage.

I'd also ask that the Home Office and perhaps the Home Affairs Select Committee examines the involvement of foreign actors and the ease with which they are able to launch such attacks. For too long, London has been regarded by some hostile regimes as a safe base from which to operate and where money can be laundered. That British Jewry lives under the dark shadow of anti-Semitic hatred is something which, sadly, we have all come to understand, but must never come to accept.

I pay tribute to the work of the CST and to the security personnel at Kenton, who are always there to greet those of us who visit to ensure the safety of us and the whole congregation in the London Borough of Brent. We like to pride ourselves on the multicultural nature of our community and the harmony between all those from different faiths and cultural backgrounds. But good community relations have to be worked at.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh dear oh dear, oh dear. I'm sure the hon. Member will ask his question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question. Barry Gardiner yes, I'd ask the Minister to to reinforce the fact that those good community relations are not simply built on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are not simply built on the toleration of the views of others. Minister. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Minister. Well, he's right to raise the importance of community relations,
18:43
18:44
18:44
18:44
18:45
18:46
18:46
18:47
18:48
18:48
18:48
18:49
18:50
18:50
18:51
18:51
18:52
18:53
18:54
18:54
18:55
18:55
18:55
18:56
18:57
18:57
18:58
18:59
18:59
Kemi Badenoch Portrait Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek leave to propose that the House debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, that this House has considered the matter of the government's accountability to the House in connection to the appointment of Peter Mandelson. This is a matter of national security because the Prime Minister has admitted appointing a known serious security risk to our most sensitive diplomatic post. This goes beyond Mandelson's close relationship to a convicted paedophile.

Today I raised deeply concerning ties to the Kremlin and China, which the Prime Minister admitted he knew about before the appointment. This is why, despite the Prime Minister's statement today, there remain serious questions about what he knew and when he has hidden behind process at every turn and failed to take responsibility. It is quite clear that the spirit and letter of the Humble Address which this House voted for, have not been met yet. That is disrespectful to this House. There remain serious inconsistencies in the government's position, inconsistencies with the accounts of officials involved in the process, and inconsistencies with the members of this House, and journalists who sought to scrutinise the appointment at the time.

There are also questions to be asked about the Prime Minister repeatedly sacking senior civil servants on a whim for his own decisions, and leaving the taxpayer with financial liabilities. The British public deserve to know the truth. Members on all sides were not satisfied with the answers the Prime Minister gave today. I even gave my questions in advance and still I did not get proper answers to them. Tomorrow, the former permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office will appear in Parliament.

The House should also have the chance to debate what he says at the earliest opportunity. That is why the House should be able to debate this before the forthcoming prorogation. At its core, this matter pertains to the Prime Minister's catastrophic judgement. It pertains to his lack of grip and his failure to ask the relevant questions. It would be unfair of him to palm this debate off onto a junior Minister who does not have the information and did not take the decision.

This whole saga has been about the Prime Minister's leadership. A real leader would come and answer these questions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

himself. The right hon. Member asked leave to propose the debate on the specific and important matter that specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely the government's accountability to the House in accountability to the House in connection with the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States of America, I have listened carefully to the application from the Leader of the application from the Leader of the Opposition. I am satisfied that the matter raised by the right hon.

Member is proper to be discussed under Standing Order number 24. As a member of the House, I. Thank you. I don't think we need to count as there is no objection. The hon. Member has obtained the leave of the House. The debate will be held tomorrow as the first item of public business. The debate will last for up to three hours and will arise on a motion that the House has considered specific matter set out in the right hon.

Member's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

application. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day. Victims and Courts Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Victims and Courts Bill consideration. Of Lord's message. Now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now. I must draw the House's attention to the fact that Lord's amendments four B and four C engage amendments four B and four C engage Commons financial privilege. If either of those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal. We will begin with the government motion to disagree with the laws in their amendment for B and four C, with which it will be convenient to consider all other Lords amendments, government motions and amendments.

I call the Minister to move the motion.
19:03
19:04
Alex Davies-Jones Portrait Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
-
victims and bereaved families, and we have listened. I know for a fact that this bill is now stronger that this bill is now stronger because of this. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to will join me in paying tribute to some of the victims campaigners who have been so instrumental in this bill, some of whom are joining us bill, some of whom are joining us in the gallery today. First, to the families of Olivia Pratt-korbel, families of Olivia Pratt-korbel, Jan Mustafa, Zahra Aleena and Sabina Nessa.

I know nothing will ever lessen the pain of such an immense loss, followed by indescribable trauma of an offender who would not face you and would not face justice. We owe you a debt of thanks for your courage and fortitude in campaigning to ensure that offenders will always be forced to attend their sentencing hearings, and offenders that refuse to attend are quite rightly punished appropriately. Thanks to you, criminals will never be allowed to hide away from justice and you have ensured that others should never have to face what you have previously had to endure.

This measure in this bill brought forward in the memories of Olivia, Zahra, Sabina and Jan. Secondly, I would like to pay tribute to Tracy Hanson and Katie Britt, who have worked tirelessly to ensure that no other family experiences the injustices that they have faced due to not being informed about the unduly lenient sentencing scheme. Tracy Hanson's son Josh was tragically murdered in an unprovoked knife attack in 2015. Since that devastating loss, Tracy has shown extraordinary strength and compassion, continuing to advocate for and support other victims through her charity, the Josh Hanson Trust.

In relation to the ULS scheme in particular, Madam Deputy Speaker Tracy has campaigned for over a decade, working closely with academics and fellow bereaved families to bring forward this change in the law. She held a strong and unwavering belief that it could not be right for her request to the Attorney General to be dismissed so abruptly, with nothing more than a case closed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

response. I will happily give way. I'm grateful to the Minister for giving way. She may remember on the giving way. She may remember on the 25th of March in on a debate on these amendments. She and I had an exchange and I described the very long explanation she gave as a load of waffle, and she replied to me, of waffle, and she replied to me, we have listened directly to the families about what they wanted. We could have brought forward an could have brought forward an amendment that simply extended the time limit, but the families told us directly that was not what they wanted.

Now, I welcome the amendment to extend the period to 180 days. That's very welcome. But when the Minister said that's not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what the families wanted on the 25th of March, was she was she inadvertently misleading the House? Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. I welcome the comments from the hon. Gentleman. I was not inadvertently misleading the House inadvertently misleading the House because if the hon. Member looked at the amendment and looked at the details of the amendment, that is not simply what it does. So the not simply what it does. So the amendment that we are putting forward does not simply extend the time limit. It does much, much more than that, and it does not extend the time limit for everyone. As I will go into in my comments.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this amendment is for the families and for the victims directly. This is not for everyone as was proposed by the opposition. This does not just do simply what the opposition amendment would have done, which is what Tracy Hanson said in her own words in this, this this amendment does much more than that. I will in a moment. This this amendment does much more than that in terms of its application, how it extends to the families and victims directly. There's also a statutory duty in this amendment to directly inform victims and their families about the ULS scheme so that they are aware of it in the first place, and Minister.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just there will be some back and forth about who wants what elements of this scheme and in what possible way, but I think the possible way, but I think the Minister was wrong to say that our focus is on being it for everybody. I've been very clear from the start

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've been very clear from the start that our focus was also on extending it for victims and their families, not for everybody. No, I appreciate that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, I appreciate that clarification, and he is correct. But the amendment that the government has brought forward does much more than that from listening to victims campaigners like Tracy to victims campaigners like Tracy Hanson, like Katy Brett directly. And this measure that we have brought forward in this bill is direct tribute to them, because for them, it was neither fair nor acceptable that the the current status quo was as it was. Now. I would also like to extend my sincere thanks and gratitude to Katy.

Brett. Katy, your commitment and courage in campaigning in the memory of your sister Sasha has been truly remarkable. Sasha and I don't need to remind. The house was brutally murdered at the age of just 16, a devastating loss. Katy has worked tirelessly since to ensure that families of victims have the right to be informed by the ULS scheme, and that way they are not told that they are given fair opportunity to make that request to the Attorney General. Beyond that 28 day limit, I have felt privileged to get to know you all over the course of this bill.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, before I turn to the motions that we will debate today, I would also like to thank those who have contributed to recent debates concerning amendments related to homicide abroad and court transcripts, and for the thoughtful way that so many of members across this House and the Other place have engaged with these issues. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Maidenhead, who has campaigned to ensure support is available to families of bereaved by homicide abroad as they navigate such tragic events in the other place.

The government committed to working jointly with the FCDO and the Home Office to undertake a review of how support is provided to these families and to assess how current arrangements are operating.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will happily give way. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the Member for Strangford because I just beat for Strangford because I just beat him to an intervention. Can I put on record my thanks to the Minister for her work on this? Whether we for her work on this? Whether we agree with different parts of this bill, I think nobody in this chamber or the other place would fail to recognise the commitment fail to recognise the commitment that she has personally had to make sure that victims are at the heart of this particular bill.

So can I personally thank her and just ask personally thank her and just ask her to mention a little bit about the victims code and what she's done to make that easier to navigate for victims of crimes?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. This bill goes beyond party politics. This is a bill, as party politics. This is a bill, as I've said, for the victims and and it has been a sincere pleasure to it has been a sincere pleasure to work across political divides to get this right for the victims who are right, quite rightly, at the heart of this bill. And I have heart of this bill. And I have always stated, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will work with anyone from any party if they have any measure any party if they have any measure that would potentially make the criminal justice system a better place for victims, so that we start to put victims at the heart of this.

And that's exactly what this bill goes a step towards doing, is putting the victims back at the heart of the criminal justice

**** Possible New Speaker ****

system, where they fundamentally belong. I will happily give way, and then I'll go back to the victims code. Madam Deputy Speaker First of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker First of all, no one doubts the the commitment and the honesty and the integrity of the of the Minister. integrity of the of the Minister. But can I just very gently remind the Minister within the the bill that was brought forward, the issue of glorification of terrorism was outlined by my colleague the Member for East Antrim. My colleagues raised the issue of of children raised the issue of of children wearing IRA slogans. Just last Saturday, I met a lady whose husband was murdered by the IRA in the 9th of April 1990.

She reminded me that in Northern Ireland, when she went to visit the. The memorial for her for her dead husband that died 36 years ago, murdered 36 years ago. She was personal slogans against her up to when she was trying to think of her husband. Those are things that we need in this legislation because we can't let people take advantage of people's sorrow and not recognise that they're grieving whenever they can bring up the past and try to make terrorism glorification, when very clearly it's not at murders people, it destroys lives.

And that's what it should be about. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He will know that my family have also faced tragedy and bereavement at the hands of the IRA. My cousin was killed on Horse Guards Parade, serving this country Guards Parade, serving this country by a serving member of the IRA, and that issue has plagued my family for decades and still hurts to this very day. And I've spoken about that tragedy and that bereavement that tragedy and that bereavement in the chamber before. He will know that the victims code is still open to consultation until the end of this month, and I urge anyone who has feelings.

Of such pain to feed into that code, to see how we can make that better for victims going forward. And I will know that the policing Minister will have heard his his views, too, in this chamber and the views of other victims going forward into how we can support victims of terrorism. I have met with families bereaved of terrorism to work with them on what more we can do, and they will be feeding into the victims code. Which brings me on to the point from my hon.

Friend about the victims code. As I've stated, ensuring that victims who were bereaved of homicide abroad are able to have the rights under the victims code isn't necessarily the right place for them. But we have listened to them. We've ensured that there is, in the current draft consultation, a specific measure for them. We are working with the FCDO, with the Home Office going forward, to ensure that that can be strengthened so that they do have support available, and this review, which we are undertaking, will be published in 2027.

It will be robust, it will be comprehensive, it will put families at the centre so that where needed, we can improve the support available to them. On court transcripts. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. Members on the Liberal Democrat benches and my hon. Friends on these benches, including the Member for Warrington North and the Member for Rotherham, for all of the work that they have done on ensuring that victims have access to court transcripts relevant to their cases. As the Minister set out in the Other place last week, the government is acutely aware of the need to consider what further action we can take to support victims to access information on court proceedings relating to their case, particularly in cases that do not result in a conviction.

The government is also fully committed to strengthening transparency, and that is why I am pleased to restate that the government is commencing a study on AI transcription in the criminal courts, and this will look at how AI transcription can lead to producing court transcripts more quickly and for a lower cost for victims. The findings of this study have the potential to reduce fees and improve the access to court transcripts. This will mean further reform will be underpinned by confidence and accuracy and appropriate safeguards, and will deliver for victims.

I will now move on to the remaining topics for discussion. The government has agreed with the sentiment of the amendments on the unduly lenient Sentencing Scheme, but as I have previously said, we needed to return to these to ensure that they were workable, effective and that they would bring the change necessary following engagement with victims and bereaved families directly. That is what this government has done and I am pleased to confirm that we have now tabled two amendments to the ULS scheme that will deliver what victims have been calling for.

We are first introducing an out of time route that will allow victims and bereaved family members to ask the Attorney General to consider referring a sentence for review, where they were unable to act within the existing 28 time limit. And we're doing so is within the interests of justice. This route will be available for up to six months from the date of sentencing. This change reflects what victims have told us. It is not simply a six month extension to the deadline, but a new and necessary route for victims and bereaved families in cases where they are unable, through no fault of their own, to meet the original 28 day requirement.

We will also introduce a statutory duty to notify victims of the existence of the unduly lenient sentence scheme. The victims code will ensure those most impacted by the crime know their rights. To ask the Attorney General to consider referring a sentence review. Together, these two amendments deliver what the victims have been calling for a robust statutory duty to notify them and a fair, out of time route to appeal to Tracy and Katy. Again. We thank you for your engagement throughout this process.

To Tracy, many of the changes we see today have been achieved, in no small part because of your tireless campaigning in the memory of Josh. I would also like to express my thanks to the Victims Commissioner, Baroness Brinton, and the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire for their sustained support and championing of Tracy's work. Katy, I hope you will not mind me saying that I believe both your sister and your mother would be immensely proud of the determination and compassion that you have shown.

You have a big influence in ensuring that measures exist, and I know you will make sure will deliver on them. I wish to extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood, who I know has been steadfast and valued in support of your campaign. Overall, these changes respond directly to long standing calls for a more transparent and accessible process. They will ensure that victims are informed about the scheme, and that way the 28 day deadline cannot be met that there is a fair route to apply within six months, where the interests of justice demand it.

These measures will make a real and lasting difference to other victims and families in the future. I want to thank peers in the other place for their careful consideration of clause 12. We understand that these amendments seek transparency and scrutiny of any regulations that set the rates at which private prosecutors can recover costs from central funds. However, the government is unable to accept the amendments offered in lieu for the following reasons. Amendment four C would make any regulations to set the rates at which private prosecutors can recover costs from central funds, subject to the affirmative, rather than the negative procedure.

I fully recognise the desire for parliamentary scrutiny, and the government is committed to ensuring that any use of this power is subject to proper, rigorous oversight. The question is not whether there should be scrutiny, but what form of scrutiny is proportionate to the power Parliament is being asked to confirm. At this stage, Parliament is conferring an enabling power. We do not yet know how complex or detailed the eventual structure rates will be. In these circumstances, it would be disproportionate to mandate a process that risks lengthy debate, using up valuable parliamentary time over technical and numerical detail, rather than actually focusing on scrutiny where it is most effective and valuable.

The negative procedure, Madam Deputy Speaker strikes the right balance. It ensures that regulations are laid before Parliament and that they are subject to scrutiny, including from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and that they may be challenged, debated and annulled where concerns arise. It gives Parliament that clear mechanism to intervene if it considers that any evidence, consultation or analysis simply doesn't stand up. Amendment four B would require the Ministry of Justice to publish an impact assessment before making any regulations. The government fully recognises the importance of transparency.

However, the government does not consider that this amendment is appropriately framed in its drafting for the established process. Nevertheless, we do recognise the strength of feeling about ensuring proper consideration of any future rates before these regulations are made, and I am therefore pleased to say that we propose an amendment in lieu, which we believe will formalise what the government has already made clear throughout these debates that robust evidence, engagement with stakeholders and experts and a careful assessment of impacts will underpin any use of this power.

This will first place a statutory duty in primary legislation that the Lord Chancellor must consult before laying any secondary legislation to set rates. This will be full, thorough public consultation and the government will publish a full response as part of the process of setting any rates. It will also require that an impact assessment is published before making regulations, providing Parliament and stakeholders with that clear assessment of the likely effects on any groups affected by the proposed policies, this will ensure that Parliament is not constrained in granting an enabling power that can be exercised in a proportionate, practical and effective way.

And for those reasons, Madam Deputy Speaker, I urge members to support the motions and the amendments tabled by the government, and I commend this bill to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this the question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments for B and for C, and before I call the Shadow Minister, members may wish to refresh their members may wish to refresh their memories, as in our rules of behaviour and courtesies of the House of Commons, that we must House of Commons, that we must never, ever refer directly to address visitors in the gallery, shadow Minister, Doctor Kieran
19:20
Kieran Mullan Portrait Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
-
-
Mullan. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to take part in this debate on Lords. Amendments to the Victims and Court Bill. Courts Bill. This bill has been debated extensively in the other place, and I want to play some record. My thanks to them for the care and consideration they've given in trying to improve the bill, something we tried ourselves to do. So in the common stages. Members will know. When we last saw this bill here we were sadly defeated by Labour MPs and a number of provisions around court transcripts.

The victims code, the ULS, as we're talking today, and since then, the Lords have done a good job in securing further concessions from the government. For example, as the Minister mentioned, in relation to victims of homicide abroad, an agreement that there should be a clearer and more defined set of rights for individuals in that circumstance. I do want to join the Minister, though it's not subject to the debate today, but join the Minister in her recognition of the campaigning done by the relatives and MPs of Olivia, Zara, Sabina and Jan that we've discussed a number of times in this chamber when we were previously passing those specific amendments with the support of the House.

But today we're considering two remaining provisions that were added in the Lords, and I'd like to begin with the amendments in lieu of Lords amendments to the unduly Lenient Sentence scheme. Many members of this House will be familiar with the ULS and have used it themselves. Anyone can ask the Attorney General to consider whether a sentence should be referred to the Court of Appeal as being unduly lenient, including a victim, a relative of a victim or a member of the public. The request will then be considered, and if the Attorney General thinks it is a potentially unduly lenient sentence, it then goes to the Court of Appeal for review.

But there is a strict 28 day time limit within which the Attorney General is able to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal and then by default, of course, for the victim themselves or member of the public to refer the case, if the Court of Appeal finds the sentence to be unduly lenient, then they can alter the sentence and substitute it for a sentence of their own. This is a scheme I've used on occasions when I've seen senses that I consider to be unduly lenient.

Most recently, for example, in relation to the horrific murder of Alana Odysseus, who was murdered by her boyfriend, Shane March. He stabbed her 19 times when she refused to have an abortion and despite having been previously convicted of murder and having been released on parole for that offence, he committed this second murder. He was then again given another second, as it's called, life sentence, something that I think is repeatedly being shown to be a term that's unfit for purpose. And given the prospect of leaving prison again, that was plainly wrong.

And after referring his case, his sentence was overturned and replaced with a whole life order so that he will never be released. I've had the pleasure of speaking with Alana's sister, Jasmine, and she told me how important that scheme was to them, the outcome that it secured for them as it now. They now feel like he's serving a sentence that reflects the gravity of his crimes. I think that demonstrates the House how effective this scheme can be in certain circumstances, but sadly it isn't always operating as we would want.

I've had the privilege of being able to meet and work with a number of victims and their families, who've explained to me clearly the pitfalls in the scheme as it stands, and in particular, comparing the rights and privileges of criminals to those of victims and the bereaved, both in relation to the question of awareness and notification, and secondly, in relation to the time available, because, of course, MPs can refer people, other people can do the same, but the people most likely to have an interest in sending a referral or having a case appealed would be the victims themselves or their family members, and they don't always know about it.

There isn't much point in having a right if you aren't told about it. So the government's agreed a statutory duty to notify victims of the existence of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which will remain victims and bereaved families can easily find clear information about the ULS and their rights in the victim's code. That. I would like the Minister just to clarify who she envisions, specifically, what body having the responsibility of undertaking this notification. And also, I think it's important that we have some kind of plan to ensure that it's working in practice.

I'm sure if we asked the various bodies involved now, they would say that they would like to think that everybody is told about it, but they're not. And so what plan do we have to make sure whoever's given that job is actually following through on it? And then of course, let's be clear, there's been a discussion about what the government did or didn't agree to, and the member's not in his place. And what the Member for Bridgwater, the government's original plan in this bill around us was not to give victims more time, but to give themselves more time.

It wasn't on their radar in any way, shape or form to extend in this bill. In this bill, the time available to victims and their families. And when we sought to amend it in that regard, we were told that it wasn't possible, that we'd have to wait for the findings of the Law Commission review into criminal appeals. And I think the Minister must now accept that, obviously, as we knew at the time, wasn't true because we're here prior to that, having reported making amendments.

But I do welcome them. And I just want to, again, pay tribute to the people that I've worked with directly, many the same as the minister's mentioned. So Katy Brett from the campaign group justice for victims, is someone I've worked with very closely on this issue, and I'd like to pay tribute to her MP, the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood, who made a particularly powerful speech on this matter the last time. It was before this House. I thought it was extremely effective, and I know she has been very effective behind the scenes in in driving forward this change.

Katy's sister Sasha was murdered in 2013. This is difficult to talk about, but this is the reality of what people are going through. Aged just 16, she was raped, stabbed more than 100 times and her body set on fire. Katy and her family believed her killer met the existing criteria for whole life order, but he was only given a minimum sentence of 35 years. That would mean, in reality, there is every possibility that he would end up getting out of prison. And despite all of Katy's amazing work on this issue, as is often the case, these matters aren't retrospective and that's something that they will have to accept.

But Katy was so upset by this outcome that she wasn't able to successfully appeal it, that she collected more than 10,000 signatures on a petition to remove that 28 day time limit. And the way she's put it to me, that's always stuck with me that I've always used in discussions with Ministers, etc. is that 28 days is the amount of time you get to take something back to a shop. You have the same amount of time to decide you don't like a top as we originally, and it was a measure, you know, a cross party basis.

We didn't didn't amend either when we were in government. That's comparable and it's clearly not. How can that be the same test for something as serious as that? I also met with Aisha Hussein, another member of justice for victims, and she campaigns on behalf of her cousin, Jan Mustafa. Jan's killer had raped, tortured and imprisoned various girls and young women, and then also murdered Henriette, Szucs and Jan and hid both of these women's bodies in a freezer on top of each other.

And he did not also receive a whole life sentence and again, potentially will leave prison one day. And Aisha and her family never knew anything about the scheme. And I also had the pleasure to meet with Lauren Redmond, who lost her ability to appeal a sentence because of pure errors made by the CPS when the files were asked for by the government and a request to appeal, the sentence was placed, the Attorney General's office asked for the relevant files. The CPS simply sent the wrong date into the government.

So the government was working towards a timetable was the incorrect timetable, and so she was denied that ability to appeal purely because of that. And then I've also had the opportunity to meet with Tracy Hansen. The Deputy Speaker has given me guidance about who I can and can't refer to in the gallery. The minister's kind of done that for us. She has campaigned for many, many years on this issue and works not just on this issue, but more broadly on behalf of the victims.

As part of the Josh Hansen Trust named after her son, and I know she's been supported by the Victims' Commissioner in relation to this work. As the Minister said, Joshua's 21 when he was murdered in an unprovoked knife attack. Now, Tracy and I haven't always seen eye to eye on exactly the manner in which the scheme should be reformed. That doesn't change or diminish in any way, shape or form or form her incredibly vital role over many years in campaigning for improvements to the scheme.

And I'd also like to pay tribute to the Member for Mid Bedfordshire, who's done a great job of advocating and lobbying on her behalf. So I'm glad that the government's been persuaded to act, and it will now allow up to six months for victims and their families to make use of the scheme in certain circumstances. I now want to allow Katy and Tracy's words really to kind of take over, if I quote what they've said in relation to these changes. So Katy has said it's a relief that in Sasha's memory, victims and their families will have six months to challenge an unduly lenient sentence.

And the new legal duty to be notified means every family will know their rights and be able to do so. No family should ever be left in the dark like we were. Every victim deserves support. We're grateful these steps are being taken to redress the balance that so often feels weighted against victims. And Tracy said after years of relentless campaigning through the Josh Hansen Trust, this is significant and long awaited victory for victims rights. Following our extensive advocacy, the government has agreed to transformative amendments to the rules.

These changes represent a hard fought victory, ensuring that families are no longer left in the dark or rushed through a traumatising process during the most painful moments of their lives. These reforms are a testament to Josh's memory and the passion and dedication of everyone who stood with Josh Hanson Trust. We have moved forward, but the fight for full equality in the eyes of the law continues. I agree with both of them that this is welcome, but I think we shouldn't overstate the extent to which we're delivering exactly what it is that victims and their families have asked for.

These are definitely, as they both said, welcome steps forward, but they aren't exactly in some key regards what the families have asked for. Tracy's key point throughout has been about parity between offenders and victims. And whilst this six months is a welcome extension for offenders for victims, offenders will continue to have longer because they can lodge an appeal at any point in their sentence. So the Minister wants us to understand that there needs to be finality in sentencing, but there isn't finality from the perspective of victims.

Actually, at any point they might be told that the offender is lodging an appeal, and they will have to wait and see whether that alters the sentence. And similarly, I think we have to understand what exactly this interest of justice means in reality. What are the sorts of scenarios where the Minister expects people to be able to successfully apply? And I also agree, the Minister helpfully pointed out that there is clearly a difference in the obligations towards an ordinary member of the public, or even an MP making use of a scheme like this versus those that are directly affected.

And I don't actually think, and I know Katy and others feel the same way, that it should necessarily be exceptional in any way. If you're in Katie's case, your sister is murdered, think about the gravity of the situation that you're going through at the time of the court hearings and the sentence, and to be told that you've got to kind of make some argument why you needed 28 days. The Minister I don't say this disrespectful. The minister's no, you don't. But there is that test of in the interest of justice.

And so we have to be clear exactly how is that going to work? Because if that is overly restrictive in how it's interpreted, then it will mean you've got to make some kind of argument as to why you shouldn't just have a little bit longer anyway. And that was, as the Minister knows, our position throughout that there should be parity, but also just a little bit longer for those people that are affected. But where we have complete agreement, and as was Tracy's original campaign and supported by victims for justice, is this idea of statutory notification.

And that's absolutely a welcome change. So on that, I'll continue to work with any and all victims, even when they don't always universally agree. That's something we're used to doing as people work in the justice arena, recognising that victims don't all speak with one voice, but what we can do to secure further changes. And I want to move on to the issue of controlling costs, awards and private prosecutions. I will say at this stage that we will not be opposing the government's amendment, which introduces a requirement for consultation and an impact assessment before these powers are exercised.

This is a welcome step forward and reflects concerns that have been raised consistently through the passage of the bill. As I said in committee, I did actually sit on the Justice Select Committee when we ran an inquiry into private prosecutions, and that work recognised that private prosecutions remain an important route to justice for some people, but they also must be subject to proper safeguards and a fair and proportionate funding framework, the process by which any costs controls are introduced and the level at which they are set will therefore absolutely be critical.

Private prosecutions are not a marginal feature of our justice system that relied upon by charities, specialist organisations and in cases where the state lacks the capacity or resources to act, charities lose up to £849 million a year to fraud. And where the system does not act. Private prosecution step in. Macmillan Cancer Support, for example, has used them to secure convictions and compensation. If those prosecutions become unviable, those cases will not be brought and that justice that at the moment is being delivered through them will not be achieved.

And the same is true in other areas. Private prosecutions are used in intellectual property, crime and shoplifting where cases are not prioritised. In one example, public enforcement spent over £2 million and brought just a handful of charges, whilst private prosecution secured over 100 convictions at a lower cost. If we make these prosecutions unviable, we lose that. So we heard concerns throughout earlier stages of this bill that the cost control measures go wrong. This work would be put at risk and that's not something that we want to see.

And so in that context, the government's amendment is a step in the right direction. It's right that Ministers consult and publish an impact assessment before exercising these powers. However, I would press the Minister on how these measures will be taken forward. We need to ensure the consultation is meaningful and must include those who rely on private prosecutions and, crucially, the expect the government. The House will expect to see how the government responds to the evidence it gathers. If it just becomes a kind of a paper exercise and the government continues with what it always intended to do, it's wasted.

So the government will watch very closely what the government do in that regard. But we recognise this has been an attempt to compromise between two noble aims, one, ensuring private prosecutions can continue, but also making sure that their costs are controlled and not an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
19:34
Lorraine Beavers Portrait Lorraine Beavers MP (Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Labour)
-
-
With the exception of the remaining frontbench speech, I'm now introducing an immediate six now introducing an immediate six minute time limit. Lorraine Beavers. >> Thank you. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand here today proud of my constituent, Katie Breck, who joins us today in Katie Breck, who joins us today in the gallery. It's because of her campaigning following the most traumatic ordeal for her family and herself, that we have these changes being brought forward today to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. And I am proud to welcome the fact that this Labour government have listened and acted for too long. Victims and bereaved families felt that the justice system was not on their side for too long.

Victims and bereaved families felt that the justice system was not on their side. The measures to force offenders to attend sentencing hearings are right. Family should not be denied the chance to see justice, simply because an offender refuses to face up to what they have done. The stronger protections for children, especially in cases of sexual violence, is also badly needed. But I want to specifically welcome the changes the government is proposing to the unduly lenient sentencing scheme. Katie's little sister, Sasha Marsden, was just 16 years old when she was brutally murdered, raped and set on fire.

It was a crime as horrific and evil as it is possible to imagine the pain her family have lived with ever since is something most of us can't even imagine. After everything they'd already been through, Katie and her family then faced another injustice. They only had 28 days to challenge the sentence, and they were not even told they had the right to do so. That was so very, very wrong. Because for any family, a trial like that is deeply traumatic.

In Sasha's case, her family heard all the awful details of what she'd endured in her final moments of her young and precious life. No one in that position is ready within a matter of days to get to grips with the complex legal process and start to fight again. 28 days is not long enough, and it is not a real right for any family. It is a barrier. That is why Katie has shown extraordinary courage through her campaign for Sasha's Law.

She has spoken not only for her own family, but for many others who felt shut out by the system. Katie's campaign was clear more time for bereaved families and victims to challenge sentences that they believe are unduly lenient and clear information, so they know that right exists in the first place. I am pleased that this Labour government has heard the arguments and are acting to put it right. They have listened to campaigners, they have listened to families. And I want to thank the Minister for a constructive engagement to ensure that the government gets the change right and for ensuring victims have been listened to at every stage of the process.

This will change. This change will make a real difference to people at the worst moment of their lives. Crucially, the injustice that Katie suffered would not have happened had these changes been in place and it shows what government can do when we put victims first and when we believe that justice must be matched by decency and compassion, the justice system should reflect the reality of trauma, grief and loss. So finally, I want to place on record how proud I am that I played a small part in helping Katie make today happen, and to thank the government for listening.

28 days was not enough. Victims and bereaved families must be properly informed. A better system is being brought forward as a result for Katie Brett, for Sasha Marsden and for so many other families, these changes will not remove their grief, but they will make the system fairer, more humane and more just. There is, of course, always work to do on the criminal justice system, but sorry, victims should have less, but victims should not have less rights than those of the perpetrators.

These changes go some way to correct that injustice, and I will be very, very proud to vote on this today.
19:39
Jess Brown-Fuller Portrait Jess Brown-Fuller MP (Chichester, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Hey. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to begin by thanking members across both chambers for their work in getting this legislation to the in getting this legislation to the place it is today. In particular, thanks to the government for their engagement with my Lords, colleagues and myself on this bill and in particular to the Minister, who I've met multiple times on various issues within the bill, a key cornerstone of our justice system must be the support and protection of victims and survivors, ensuring that those who have suffered at the hands of others can go on to live a life without fear and not be defined by the actions of those who harmed them.

This will only happen by putting their voices at the heart of the justice system, ensuring that justice is served quickly with properly funded support, protection from perpetrators and rehabilitation of offenders to reduce reoffending. And there are countless examples of this failing to happen, which is why we in the Liberal Democrats have welcomed the intention and many of the measures in this bill. Firstly, we are really pleased with the government's commitment to undertake a study into the use of AI transcription in criminal courts in order to explore whether this can reduce both the cost and time involved in the provision of transcripts for victims.

Myself and my colleague Baroness Brinton, in the other place, have both tabled amendments to the Bill aimed at expanding the provision of transcripts for victims at various stages, and this has in part been inspired by the tireless work of my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Richmond, whom I once again thank. It should never be the case that victims are asked to pay thousands of pounds to access their transcripts, many of whom might not have even been in the courtroom to hear that sentence being handed down.

The argument in opposition to our amendments has regarded the cost of redaction. In producing the transcripts, it's very clear that there are technological, technological solutions in today's age, and we therefore welcome the government's recognition that more action is needed. We will continue to push for greater provision of free transcripts in the Courts and Tribunals Bill that is currently going through public bill committee. I also want to thank the government for their commitment to review the provision of service to families whose relatives have been murdered abroad.

This follows an exemplary amendment, first tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead raised due to issues faced by one of his constituents, it's clear that there have been issues regarding provision of supporting information for these families going through these horrific circumstances. The commitment in the other place of a joint review into these provisions between the MoJ and FCDO is a welcome step, and we really look forward to the result of that review, at which point we will consult with victims groups, ensuring that the provisions work satisfactorily for victims, and I will take the opportunity to mention to the Minister again, she will be aware that the Murdered Abroad Annual conference is on the 13th of June, and I know the organisers are happy to.

And I'm pleased to hear that the Minister is going to be attending, because I know they were really keen to engage with her so that they may continue to see progress. I move now to government amendments five B, C, D, E and F and six B and C on the amendment paper today, which all impact the unduly lenient scheme. Again, I want to thank Baroness Brinton in the other place, for her tireless work on these amendments with the government and the late Helen Newlove, the Victims' Commissioner and the Victims' Commissioner for London.

I also want to specifically pay tribute to the bravery of Tracey Hanson and Katy Brett, whose campaigns on these issues, in light of their own family's experiences, have no doubt played as such a pivotal part in the government's commitment to these amendments. Tracey, going through the trial of the murder of her own son Josh, with no knowledge of the unduly lenient scheme, is exactly the example that I hope these amendments will address and are testament to her tireless efforts and the memory of her son.

And as the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood so eloquently expressed, Kate's tireless campaigning for her sister, Sasha is an extraordinary example of fighting and injustice, not for themselves, but for others in the future who may suffer a loss like hers. In particular, amendments five B, C, D and E and F allow out of time applications to be made up to six months after sentencing. This is vital for families unaware of the scheme, who did not submit an application prior to the 28 day limit, and will benefit many who experience the same heartache and pain that Tracey did.

The government's provision of a statutory duty for victims to be informed of the unduly lenient scheme in amendment six, B and C are so vital and should provide victims with a clearer picture of the options they are entitled to following sentencing. Because the Minister is right to say, many of the campaigners have not just asked for an extension. It's about knowing what is available to them and making sure that that is a mandatory commitment, that they will be told that that is available to them as an option after sentencing.

I'm really grateful to the Minister for meeting with me recently and then coming forward with these amendments, and we are really pleased to support them today. Finally, I turn to Lords amendments four B and C regarding private prosecutions, as I'm sure many across the House will agree, the ability for criminal prosecutions to be brought forward outside of the regular processes of the authorities, providing an alternative method for charities and commercial organisations is essential in delivering justice for many victims whose cases have not been taken on by the state.

This is especially pertinent against the backdrop of stretched resources that the police and CPS face. We in the Liberal Democrats, including my friend the learned Lord Marx in the other place, were concerned about the provisions in clause 12, which would give the government power to limit possible cost reimbursement. We have argued this risks organisations presenting cases being put off by not being able to recover their own costs. We therefore support the government amendments in lieu of amendments for B and C, which will mandate the need for an impact assessment and consultation with the Law Society, Bar Council and other organisations relevant to the provisions prior to their implementation.

This will allow time to make a fair assessment of the need for, and result of the government's provision, ensuring that the government isn't risking undermining the ability of organisations and charities to bring forward private prosecutions. So I want to again thank Lord Marx and the Other place for his work with the government to get this amendment in place, and I encourage

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. Thank you. And with an immediate five minute time limit.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minute time limit. Anneliese Midgley thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to focus on one of the flag ship focus on one of the flag ship measures in this bill. Clause one attendance at sentencing hearing. This is a law that has been fought This is a law that has been fought for and today will be won by my constituent, Cheryl Corbell. This law will compel convicted criminals to attend their sentencing hearings
19:46
Anneliese Midgley Portrait Anneliese Midgley MP (Knowsley, Labour)
-
-
and ensure there are meaningful consequences if they refuse. And consequences if they refuse. And where I'm from, we call it Olivia's Law today. For me, this is all Law today. For me, this is all about Olivia. It is all about Cheryl, and it is all about her Cheryl, and it is all about her cousin Antonia. This has been some journey for Cheryl and one that journey for Cheryl and one that begun in unimaginable circumstances. Cheryl's daughter Olivia, was nine years old when she was murdered in her own home by a stranger with a gun in August 2022.

The murderer, Thomas Cashman, fired a bullet through the door of Olivia's home. It passed through the wrist of Cheryl before hitting Olivia in the chest and ending her life to lose a child to murder in your own home while you try to protect them is a burden no parent should ever be asked to bear. But Olivia's murderer remained in his cell, refusing to face the court to hear Cheryl's words or look her in the eye. It was the act of a coward, and since then, Cheryl has been fighting to.

For that injustice to end. Madam Deputy Speaker, I first met Cheryl Antonia when they came to my very first surgery as the MP, and since that day we have stood side by side. We have worked to turn this campaign into law, raising it with Ministers, taking it to the Prime Minister. And it is fair to say, Cheryl Antonia have been here so much. They've met most of the Cabinet members and half of the PLP. And at the Second Reading, I was privileged that Cheryl allowed me to read her victim impact statement in this chamber.

And I did that because her words would carry more power than anything I could possibly say. I wanted them to be heard by the world. Those words. Olivia's murderer, Thomas Cashman, refused to hear. I just want to say a few words from them today. My nine year old Liv was the light of our lives. Our beautiful, sassy, chatty girl who never run out of energy. She was a character. She was my baby. She will never get to make her Holy Communion.

Wear that prom dress, have her sweet 16th birthday, walk down the aisle with the man of her dreams, or become mother to her own children. All that promise of her future so cruelly taken away. Now I have to drive to the cemetery to be close to my baby daughter, telling her I miss her smile, her kisses, her cuddles, her voice. Cashman should have heard those words, but he could make the choice not to. This is the injustice at the heart of this.

Because Cheryl did speak, she found the strength to put into words the love she has for her daughter and the devastation that she has to face every single day. And today, we make sure that choice to turn away to hide is no longer an option. I want to thank the government for listening to Cheryl, especially to the Minister for victims on our frontbench, and I know there were times when Cheryl thought this day would never come. Well, Cheryl, it has.

Cheryl and I are two peas in a pod. We've both just turned 50. She turned 50 on Saturday. Happy birthday. We are both from council estate from the same part of town. We both had working class upbringings. Families who didn't have much but worked hard and gave us everything in love. And that matters because it speaks to who Cheryl is. She is someone who lifts people, who brings warmth, warmth, and strength to others. Even in her darkest moments.

And alongside her has been a remarkable cousin, Antonia. Together they have been relentless. They've taken unimaginable grief and turned it into change. And because of her, because of both of them, victims voices will be heard. This law is Cheryl's achievement. It is Olivia's legacy. We honour her and all of the other campaigners and victims who fought for this. And I am proud, properly proud. That is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Labour government delivering it. R High Court Blake Stephenson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd like to speak to Lords I'd like to speak to Lords Amendment five C and five B, but before doing so, can I thank the Minister for working in a collaborative and cross-party way on this? And can I congratulate hon. Members that spoke before me so passionately on behalf of their constituents. I would like to pay tribute to my constituent, Tracey
19:51
Blake Stephenson Portrait Blake Stephenson MP (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
-
-
tribute to my constituent, Tracey Hanson, who's watching this debate from the gallery today. Tracy's son, Josh Hanson, was tragically murdered in an unprovoked knife knife attack in October 2015 at the age of just 21. Tracey's been on an 11 year journey of immense pain, and has channelled this pain into trying to improve the rights and experiences of victims that must deal with the criminal justice system. Tracy has campaigned tirelessly to reform the unduly lenient sentence scheme, driven by a simple demand that victims and bereaved families are properly informed of their rights and that those rights have parity with offender's rights under the scheme, which I know hon.

Members have spoken about this afternoon. Her campaign was born from personal injustice. Tracy was never informed of her right to challenge the sentence imposed on Josh's killer when she discovered the scheme and submitted an appeal on the final day, it was rejected because it arrived outside of office hours. That is just totally unacceptable. I therefore welcome the introduction of Lords Amendment six B to replace a clear duty on authorities to notify victims and bereaved families of their right to appeal a sentence under the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

This change is a direct result of Tracy Tracy's work with academics, campaigners and legislators, and her determination to see the law improved through the introduction of Josh's law. Other families, unfortunate enough to find themselves in such tragic, tragic situations, will benefit from her work and, of course, the work of all campaigners. And it is because of this work that I and many others in this House have been educated about the problems with the ULS scheme. I'd like to welcome Lords Amendment five C, which would extend the period of time that an appeal can be considered beyond the 28 day limit to six months from the date of sentence, where it is in the interests of justice to do so.

This is a significant step forward for victims rights, and while I welcome this, true justice does require absolute parity between the rights of offenders and victims to appeal sentences. And I know hon. Members from across the House have made this point today, and I hope the government has heard it. I know that despite this positive step forward in this bill, Tracy will be continuing her fight for full equality for victims in the eyes of the law, eyes of the law. And on this note, can I thank Ministers for agreeing to meet Tracy later this year to discuss the Law Commission's review of criminal appeals.

I'd appreciate it. In summing up if the Minister can confirm that Tracy will be welcome at that meeting. I'd also like to talk to my constituents. Disappointment that the government has decided not to introduce these legislative changes under the name Josh's Law. I've already spoken of the undeniable role that Tracy's campaign has played in bringing about these changes. This sentiment is reflected in the words of many from across this House, and have already recognised this as Josh's law, noting Tracy's years of campaigning for these changes in Josh's memory, Baroness Levitt KC, the parliamentary under-secretary, said in the other place last week that this government listens and wants to get things right.

I welcome that Ministers have listened to Tracy. I truly do and have introduced amendments that she's campaigned for for over seven years. However, they've not completely got this right to truly honour Tracy's work. Not only her determination to deliver meaningful legislative reform, but also the tireless support she has provided victims through her charity. This change in legislation in the eyes of my constituents should be called Josh's Law. I understand that the government's position is that this decision reflects a wider shift away from for the government naming legislation or amendments after individuals.

This is, however, inconsistent with other recently passed legislation. I'll refer to just one. Last week, a Minister referred to Benedict's Law 2026, the Dispatch Box. This legislation was passed only last month, highlighting that the position to move away from naming legislation after individuals is not being applied consistently. And I ask the Minister to reflect on that and perhaps to reflect on it also at the Dispatch Box. But together, amendments five and six B do represent a positive shift in the way the criminal justice system in England and Wales approaches victims.

I hope that Tracy. Tracy is is incredibly sorry. I hope that Tracy is incredibly proud that by channelling the immense pain of her loss into concrete action here today, she has helped shift more focus back to the impact and rights of victims. For this reason, and in Josh Hanson's memory, I encourage colleagues from across the House to support amendments five C and five B to this legislation.
19:56
Alex Davies-Jones Portrait Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
-
Minister to wind up. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With leave of the House, I will close what has been a really close what has been a really important and special debate. This debate does move us another step closer to this bill, becoming the much needed law for all victims. And I want to sincerely thank all hon. Members who have spoken, particularly my friends, the hon. Members for Blackpool North and Fleetwood, the hon. Member for Knowsley, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, the Liberal Democrat frontbench and the opposition frontbench.

This is a really, really important bill and one that shows the best of Parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker, When we all come together on an issue that is beyond party politics, that we come together for what we were elected to this place to do, and that is speak for the people we represent and to make life better for those who come after us, and to create a legacy for those who, sadly have had to endure hardship and pain that we hopefully all will never, ever have to feel.

I want to thank the Minister in the other place for guiding this bill through the stages and for undertaking such extensive engagement with all hon. Members here and in the other place throughout the passage to answer some of the questions that have been put forward to me today on the Who will have the statutory duty to notify victims and the bereaved families about the unduly lenient sentencing scheme. Those discussions are ongoing and I will ensure I update the House as to how we progress those.

We do not need to put that into law, but we will be engaging fully with the CPS, the Home Office and the Victims' Commissioner and the bereaved families to ensure that we get this right and that full accountability will be there and scrutiny of the application of the duty going forward under the victims code. And I'm working with the Victims' Commissioner to ensure that that is robust. And I can assure the opposition frontbench that that will be robustly followed going forward, and I will ensure we engage with them on that, on that duty as we as it develops, on the consultation of rates.

Again, I can assure the opposition front bench that the consultation will be followed in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines. We will consult with the appropriate stakeholders. This will not be a tick box exercise and it will be thoroughly responded to and the House will be informed of that consultation. As the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire stated this and the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood, this is just part of the government's commitment to victims with regard to the unduly lenient sentencing scheme.

We are still awaiting the findings of the Law Commission work, and I do make that commitment again at this Dispatch Box that I made to Tracey Hanson and to Katy Brett that I will meet with them once the Law Commission completes its work to discuss the findings and what more we can do as a government going forward to ensure that we do get that parity for victims within the criminal justice system. This is just one step forward, and we will continue to work with all stakeholders on the bill going forward.

Now, I have been crystal clear that this is the Victims and Courts Bill, and soon it will be the victims and courts law. It will be the act. It is a act. It will become an act for all victims. This will be a law for Josh, for Sasha, for Olivia, for Jan, for Sabina, and for Zara, and for all victims who have been failed by the criminal justice system. This is a this will become an act for all of them and their legacy going forward.

And I will ensure that that consistent approach is fed back to to all government departments regarding specifically naming the laws, because this is a law for all of the victims and campaigners who have engaged with us as a government going forward, and it is important that they are all recognised. Now. This is a piece of legislation that delivers on our manifesto commitment to support and protect victims, to restore their confidence in our justice system and to implement swifter and fairer justice. Reform of this system was essential, as we have all heard, with record and rising backlogs in the criminal courts and with victims more likely to be an afterthought rather than a key part of the process.

This legislation marks a significant step in rectifying that, because without victims, there would be no criminal justice system. Before I conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to place on record my thanks to all of those who have made vital contributions to this bill, in particular, all the honourable and right hon. Members and noble Lords in the other place, who have engaged with this bill throughout its passage. This bill has been strengthened in a number of very important areas by the expertise and insight contributed in both houses.

I thank the Shadow Frontbench teams for their constructive contributions throughout all stages of this bill. And finally, with leave of the House, I would like to take the opportunity to thank all of the officials in my department who have worked so hard to bring this legislation forward, particularly thanks to the officials in the bill team Rachel Benyon, Zara Bernard, Cameron Elliot and Cassie Blower, and to my private office, to Hayley Newell and to Laura Marcello. I very much look forward to working and to continue to work with members across the House, as well as all the stakeholders as we progress the implementation of this bill, and I commend this to the House for.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their amendments for B and for C, as many amendments for B and for C, as many as that of that opinion, say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to Government Amendment A proposed in lieu of Lords amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for B and for C. Formally. The question is Government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is Government Amendment A in lieu of Lords amendment for B and for C, as many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to agree with the Lords and their amendment. 5B5, C five, D5E and five f. I call the Minister to move the motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Next move. The question is that this House agrees with the laws and amendments agrees with the laws and amendments by B five, C five, D5E and five F by B five, C five, D5E and five F as many as are of that opinion. Say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We now come to the motion to agree with the Lords and their amendments. Six B and six C.

I call the Six B and six C. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House agrees with the Lords and their amendments five B, six B and six C, 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 message on the Victims and Courts Bill. I'll now give a few moments for the Frontbenches to swap over.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Crime and Policing Bill. Consideration of Lords message.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Consideration of Lords message. Now we will begin with the government motion to disagree with government motion to disagree with the Lords and their amendments 2D and 2D, but proposed in lieu of those amendments, amendment A to those amendments, amendment A to its amendment to be an amendment B to its amendment to C, with which to its amendment to C, with which it will be convenient to consider all the other Lords amendments, government motions and amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call the Minister to move the motion. Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope we are on the home straight with this enormous piece of legislation. And can I start by legislation. And can I start by welcoming the fact that the House of Lords has heeded many of the arguments and votes in this House arguments and votes in this House last week? Of the 19 issues that I went through in my speech last went through in my speech last Tuesday, we are now down to just four. As to those four, again, we have listened carefully to the
20:04
20:04
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
amendment on fining for profit, I again recognise the concerns expressed about enforcement agencies potentially issuing fixed agencies potentially issuing fixed penalty notices for anti-social behaviour offences, where there may be a financial incentive to do so. be a financial incentive to do so. We have listened to these concerns and hon. Members will recall that last week we agreed amendments making it clear that the statutory guidance issued under Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 20 14th May, amongst other things, address the issue of the proportionate issuing of Fixed Penalty Notices by authorised persons for breaches of community protection notices and Pspos public Spaces protection notices any other place.

The Liberal Democrat frontbench said that a discretion to issue such guidance was not good enough, and there should be a duty to do so. The amendment in lieu now provides for just such a duty. I hope that this will persuade hon. Members that the government is committed to addressing this issue. Moving to the question of Fly-tipping again, the government recognises the strength of feeling on this issue, and our recent Waste Crime Action Plan has set out our zero tolerance approach to prevent waste crime, pursue the criminals responsible and accelerate the clean up effort.

On the specific issue of vehicle seizure powers, I want to be clear that local authorities already have powers to seize vehicles if they have reason to believe the vehicle is being used, or is about to be used to commit a fly tipping offence. However, to further support local authorities, we have tabled an amendment in lieu that makes it clear what the statutory guidance on Fly-tipping should cover. So, for example, it must include advice on collecting strong evidence against the offender that can help to secure a successful conviction and what action can be taken, including the seizure of vehicles.

Local authorities are the lead agency for tackling fly tipping, and it is right that they lead on enforcement, so the power to seize and dispose of vehicles used in Fly-tipping properly rests with them. The police already have general powers of seizure under section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, where they have reasonable grounds to believe that the item is evidence in relation to an offence. That power can be used to seize vehicles involved in fly-tipping, and where the police seize a vehicle.

They would then be expected to liaise with the local authority, who would then take action to dispose of the vehicle. So the Lords amendment seeks seeks to close a gap in the law that in practice just doesn't exist. Turning next to youth diversion orders. We were disappointed by the Lords decision last week to reject the government's amendment in lieu, which was tabled in response to Baroness Ducey's amendment 342. Baroness Doocey raised concerns regarding the lack of requirement for police to consult organisations beyond criminal justice services, flagging that this missed an opportunity to legislate for consultation with other agencies such as health, education and social services.

We respectfully disagree, respectfully disagree with Baroness Doocey that her amendment would directly respond to the recommendations put forward by Sir Adrian Fulford in his recent report on the horrific Southport attack, multi-agency, multi-agency engagement will be critical to the success of these orders, and this is why the Bill already includes a duty on the police to consult youth justice services in England and Wales. This will be through local youth offending teams, which are multi-agency in nature, including representatives from health, education, social services and probation, as underpinned in statute under the Crime and Disorder Act 1988.

They may also extend beyond those mandated agencies to include child and adolescent mental health services, education, inclusion teams, voluntary and community organisations and local early health services. Therefore, we are confident that youth Diversion Order applications will be made following consultation with a wide variety of agencies and they will benefit from their expertise in working with young people. Baroness Doocey also raised concerns regarding the police's consideration of alternative interventions. The statutory guidance, which will be developed by the Home Office and laid before Parliament for scrutiny ahead of publication, will include guidance on alternative interventions which police may wish to consider instead, or alongside a youth diversion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order. I will give one. Thank the Minister. For giving way. She's using words such as May, which are words such as May, which are incredibly important, but the amendment tabled in the place obviously goes further than May and obviously goes further than May and insists that these diversion orders will have these necessary consultations. Will she commit consultations. Will she commit today to make sure that they not just may, but they will have all of these statutory duties as well, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these statutory duties as well, and they will have this consultation that's required. Minister and the hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was coming on to say in terms of explaining what we want to see going forward. It's also important to recognise that the court will need to consider the necessity and proportionality of the order when making their decision, and this will necessarily include consideration of alternative options where relevant. All that said, in the light of the most recent decision by the Lords, we have tabled a further amendment in lieu which builds on the previous government amendment.

This offers further reassurance on the role of wider organisations and, we hope, addresses their lordships concerns. The amendment extends the list of considerations the statutory guidance may advise the police to consider, as part of a Youth Diversion Order application, to include the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for the police to consult others. Beyond the Youth Justice Team's mandated in clause 174 of the bill. This would extend to both applications for an order, as well as when the police are considering a variation or discharge of a youth diversion order.

The amendment will also go further and make it a requirement for the statutory guidance to include guidance on these matters, rather than simply a power to do so, as the previous amendment provided for. I trust that these changes the Liberal Democrat benches opposite will now be content that we have met the intent of their amendment. Lastly, to Lords Amendment three, five nine and the issue of the prescription of the IRGC. It is disappointing, to say the least, that the opposition seek to return to this issue yet again.

Successive governments have adopted the position that it would be wrong in principle to give a running commentary on which organisations are being considered for prescription. Under section three of the Terrorism Act 2000, the decision to prescribe an organisation is a serious matter, requiring careful analysis of whether the test in section three has been met to suggest, as the amendment provides, that the government should review every organisation related to the Iranian government within one month of royal assent is simply not a serious proposition to help the opposition and others to understand the prescription process, we have instead brought forward an amendment in lieu that requires the government to lay before Parliament within six months of royal assent.

A statement about the general policies and procedures of the Secretary of State in relation to their powers under section three of the 2004 act. Before I conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me just briefly explain. Lords amendments 265D to 265H. Hon. Members will recall last week we agreed amendments to criminalise the possession or publication of pornography that depicts sexual activity involving an adult credibly role playing as a child. This new offence is intended to capture content which mimics child sex abuse, which risks normalising such horrific conduct.

The government amendments agreed in the Lords clarified the drafting of the new offence. The revised drafting makes the offence clearer, ensuring that context can be taken into account, whether where it is relevant to whether the person is being depicted as a child under 16 and whether the content is showing sexual activity. This will ensure the offence can, for example, capture a scenario of one person on camera being directed by another behind the camera to engage in sexual acts.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I fully respect the role of the House of Lords as a revising chamber. They are entitled to ask this House to think again on each of these four issues. We have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

already done that once. Good. Madam Speaker, can I thank the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Speaker, can I thank the Minister, as always for for the hard work she does and and the other place, Lord. Home or sorry, other place, Lord. Home or sorry, Lord Waveney Valley home highlighted the issue of the freedom of of of speech in relation freedom of of of speech in relation to the Public Order Act. Can I ask the Minister, within the legislation, the bill coming legislation, the bill coming forward tonight, the issue of the expression of beliefs of the street preaching.

There's a fine line. And does the Minister believe that that that the legislation will ensure that this Christian nation can publicly speak the Word of God in every corner? Some of us believe

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that it can't. Can the Minister confirm that, please? Well, as the hon. Gentleman said,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, as the hon. Gentleman said, and I thank him for his intervention, there is a fine line to be tread throughout public order legislation, and we come back to legislation, and we come back to these issues time and again, and it's right that we do so as times change, the nature of protests change the nature of the risks that we that we are receiving change. We have we have new debates about have we have new debates about public order. And this Home Secretary felt very strongly that it was time for a more fundamental look at our public order legislation, which is what we are going through at the moment in terms of the review that Lord McDonald is undertaking of our public order legislation, our hate crime legislation to look at.

Is it in the right place? Is it doing the right things? So I have every confidence in the in the legislation that we are passing today. But the hon. Gentleman knows there is a review to follow which perhaps will have more to say, and we will bring it back to this place when we do that. Last Tuesday, Madam Deputy Speaker, this House voted on all four issues that we are debating today, and I emphatically rejected the Lords amendments. We should again send these amendments back to their Lordships with a clear message they have done their duty, but the elected House now has a clear and unequivocal in its own mind.

And the time has come to let this bill pass. The time for debate has ended. It is now time that this bill goes to His Majesty for royal assent, and we can get on with implementing the provisions and make our streets, communities and this country safer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their disagrees with the Lords and their amendments two D and two E, but proposes in lieu of those amendments, amendment A to its amendments, amendment A to its amendment to be and amendment B to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment to be and amendment B to its amendment to C, I call Shadow Minister Matt Vickers. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and once again, I thank the Other
20:15
Matt Vickers Portrait Matt Vickers MP (Stockton West, Conservative)
-
-
and once again, I thank the Other place for their work on this bill, as well as honourable and right hon. Members across the House. The government has had an opportunity with this Bill to create a safer society and protect people from harm. And as I outlined previously, I would have liked to see them tackle off road bikes, dodgy shops and take a tougher approach to those who carry knives. The first duty of any government is to protect the public and to crush the crimes that make people's lives a misery.

I want to begin, Madam Deputy Speaker, by speaking to Lords Amendment number 11. Fly-tipping is a scourge on our communities. It ruins our environment and our countryside. Today, we're asked to consider whether the law as it stands is sufficient to tackle this scourge, or whether we're prepared to omit what communities across the country already know. It is not. Over a million fly-tipping incidents are recorded each year, yet only a tiny fraction result in any meaningful enforcement. One of the most effective tools in our armoury vehicle seizure is vanishingly rare.

So when government Ministers stand and tell us that powers already exist, the obvious question is if they exist, why are they not being used? The answer is simple because a power that is fragmented, unclear and buried across multiple statutes is not a power that works in practice. It's a power that sits there too complicated to implement. Whilst Fly-tipping continues to blight our communities. Lords amendment 11 addresses that failure directly. Let us not forget, for most offenders, it is their vehicle that enables the crime.

It's the means and the method through which they're able to act and profit. Remove the vehicle and you disrupt their criminality immediately. Fail to do so, and you send a very different message that this is a low risk, high reward activity where the chances of serious consequences are low. That is the message the current system is sending and our communities are paying the price. Ultimately, this is about whether we are content with the system that works in theory, or whether we're prepared to put in place one that works in practice.

For that reason, we on this side of the House support the amendment, and I urge honourable and right hon. Members across the House to do the same. I now turn to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Lords Amendment 359. I certainly will. Thank you for giving way just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for giving way just before he moves off amendment 11 on the police powers to crush vehicles, the police powers to crush vehicles, but rarely used in Fly-tipping. Can I remind him in the House that there are similar powers there for there are similar powers there for hare coursing? And once 1 or 2 high profile cases had been handled, hare coursing, it had a dramatic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hare coursing, it had a dramatic effect of reducing that crime. I think he's entirely right. I think communities across the country, rural communities across the country, know only too well the consequences of hare coursing and actually make an example of this for it being seen in our community sends a real message to those who would offend in such a way. Turning to Lords Amendment 359 relating to the IRGC and its prescription, there is simply no suitable argument as to why the government should not should now refuse to proscribe the IRGC and associated organisations.

I'm sure the Home Secretary and Ministers would once again attempt to point to the fact that the previous government did not proscribe the IRGC as justification for inaction. The reality is that the international situation is now radically different from when we left office almost two years ago, even before the current conflict began, it was clear that the IRGC was ramping up aggressive activity. It oversaw the deaths of over 40,000 protesters and overseas. It's continued to extend its influence through the backing of terrorist cells.

In 2025 alone, security services tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran backed plots. The IRC, g IRGC is a dangerous and lethal organisation. We must certainly will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just yesterday, to people who stood up for freedom in Iran, two young men in their 20s and 30s were. young men in their 20s and 30s were. Were hanged by the IRGC because that's who's in charge in Iran at that's who's in charge in Iran at the moment. And four weeks ago, six people who stood up for freedom and only and only, their only crime was only and only, their only crime was that they were protesting and and fighting for freedom on the streets fighting for freedom on the streets and around, hung by their neck until they're dead.

Is it not time? There's no time. No matter what has happened in this world that the IRGC are prescribed immediately because everything they've done is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

applicable, a wicked and evil. I agree more with with, with. When such evilness and such When such evilness and such vileness is on display, we need to act and we need to act in our national interest to protect our national interest to protect our people from some of the horrors that we've seen abroad by these sick individuals. I certainly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sick individuals. I certainly. I'm very grateful. I mean, I, I think I will support him in his think I will support him in his request to continue backing the amendment before us and not disagree with it. As a government have asked, though I could easily be convinced that governments should be making these decisions themselves and not have Parliament making decisions around prescription or otherwise, does the hon. Gentleman think in the last two years, since the election in July 2024, there has been any sign or any indication this government will take action on the IRGC?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We've seen significant developments on this front. This afternoon we were debating the the afternoon we were debating the the the issues with anti-Semitism and where that's got to and the real world consequences of groups like world consequences of groups like the IRGC and associated groups with Iran's state backed, state backed terrorism and the real world terrorism and the real world consequences for people in this country. The government needs to act. It needs to wake up. In fact, act. It needs to wake up.

In fact, it could just vote for this amendment this evening. In 2025 alone, security services tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran backed plots. The IRGC is a dangerous and lethal organisation. We must act against groups that pose a threat to our national security. Ministers have said that the proscription of the IRGC will be kept under constant review. Given the situation we face now, that is simply not good enough. Many other countries have acted to proscribe, including the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and even the EU.

Let us remind ourselves of our government's record. When they were in opposition, the Labour Party said it would prescribe the IRGC. The now foreign secretary said the IRGC was behaving like a terrorist organisation and must be proscribed. Must Madam Deputy Speaker not, might not. We'll keep it under review. Not should. Must. What's changed is that those who once demanded action now sit on the government benches and have chosen inaction. And yet now, now we're told it's too complicated.

Now we're told it's legally difficult. Now we are told it would be symbolic. We're told there are challenges because the IRGC is part of a state. But the whole point of prescription is to confront organisations that operate through intimidation, violence and terror, regardless of the flag that they hide behind. We're told sanctions are enough, but sanctions have existed for years. And yet the IRGC continues its activities intimidation, plots, proxies and repression. Let us be clear this amendment is not asking the government to take a leap into the unknown.

It's asking them to do precisely what they themselves argued for repeatedly and on the record. If it was the right policy, then why is it not the right policy? Now? If the IRGC met the threshold, then why does it not meet it now? Or was that position merely convenient? Opposition politics. Today, the government has a choice to stand by its previous convictions or to confirm those convictions were never truly held at all. I urge hon. Members to support this amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill is a missed opportunity, a missed opportunity to take back our streets. Perhaps that is no surprise from a party that's already cut 1318 police officers from our streets and began releasing criminals from prison early. But we can still improve this bill by supporting these sensible, pragmatic amendments to crack down on Fly-tipping and strengthen our national security. For Ministers and a government so used to U-turn, I'll hope they'll do it again today.
20:24
Chris Vince Portrait Chris Vince MP (Harlow, Labour )
-
-
Chris Vince thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and can I thank the Deputy Speaker, and can I thank the Minister and Shadow Minister for Minister and Shadow Minister for opening this debate? And I speak on Lords Amendment 11. I do speak to oppose Lords Amendment 11, but I do recognise its merits as well. So before I do that, I would like to take this moment to talk about the wider issue of Fly-tipping, which is an absolute bugbear of mine. In fact, when I go out canvassing, or in fact, when I visit Harlow Town Football Club, I often get recognised not for being the local MP, but for the guy that goes out litter picking with my mate Neil.

Neil is the bloke that lives around the corner to me who apparently is considerably more popular than me because everyone knows who he is. I absolutely recognise the impact of Fly-tip Fly-tipping has, and particularly the impact of what I'm going to describe in this particular speech as industrial fly-tipping when we're talking about vans full of rubbish being dumped on an industrial scale in Harlow, this happens quite often in bin cupboards, and when I was a councillor in the fantastic part of Harlow called Little Parndon, which I hope will re-elect a Labour councillor in two weeks time.

If I get away with that. Yeah, OK. That was a huge, huge issue and one of the reasons that local residents would contact me about getting their their bin cupboards locked up, often at great expense to the council. However, in more rural parts of my constituency, I think of areas like Nazeing of Hatfield, Heath of Hatfield, Broad Oak, which I visited this weekend. The issue of Fly-tipping is even worse with farmers generally. Generally facing intimidation and threats by those Fly-tippers one Fly-tipper.

One farmer told me of a really worrying incident where he confronted some of the fly-tippers, only to be told by the Fly-tipper get out of my way. I know where your family lives, and I think we'd agree that nobody deserves that sort of intimidation. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to recognise what this Lord amendment tries to do, but emphasise the point made by the Minister that the police department and local authorities already have this power to search and seize vehicles under section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1991.

I think there are some interesting points that were made by the Shadow Minister as to the reasons why that doesn't happen very often. Personally, I think it's partly down to a previous lack of a rural crime strategy, and I'm delighted that this Labour government are ensuring that we have a rural crime strategy, because it's hugely important that we tackle the issue of fly-tipping and as the hon. Member opposite, right hon. Member opposite, mentioned, the importance of tackling hare coursing as well, because, again, this is a huge, huge issue for farmers and we have to bear in mind that this is where they live, this is where their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

families live. So actually that sort of intimidation we take very seriously, I will give way. Adam Jogee thank you very much,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Adam Jogee thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and we all enjoyed listening to my hon. Friend talk about Neil. And he's right to talk about Neil. And he's right to talk about the importance of Fly-tipping has the impact the Fly-tipping has in rural communities, not just in in rural communities, not just in Essex, but in Stafford too. My friend said that part of the reasons why the powers haven't been reasons why the powers haven't been used it was the lack of a rural strategy, war crime strategy.

But isn't it also that many police and crime commissioners are simply be missing in action, as has been the case in Staffordshire?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chris Vince thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I don't know much about the Police and Crime Commissioner of Staffordshire, but if I absolutely take on board what if I absolutely take on board what my hon. Friend says, and if that's the case, that's hugely disappointing and I think it's hugely important that police and crime commissioners across the country take seriously all parts of the area they represent, including

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the area they represent, including their rural areas. Yes. Just simply say the less I say,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the better, I think. Thank you. I would say to the hon. Gentleman to return the compliment that he started with. I often like hearing what he has to say. So I would say more is more.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For from the hon. Gentleman. Madam Speaker, I think the problem is I'm not sure my police and crime Commissioner would like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and crime Commissioner would like to hear what I have to say. Chris Vince well, I would say that he's not here, so, you know, that he's not here, so, you know, carry on. No, but in all sincerity, and I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, I would say, look, I think an important it's hugely important. We have a rural crime important. We have a rural crime strategy. I also think it's hugely important that we have community police officers in place. I've often joked with the shadow Minister, he will know the story that when I meet my community police officers, a number of them have actually taught previously.

So which is something I'm very proud of. But I think it's hugely important that we have those communities, those front facing neighbourhood police officers, not just in urban communities. Obviously, they're really important in Harlow, but also in those rural communities. I think it's also important that we ensure those police have teeth. So absolutely, absolutely welcome the government's move to put up to nine points on the driving licence of those people that are caught fly-tipping, and I really believe this will make those that are thinking about doing that, perhaps doing a fight for for their mate, hopefully make them think twice about about that.

Fly-tipping because it does have a huge impact, as I've said on communities, I recognise there's been a bit of back and forth on the particular issue of Fly-tipping from the Lords, and the House of Lords came back, our noble friends and members opposite from the other place came back and said, we hope this matter has been discussed further in this place. I hope that my speech, and obviously the contribution of the Shadow Minister, has ensured that we have continued to discuss the issue of fly-tipping.

It's something that I do take very seriously, and I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you don't see this particular speech as being a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rubbish contribution. Liberal Democrat spokesperson Max Wilkinson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try not to talk too much rubbish, although the Treasury benches will object as usual. As I stated last week, the Liberal Democrats support many aspects of this bill, but we do have some concerns about the lack of a proper rural crime strategy coming forward rural crime strategy coming forward and also some of the motions that were voted on last week and not voted on, indeed, last week, relating to protest and freedom of speech.

But on to today's amendments. The Liberal Democrats in the Other place brought forward two amendments, which the Minister referenced earlier on which would strengthen this bill's provisions on crime and anti-social behaviour. These issues have plagued communities for too long. The Liberal Democrat backed amendments will help refocus enforcement action towards those offences and will improve outcomes for young people already caught up in the criminal justice system. First, we will again support our amendment to prevent enforcement companies issuing fixed penalty notices on behalf of councils from making a profit.

A clear ban would remove an incentive which drives lower level offences to be punished instead of more serious anti-social behaviour. The government amendments tabled in lieu are significantly weaker than the ban we have suggested, and so we will continue to support the amendment today and I urge members across the House to support an outright ban on fines for profit. Second, we will again be supporting our amendment on youth diversion orders. This will ensure that when considering a Youth Diversion order, courts are given full account of any alternative interventions that have been tried or considered, and what consultation took place with the child and other relevant agencies.

The government's amendment in lieu suggests that guidance may include matters to be taken into account by the police before applying for a youth diversion order. Again, this does not go far enough. Ensuring all previous interventions are considered will improve the court's understanding of the relevant factors in each case and bring efficiencies in the longer term. Most importantly, this amendment will result in better outcomes for the young people involved who might otherwise be entangled in terrorist activity. On matters relating to protests last week, the government took a firm line on the difference between the terms may and must, and perhaps it will do the same again today.

Liberal Democrats will also today be supporting two conservative amendments. First, to add fly-tipping to the list of offences for which vehicles may be seized. Fly tipping is a blight on our communities. It undermines the pride people should feel in their neighbourhoods and in some cases causes significant damage to the local environment. This was highlighted in Oxfordshire by my friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock, and in some cases it is linked to criminal gangs. If we are to take Fly-tipping seriously, we must also increase the penalty for the offence.

So empowering police to confiscate vehicles used to dump rubbish illegally is a sensible improvement to this bill. Sadly, no government concession was proposed on this specific amendment. We supported this amendment in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commons last time and we will do so Today. Finally, the Liberal Democrats will also support the conservative will also support the conservative amendment requiring a review of whether to prescribe Iranian government backed organisations. We have long standing record of calling for past governments to proscribe the. There is increasing concern that attacks on our Jewish concern that attacks on our Jewish community are being funded by the IRGC. It is beyond time that the government took action to protect
20:33
20:34
Amanda Martin Portrait Amanda Martin MP (Portsmouth North, Labour)
-
-
they live, the parks their kids play in and the high streets that they use. Pride in place is something we should feel and we should all be able to feel where we live. And so I'm proud that this Labour government is taking it very seriously, not just with initiatives such as the pride in place funding, of which I was very fortunate for Paulsgrove to receive £20 million, but also for the impact funding that we have 1.5 million coming into my city, but also with legislation and with action.

Therefore, Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak at this final stages of this bill because it has genuine, genuine, significant consequences for communities like mine in Portsmouth. But I want to start by saying thank you. Thank you to my neighbourhood police teams. They. And for the work that they do and for the involvement that they allow me to take when I go out on the beat with them on night shifts and on day shifts. And I would also like to highlight some of the amendments which have the greatest impact on this bill, on my constituents, on fixed penalty notice and the fining for profit question, amendment two D and two E, I understand why the other places continue to press on this and the underlying concern is legitimate.

But if residents in Portsmouth believe that authorised bodies are issuing fixed penalty notice to generate revenue, rather than the desire to deter anti-social behaviour, then public trust and enforcement collapses entirely. So I'm really glad that the government is bringing forward amendment A and B in lieu, and I would like the Minister to confirm that they will directly address proportionality and ensure that no institutional financial incentive can distort enforcement decisions on that ground. And on Fly-tipping, which we've already heard other members talk about, and amendment 11, I simply note that this blights communities across Portsmouth.

Only on Friday night, while I was out door knocking in Stamshaw. I saw evidence of this across the whole ward. And so the government's offer for amendments in lieu represents a substantive package in response to the Lord's concerns. And although we've already heard that local authorities do have the power they need to. I think that there is a need for clarity and confidence to use vehicle seizure powers, because I think it will do two things. It will stop this crime in Portsmouth and it will put beyond doubt whose responsibility is.

And give no excuse for the local authority to enact those powers that they have had, and therefore to remove any doubt and the need for responsibility. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the statutory guidance accompanying these provisions will be issued promptly after Royal Assent, so councils can act without delay. And Madam Deputy Speaker on the amendment concerning pornographic content depicting adult roles playing as under 16 seconds, I am glad the government is agreeing to these in full. I said at the Second Reading that this bill needs to go further on child protection, and these amendments do exactly that.

Content that mimics child sexual abuse even when the individuals depicted are adults normalises a very deep, full, harmful behaviour. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, It's abhorrent. This bill has long been in the making and has been felt by residents across my city, and the remaining points of disagreement are now very narrow. I now hope that the Other place will accept the government's position today, so that this landmark legislation can receive Royal Assent swiftly and start delivering for my constituents and communities right across the country.

Because further delays Madam Deputy Speaker are felt every day and indeed every night on our streets, our coastlines, our parks and our housing estates. And as someone elected to make my my community safer and cleaner to live, it is what democracy is about. It is what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

democracy should do. Hey, hey, Adam Jogee. Thank you so much, Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you so much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I can tell by your smile you weren't expecting to call me, but I'm very grateful that you spied me in this corner back here spied me in this corner back here spied me in this corner back here at the back, and I. I miss that, oh, that's very kind. Yes, Madam Speaker, you all know, because I've
20:37
Adam Jogee Portrait Adam Jogee MP (Newcastle-under-Lyme, Labour)
-
-
Speaker, you all know, because I've said it before, waste crime and Fly-tipping and the rest have, sadly had too much of an impact in Newcastle. I think of Walleys quarry landfill site. I think of a number of the other examples that I've talked about since my election, to this place that continue to blight my community. And as my hon. Friend from Harlow noted, the impact the Fly-tipping can have on rural communities speaks for itself and not just in our surgeries, but our inbox and the lives of our constituents.

I think of people in Birtley, in Bradwell, in Audley, all of whom have shared with me the corrosive impact that Fly-tipping industrial climb and waste climb has on communities like mine. Madam Speaker conscious the fact you didn't plan to call me, and judging by the looks of colleagues, they're keen to get to the vote. I want to just speak. I want to speak. Very well said. But it's also important that my constituents are heard in the fight against Fly-tipping and keeping our communities safe, clean and green.

Madam Deputy Speaker. But I hope the Minister, when she winds up, will be able to provide confirmation to the House, to colleagues and to my constituents in Newcastle line that the strengthening of statutory guidance on enforcement, including the use of vehicle seizure powers, will help councils. And this is important because the people of Newcastle, I. Madam Deputy Speaker will be going to vote on Thursday, May 7th and the Newcastle District Council elections, and I really hope that the people in my community vote for the excellent Labour candidates that will be on the ballot paper on Thursday, May the 7th.

But this is important because we need our councils to take tougher, more visible action against Fly-tippers who blight our communities, and I hope the Minister will provide that confirmation when she winds up, because it's important not just to me, Madam Speaker, but the good people of Newcastle. I'm to.
20:39
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
Minister. In the interest of transparency, if I have to put on my glasses, they are not sunglasses, they are reading glasses, but they also happen to be sunglasses. I will try not to, but my eyes are beginning to go. I don't want to pretend to the house that I'm trying to be cool. If I put on my glasses just so I can read the words in front of me, can I. Can I start by thanking all hon. Members who have spoken in this short.

But I think very interesting debate on quite a wide variety of issues. Can I thank in particular my hon. Friend from Harlow, Portsmouth North and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Newcastle-under-Lyme. I thank the Minister for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way. I you've only just. She has. She has only just started her speech. But what I didn't do in my speech was pay massive tribute to speech was pay massive tribute to the Harlow Wombles who are not who are not little creatures from Wimbledon, but actually representative. The Harlow representative. The Harlow community that go out week in, week out and collect rubbish in their local community. And I want to thank them for what they do to ensure that our local community stays clean and tidy.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention, and I think we all thank the Harlow think we all thank the Harlow Wombles for the work that they do. I don't think we have Croydon Wombles, but I think we probably Wombles, but I think we probably need to perhaps get some. But we do have very many good people who go out and collect rubbish, as my out and collect rubbish, as my friend does in Harlow himself. I think all three speeches from the think all three speeches from the back benches showed the strength of commitment from our 2024 intake.

In this place they are debating the issues that matter to local people and these are important and of course on all fronts. We are already in this government taking action and this bill will help us tackle those scourges of everyday crime that my hon. Friends have been touching on already today. So turning to the for issues that are before us today, I am disappointed. Coming first to the fixed penalty notices that the Liberal Democrat front bench are not persuaded.

Lords amendment two D to two E have amended the government's amendment, which allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance addressing the issue of fixed penalty notices by enforcement companies and contractors for profit. These amendments specify that the guidance must, rather than may address this point. The government has had many conversations about this. Both our colleagues in the Lords and in this place, and I hope that the Liberal Democrat frontbench recognise the engagement that we have had on this issue.

We do believe that it is important fundamentally that there can be a provision for private companies to collect and to support the government and support local government in their in their Spose and other forms of ability for us to make sure people are abiding by the rules of the land. The government brought forward an amendment in lieu to provide that the statutory guidance issued under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 must, as opposed to, may address the issue of fixed penalty notices by authorised persons.

I had hoped that the Liberal Democrats would recognise that that is going some distance, and I am disappointed that they haven't on this occasion in relation to Fly-tipping, we have had many debates in this place we inherited from our conservative opposition a shocking situation with Fly-tipping, where it wasn't seen to be the serious crime that it is, and as a consequence, many of our communities we know are blighted by it. And my hon. Friends in the debate have talked about it.

I'm disappointed that the hon. Member for Stockton West continues to argue for Lord's. Shadow Minister continues to argue for Lord's Amendment 11. I would hope that he accepts that the police are not the lead agency for enforcing all criminal offences. They work in partnership with the National Crime Agency, the SFO, the Environment Agency, the Gambling Commission and many others, including local councils in their guise as waste authorities. The police do have the powers to remove a vehicle. In fact, I was on.

I was out with the police in Kent only last week and we seized a vehicle because a crime was being committed. There were four young men who were driving who were in a car. The car wasn't properly insured, so the men had to get out of the car. We removed the car and we took it away and we were very glad to do so. And those men were not very pleased. But that is within the police's power to stop a car.

If a criminal offence is occurring, they can take that car away. The issue is who disposes. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will, of course. Million of the million fly-tipping offences going on in the country every year. How many do the country every year. How many do you think are in the seizure of a vehicle?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vehicle? So when it comes to fly-tipping, if a crime is being committed, the if a crime is being committed, the police can take a car. The issue we're talking about is then to remove and dispose of it and take it away permanently, which the it away permanently, which the local authority can already do. I would encourage all local authorities to make use of this power. I think the big debate here is that over the years of the opposition who were then in government, there wasn't enough resources in local government.

I think everyone would agree to enforce the laws that are already in place. So we know that there are powers already for local authorities, and we are building on those powers in this legislation. So if you are, I will give way in one moment. If you are, as a result of this legislation, caught using a vehicle to fly-tip, we can take up to nine points off your license, which surely is a really powerful way to disincentivize Fly-tipping, which is perhaps something that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

perhaps he would like to explain why he didn't do when he was in government. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. Explain. More than that. I was delighted to put forward an amendment at the Bill committee amendment at the Bill committee proposing just that. In fact, the Minister sought to either side of the Minister voted against the notion of bringing forwards penalty points for just that offence. But I points for just that offence. But I don't think she heard me. I don't think she heard me when I asked the question, how many of the million offences that take place in this country are fly-tipping does she think result in the seizure of a vehicle in a year's time? When we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

come back and have this discussion, I really think she'll be seized. Then. And I suspect that there will be,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I suspect that there will be, as my hon. Friend says, a lot more than under the previous government. than under the previous government. We encourage on this side of the House any crime. We encourage our police to investigate and we police to investigate and we encourage our local authorities to investigate and to make sure there investigate and to make sure there is a proper punishment for it. That is why we are introducing this very substantial piece of legislation, which in many cases also increases the punishment for a whole raft of different criminal activities.

It is right that if people are profiting from fly-tipping, if they are making it their business, and we know that many people do to perhaps do house clearance, and then they want to avoid paying the fees to get rid of those that furniture, they just dump it on our streets. We should encourage our local authorities to push to make sure those people are punished and that where necessary, we crush their vans rather than just take them away, remove them so they can never be used by them again.

And that is what we are very keen to do. And that is why my hon. Friends in the Cabinet have really prioritised fly-tipping in all its forms, from the very small to the very large cases where we have large criminal organised gangs who are leading fly-tipping across the country and leading to these vast fly-tips that we are going to fund the removal of in this government because of the legislation that we are bringing in. Moving on to youth diversion orders again, I am disappointed that the Liberal Democrats don't feel that they can support our further amendments in lieu.

We have further strengthened the provision in the Bill in respect of statutory guidance, which must now expressly address the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for Chief Officers to consult persons other than youth offending teams before making an application for a youth Diversion order or the variation or discharge of such an order. This squarely addresses the concerns raised in the other place. We do not feel that we need to go, and it would be necessary to go as far as the Other place have suggested, and I am disappointed that the Liberal Democrats have not listened to us today and feel it necessary to continue to push this issue.

Returning to the fourth issue that we debated today, the prescription of the IRGC. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a long standing principle that has been adopted by successive administrations that the government does not comment on which organisations are being considered for prescription, mandating that government mandating that the government review whether to prescribe Iranian government related organisations would violate this principle. And the hon. Gentleman, the Shadow Minister knows that that is the case. This government cannot support this amendment and he knows that that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the case. Was the Foreign Secretary wrong

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Was the Foreign Secretary wrong when she said the IRGC must be prescribed?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prescribed? We know, as we've said, that, of course, the Iranian government, the IRGC, the horrors that they have inflicted on their own people and the work that they have done means the work that they have done means that, of course, we know that we must do all we can and we are through, as we have already said in this place, through the sanctions of hundreds of of Iranians who cannot come to this place as a result and who have had their assets seized.

But the hon. Gentleman knows that there is legislation that must be passed in order to enable us to do this piece of work. And as a responsible government committed to protecting the safety and security of this country, we will not deviate from that position. I will not give way because we are rushed for time. The time has come. We are now. Madam Deputy Speaker. The time has come for the will of this, the elected House to prevail. We have listened and responded positively to the great majority of amendments put forward by the House of Lords.

We should send these amendments back in the hope and indeed the expectation that this will be for the last time. We have been debating this bill for long enough, 14 months. It is time to stop talking now. It is time to deliver the changes wrought by this bill to protect all our communities. I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move EA. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments to D and to E, but proposes, in lieu of those proposes, in lieu of those amendments, amendment A to its amendment to be an amendment B to amendment to be an amendment B to its amendment to C. As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the that opinion say aye. I of the
20:52
None Portrait Division
-

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments to D and to E, but proposes, in lieu of those amendments, amendment A to its amendment to be an amendment B to its amendment to C. As many as of that opinion say aye. I. Of the contrary, no. the tellers for the ayes of Gregor Poynton and Jade Botterill the Tellers for the noes, Order,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order. The Ayes to the right 293.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noes to the left 159.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 293. The noes to the left. 159 so the The noes to the left. 159 so the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock. We now come to the motion to insist on disagreement with Lords Amendment 11. But to propose amendments A to D in lieu. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 11, but proposes amendments A to D in lieu as many are as of that opinion, say I of the contrary.

No, no. The question is that this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 11, but proposes amendments A to D in lieu. As many as of that opinion say aye. Contrary. No, no. Tell us, for the eyes of Jade Botterill and Gregor Poynton, the Tellers for the noes, Order,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order! Yes. The Ayes to the right 290.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 290.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the Noes to the left 156.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 294. The noes to the left. 156. So the The noes to the left. 156. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On this one. Yeah. We now come to the motion to agree with the Lords in their amendments. 265 D to 265 H. I call the Minister to move the motion formally. The question is that this formally. The question is that this House agrees with the Lords and House agrees with the Lords and their amendments. 265 D to 265 H as many as of that opinion, say R Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it.

The ayes have it. We now come to the motion to insist on disagreement with Lords Amendment 342, not insist on amendment 342 A in lieu, and to propose amendments A and B in lieu of Lords Amendment 342. I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 342, but does not insist on its amendment 342 A in lieu and proposes amendments A and B to the Bill in lieu of a Lords Amendment 342.

As many as of that opinion, say r. I of the contrary, opinion, say r. I of the contrary,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One more One more after One more after this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One more after this. The question is that this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 342, but does not insist on its amendment 342 A in lieu, and proposes amendments A and B to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment 342. As many as of that opinion, say aye. Of the contrary. No, no. The Tellers for the ayes of Jade and Gregor Poynton, the Tellers for the noes Claire Young and Zoe Order, Order, order.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I to the. Right 290 for the Noes to the left 61.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

left 61. The ayes to the right were 294 the noes to the left. 61. So the the noes to the left. 61. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlock. We now come to the motion to insist on disagreement with to insist on disagreement with Lords Amendment 359 and 439, but to propose amendments A and B in lieu, I call the Minister to move the motion. The question is that this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments, 359 and 439, but proposes 359 and 439, but proposes amendments A and B in lieu.

As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. no. Division. Question Question is Question is that this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 359 and 439, but proposes amendments A and B in lieu. As many as of that opinion say R, the contrary. No, no. Tell us, for the eyes of Gregor Poynton and Jade Botterill Tellers for the noes,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! The ayes to the right. 292 the noes to the left. 158.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 158. The ayes to the right were. 292

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were. 292 the noes to the left. 158 so the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. That concludes consideration of the Lord's message on the Crime and Policing Bill. Motion number three on Public health. Minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary, no, I think the ayes have it. The ayes
21:43
21:44
Anneliese Dodds Portrait Rt Hon Anneliese Dodds MP (Oxford East, Labour )
-
-
for government support for community assets. The ultimate Picture Palace is the only Picture Palace is the only remaining independent cinema in Oxford. Founded in 1911, the cinema Oxford. Founded in 1911, the cinema shows an eclectic mix of independent, international and classic films, all in its cosy single screen auditorium. This beautiful cinema is a real landmark on June Street, abutting Cowley on June Street, abutting Cowley Road in the heart of East Oxford, it was built when dangerously flammable outdoor screenings were being replaced by safer buildings.

The heritage of tinted outdoor shows is clear in the beautiful Art Deco building, not least with the original box office window that opens straight out onto the street. The team of staff and volunteers who run this cinema is small but passionate. In 2022, the cinema became community owned when 1200 local people took a stake in it. It's a vibrant place, defying national trends in ticket sales at a time when thousands of community assets have closed, the Up stands as a reminder that a different model is possible, and that model works.

The Up aims to be a leader in community cinema, empowering local people to determine the future of this neighbourhood venue and enabling all local residents from families to young people, students, workers and community groups to be uplifted through the joy of cinema. They've hosted numerous festivals and really do cater for all. Last year, the up screened the widest variety of films of any cinema in the city, as well as attracting new audiences by, for example, introducing special Kino kids screenings for kids and the development of a new education program.

The cinema's relaxed and welcoming atmosphere means that anyone can come and enjoy a film, whether they're on their own or with friends and family. I've heard many wonderful stories about how this small community cinema has shaped local people's lives. One of the most moving was hearing of a New Year's Eve screening 50 years ago, when a resident who had moved to Oxford previously finally felt at home in my city. Dame Pippa Harris, co-producer of Oscar winning film Hamnet, came to the up as a young person and says big dreams started in that little cinema and I'm lucky my dream came true.

Perhaps my favourite quote about the cinema comes from the sadly late true Oxford original, Bill Heine, when he said of his approach to the cinema when he ran it look, if you're going to sail, why not sail in dangerous waters? Who wants to play around on the beach? The Up has a truly incredible storeyed history, from legal fights with Stanley Kubrick and the BBC to the section six cinema right through to today's community ownership, so that this special cinema is fit for the future.

It needs to invest in better access, sightlines and sound quality, and more efficient use of energy. The cinema has planning permission for these changes and funders keen to support them. If funders requirements for long term lease are met. But herein lies the problem. Madam Deputy Speaker, the landlord for this community owned asset, Oriel College, will not commit to such a long term lease. This is because it appears the building is in the footprint of their plans for a fifth quad to accommodate graduate students.

The idea of the cinema being used for this purpose strikes me in local residents as very strange. The building is grade two listed, reflecting its historical status and striking exterior and interior. It's one of the oldest independent cinemas in England, and the only one which is community owned. Very happy to Madam Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all, can I commend the hon. Lady for Oxford East for bringing this forward? I spoke to her beforehand and she's right to her beforehand and she's right to outline the issues for our own cinema and the community based importance. But does she not agree that community owned assets are that community owned assets are essential in our quest to address the hidden barriers such as transport, poverty, social transport, poverty, social isolation amongst the elderly and digital exclusion is much more than digital exclusion is much more than just the cinema.

But it goes beyond that that prevent rural residents in Oxford East, but also in my constituency of Strangford, from accessing essential community and health services, compared sometimes to their urban counterparts. Now, the support for these assets are not limited to one community group or another, but to entire populations who rely on them and as such, government health at health at their time of need. Thanks very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

much. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I absolutely agree with the and I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Strangford that, of course, community owned assets so often really are targeted at those inequalities because the community understands where the challenges are on their streets, in their are on their streets, in their backyard, down their lane. If we're talking about rural areas, they really understand where the need is. really understand where the need is. That's one of many reasons why they're so important.

And of course, they're not only important for those communities, they can be nationally significant as well. And that's the case with this cinema, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the head of cinemas at the Independent Cinema Office has said that the Up is of national importance. I and thousands of local residents have called on Oriel College to grant the cinema the long term lease it needs. Indeed, a petition calling for this has gained nearly 20,000 signatures in a matter of weeks. This would be great for local students and could unlock exciting collaboration between the cinema and Oriel College.

There are some brilliant examples of higher education institutions working with arts organisations in the UK, and such cooperation could make the up an even more special place. So far, Oriel College appears not to have recognised the potential benefits of engaging with the ultimate picture Palace in this way, so I urge them to reconsider and grant the up its long term lease, and I urge the government to recognise the value of community assets like the up and go further to protect them.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, and she's painting a beautifully evocative picture of the Up, and it actually takes me straight to my favourite film, straight to my favourite film, Cinema Paradiso. Does she agree with me that often communities deliver in a way that government deliver in a way that government cannot. They deliver according to local needs? What our communities local needs? What our communities need, what local people need in their local areas, but also they can act in a more agile way.

They can often access different funding, but they need that initial support and the capacity to be able to grow their knowledge and experience in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order to deliver. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm very grateful indeed to my friend for making that really important point. She's absolutely right. The flexibility that these right. The flexibility that these community owned assets often have really cannot be underlined enough, and the fact that they can respond and the fact that they can respond to community needs is just one of so many positive aspects of these very special assets. And of course, community ownership shapes who the fact shapes, who holds power within organisations and assets it shapes, who makes decisions about them, and who benefits from them.

Like in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cases she was talking about. When she's outlining a really clear case for community owned assets, I wondered if you might be able to elaborate on this and tell us if the Up is an asset of us if the Up is an asset of community value. We've recently just had to fight a campaign to stop Harrogate Spring water chopping down the much loved rotary chopping down the much loved rotary wood, which is an asset of community value. If that planning decision had gone ahead and not been voted down, there would have been obviously a moratorium allowing the community to come together to put in a bid to try and purchase it.

But there needs to be more support to make sure that those bids are prioritised, and multinationals like Danone can't simply come in and swoop in and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

outbid a local community. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I absolutely agree with him and I absolutely agree with him that the Asset of Community Value designation can be a really powerful tool. Yes, that has been powerful tool. Yes, that has been applied in the case of Up, that's something that the cinema itself and local people push for. I'm really pleased that the council really pleased that the council granted it, and I think the kind of developments that he mentioned are ones that we really need to be ones that we really need to be guarding against when we have those important community assets.

And of course, one of the recent measures that the government has been working on, which will also help in this area, does relate to the community right to Buy, which I know the Minister is really passionate about. Community Right to buy is about giving local people the right to own and protect the places that matter to them, from pubs and parks to community centres and sports grounds. When communities have a real stake, like with the Up, they don't just preserve assets, they make them thrive.

This reflects a core cooperative belief, fundamental for the co-op party, of which I'm a member, that communities themselves are best placed to shape their future. But for vital shared spaces to exist, communities have always had to succeed despite the system, not because of it. And the current situation brings into sharp relief how many hurdles communities face in trying to take control of the places that matter most. What we've seen in the case of the ultimate Picture Palace is just one example of the blockages facing community owned assets.

We know that elsewhere, communities are not eligible for funding streams or tax relief, and that there often isn't the correct development support for those trying to pursue community ownership. So the community right to buy will mark a landmark shift. But we need to go further. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

know that the co-op party has argued for this. Yes. My hon. Friend, for giving way. It's a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend, for giving way. It's a very. Persuasive argument that she's putting forward. And in my constituency of Wolverhampton West constituency of Wolverhampton West in Penn, where I live, we have the old Stag's Head, which is a pub that closed down some time ago, and that closed down some time ago, and many efforts have been made for the community to purchase the pub to community to purchase the pub to recreate again the community value that it provided. So does my hon. Friend agree that when we talk about community assets, they can be quite widespread, like pubs and community centres and sports halls and so forth? So it is a very important topic that we are discussing, where government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support can be so useful. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Absolutely. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Absolutely. And I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. He is completely right. We've seen in the past many campaigns to keep local pubs open. We've seen local people working really hard to deliver a community asset designation, but ultimately, often they've lacked the finance and hopefully the new measures coming hopefully the new measures coming through will start to deal with that through. In particular, the right to buy and through other measures as well. I would also mention here the Community Wealth Fund Pride in Place program to all of them tackle some of those inequalities.

The lack of social infrastructure, including physical, social infrastructure and of course, economic deprivation as well. But too often, as in the case of the Up, we just see in these cases a David and Goliath style task for communities that want to be controlling local assets. So in conclusion, I would like to urge the Minister to coordinate policy on community assets with other departments so that we can truly unlock their promise. Secondly, I urge her to work with colleagues in the Departments of culture, Media and Sports and of Education and skills to encourage place based collaboration between arts and culture organisations and higher

**** Possible New Speaker ****

education providers, just. To give away. The up. Sounds like an absolute cultural gem, and I absolutely love cultural gem, and I absolutely love anything to do with arts and culture. As a previous chair of our arts and culture organisation, I just wonder if she agrees, though, just wonder if she agrees, though, that the Town of Culture is a program that the government has launched, and I think that would be an amazing way to bring people together. I wonder if she agrees that that is a really positive step forward, and she will also get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward, and she will also get behind Bawtry being the first town of culture in the country. Anneliese Dodds thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'm very fond indeed of my hon. Friend, but I know there are many others who are pushing for their amazing times to become the town of culture, and it is a really exciting new development. I completely agree with him, as well as what we're seeing in community ownership and engagement in arts and culture too.

My third ask of the Minister is to invite her to please come to the ultimate picture palace and experience the magic of cinema with a friendly welcome, lovely drinks and snacks, and a dedicated team of staff and volunteers. I know if she comes, she'll experience what promoters of the cinema said it would deliver when it was built right back in 1911. Real fun and instruction in a beautiful building. Long lived community cinema and Madam Deputy Speaker. Long live the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ultimate picture palace! Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Miatta Fahnbulleh. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I thank the hon. Member for Oxford East for securing this Oxford East for securing this debate and for speaking with such conviction about the importance of community owned assets and for highlighting the importance of the ultimate picture palace, which I do
21:58
Miatta Fahnbulleh Portrait Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Peckham, Labour )
-
-
know which is a treasured asset in her community, I know that she has been a long standing champion for communities in her constituency, and I want to recognise the work that she has done to bring local voices into this House and as a fellow cooperative member, I share her ambition, her passion and her commitment for community ownership and power. Look, community owned assets matter because they aren't just buildings. They are places where people meet, organise, volunteer, learn and support one another.

When communities lose them, they don't just lose bricks and mortar, they lose connection. They lose pride and opportunity. That's why this government believes strongly that communities should have more power to protect the places they value. The hon. Member is seeing firsthand in Greater Leeds, as it's one of the neighbourhoods receiving long term funding and support through Pride and PACE program. That ten year commitment reflects both the strength of the community and the challenges it faces, and it gives local people the certainty they need to plan ahead and to shape the area for the long term.

Alongside the Pride and Place program, the government has also introduced a Pride in Place impact Fund. This fund is designed to provide rapid, visible improvements to community spaces, to public places and high streets in areas that need immediate support. Further, communities across the country are benefiting from that additional route for action where quicker intervention is needed. Together, these two approaches reflect a deliberate choice by this government to combine long term, locally led change with the ability to respond quickly where urgent improvements are required.

They serve different purposes, but both are rooted in the same fundamental principle of putting communities in the driving seat and fundamentally ensuring that communities are the ones that are deciding what is best for their area and their priorities for them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that. This House do now adjourn. The question is that this House do now adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now adjourn. Miatta Fahnbulleh thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. But funding Madam Deputy Speaker. But funding alone isn't enough. As the hon. Member pointed out, communities also need stronger rights. Too often valued local assets are sold off. They left empty or lost off. They left empty or lost entirely, with residents having little say in the process. That's why this government is strengthening community power through legislation. Through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, we will introduce the new Community Right to Buy, which the hon.

Member spoke about. This gives communities the first opportunity to purchase a registered asset of community value. When it comes to sale, communities will have more time to raise funds, access a fair and independent evaluation and rely on rights that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

carry real weight. I will give way. I just want to acknowledge. The fantastic work that she's outlining there by the government outlining there by the government on this particular issue. Does she agree with me that one of the biggest worries that people have in areas that are undergoing local areas that are undergoing local government reorganisation is that these cash strapped councils are going to have to sell off those those assets, and that often when those assets, and that often when you're having a merging of councils, that it can be further removed from local people on the ground.

So does local people on the ground. So does she agree that these steps will help give people that certainty in light of local government reorganisation?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister thank you to the hon. Member for raising that question. Look, we've had this exchange at Look, we've had this exchange at the despatch box and local government reorganisation was embarked upon by this government as embarked upon by this government as a point of necessity, not because we either desired it or we thought that it would be fun to do so that it would be fun to do so because ultimately local government is under huge amounts of pressure. We absolutely need to get to local We absolutely need to get to local councils that are the beating heart of our communities, that are sustainable, that have a footprint that local people can recognise and can do the job of enabling our communities.

And that is our firm intention through the local government process. But we recognise that alongside that, it is absolutely critical that we are building and supporting that community level, which is why in the English Devolution Bill, we are introducing the rollout of neighbourhood governance, which is why through our Pride and Place programme, we're fundamentally empowering communities because we believe that they should be at the very heart of how we drive change in our places. And look, this is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about making sure communities. I will give way. Jayne Kirkham thank. You, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You, Madam. Deputy Speaker. Would the Minister agree that Pride in Place is a fantastic program and it will is a fantastic program and it will help pubs like, say, the Save the Stag campaign in my constituency to buy their local pub. But pride in buy their local pub. But pride in place hasn't reached all corners of the country yet. Will the Minister confirm that she will be looking at confirm that she will be looking at the way that pride in place extends and and is calculated so that some areas like mine in Cornwall can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

also benefit? Thank you to my hon. Friend and look, the. The two things I'd say look, the. The two things I'd say is that there's a program and we've just announced another 40 places. just announced another 40 places. There are more parts of the country that are in need of support. And that are in need of support. And one of the things that we are very, very keen to do is to take the approach and pride in place where we're essentially thinking about investment that is already going into places, but how you put communities in control of some of that investment so they can drive the priorities and they can ensure that the investment that the government is making in every part of the country actually works for that community.

So there is an approach that I think is fundamental to the way that government does things, where we say communities should be in the driving seat of shift driving priorities and ensuring the investment that is coming into their area is working in their interest. And look, the Pride in Place program, as I've said, complements the rights we're giving to neighbourhood boards, the and the freedom to invest in community ownership and renewal. That might mean restoring a valued building. It might mean bringing empty spaces back into use.

Whatever is the priority set locally. It has to be driven locally and not imposed from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whitehall. But I will give way. Minister, for giving way. My concern about the impact of local concern about the impact of local government reorganisation, lack of money on community owned assets is the fact that charities are entitled to a mandatory 80% entitled to a mandatory 80% business relief. The 20% is discretionary from local councils. Areas like mine, Woking that have Areas like mine, Woking that have gone bankrupt means that community own assets and charities could be at the forefront of decisions. What at the forefront of decisions.

What steps is the Minister taking to support community owned assets in councils like Woking and others

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that are struggling financially? We are committed to working with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are committed to working with all councils that we know under huge amounts of pressure to ensure that they are sustainable, but also to ensure that they can do the to ensure that they can do the fundamental work that we need them to do to support and empower their to do to support and empower their communities. My colleagues in my department are working with individual councils that we know are facing a very, very difficult are facing a very, very difficult time financially, particularly in the context of local government reorganisation.

But look, I think there is a bigger piece for us, which is we absolutely believe it is right to empower communities to take on assets. This is a principle that we believe in. We believe in cooperative ownership. We believe in community ownership. We are conferring rights to the bill in order to drive that forward. And we must continue building on that to make sure that we are allowing communities, the wherewithal and the resources and the know how to be able to exercise that right.

So this is something that we're committed to doing and making sure that communities can take on assets and can maintain assets, because it is fundamental to our view of how we drive change in place. And look, ultimately, we are very clear that as a government, we were elected to do things differently. Business as usual is not working for too many of our communities, and that does mean moving away from short term competitive bidding and towards longer term, locally led change. It means trusting our communities.

It means backing their ideas and giving them the tools to succeed. So in closing, I thank my hon. Friend again for raising this important issue. I thank her for speaking so eloquently and raising the importance of community ownership and community power. She is right to shine a light on this. We will continue to work through pride in place, through community right to buy, but also by providing targeted support for urgent local needs so that we are ensuring that our ambition for communities is matched in practice and is matched in reality.

And as to my hon. Friend's point about encouraging collaborative collaboration between arts and cultural organisations and higher education providers, this work has begun. We are working very closely with the Department for culture, Media and Sports, as well as with the Department for Education, to make sure that we are aligned, and I will continue that collaboration, as she has suggested. And I would absolutely love to accept an invitation to visit the Ultimate Picture Palace. I think it will probably be the highlight of my of my year.

And look, I look forward to working with her and with members across the House who have a shared commitment and ambition for what we can achieve by empowering our communities to drive the change that they are so desperate to need. This government is committed to it, and we will work diligently and effectively with all members across the House to make that a reality. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker thank you. The question is that this house.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this house. Do now adjourn. As many as of that Do now adjourn. As many as of that opinion, say I. I the ayes have it.
14:00
None Portrait Speaker's statement
-

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