Commons Chamber

Tuesday 1st September 2026

(began 7 hours, 48 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:33
14:35
14:36
None Portrait Oral questions: Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
-

Minister.
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
None Portrait Q8. What steps his Department is taking to secure the release of UK nationals detained abroad. (901100)
-

But it is also important to pay tribute to the work that they do to support thousands of British nationals who are arrested or
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
None Portrait Q10. What steps he is taking to improve UK-EU foreign and security cooperation. (901102)
-

security without Europe and no European security without Britain.
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:38
None Portrait Ministerial statement: Government Direction
-

Mr. speaker, I wish to.
15:38
Andy Burnham Portrait Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )
-
-
Make a statement on the direction in which I will lead our country. I come before this House, having visited each of the regions and nations of the UK over the last six weeks, and Ukraine on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of its independence, the UK's steadfast support has helped sustain Ukraine's resolve over the last four and a half years, particularly so in the last two. That was the achievement of my predecessor, and as he stands down from this place, I want to pay tribute to the right hon.

Member for Holborn and St Pancras. He has given this country a lifetime of public service. Mr. speaker, particularly for those fighting for justice. When my right hon. Friend delivered in this House on his promise to the Hillsborough families and everyone involved in the Hillsborough Law campaign, it was a moment I will never forget. His leadership took our party from one of its worst defeats to its best victories, and created a platform to change this country for the better.

We will use it well, Mr. Speaker, and we wish his. Family the very best for the future. The position my right hon. Friend took on Ukraine, building on the work of his predecessors as Prime Minister, is one which I will not change. Whatever the threats we face. We do not seek escalation, but instead will stand firm in providing what help we can to enable Ukraine to defend itself from this illegal invasion. Britain's defence starts in Ukraine and the defence of our nation will always be my first priority.

On public safety, Mr. Speaker, I know the whole House will wish to join me in expressing deepest condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Cluff, who were killed in the line of duty on the A 66. We will do our best to support the Middlesbrough community, which is hurting and grieving right now, and we hear the call from the members of this House representing it for a discussion about investment in policing and police numbers.

I know I also speak for the whole House in expressing my profound shock and horror at the devastating scenes on the Nepal-china border. My sympathies are with all those affected, including the families and loved ones of those missing in this appalling tragedy. The Foreign Secretary is doing everything he can to support the Nepalese government and British nationals in the region. This is what the climate crisis looks like, Mr. Speaker. We have just ourselves experienced what is likely to have been the hottest summer on record.

This government will meet the climate challenge, and I can confirm to the House that I will attend Cop 31 in Turkey in November. Mr. speaker, I will build on the work of my predecessor in other areas. When I visited Dover in early August. Staff from Border Force and Coastguard told me extra police numbers on French beaches are beginning to deliver real results. I can report to the House today that this has continued throughout the last month, with numbers arriving over the summer halved on last year, making this year to date the lowest for crossings since 2021.

Tomorrow, when I welcome President Macron to the UK on the occasion of the opening of the exhibition of the tapestry, I will thank him for the cooperation that has enabled us to prevent over 48000 people crossing where it is right to do so, Mr. Speaker. I will build on what has been achieved, however, where necessary, I will not hesitate to make changes. One of the first things I did after taking office was to review the plans to relieve pressure on prison places with the Lord Chancellor, who will provide a full update to the House following my statement.

We took an early decision to exempt rape, grooming and serious child sex offences and fast track work to see if we could go further. Hearing calls from the family of PC Andrew Harper and many others as a result. Mr. speaker, we are now confirming that anyone convicted of manslaughter, death by dangerous driving or indecent assault will not now see any change to their prison term. We will find additional prison places by deporting more foreign national offenders and finally grasping the nettle on an issue this House has ignored for too long.

Indefinite IPP sentences, a now abolished policy, but one to which this one, which to this day keeps people behind bars despite already having served more than their sentences. None of this is easy, Mr. Speaker, but I did what I always do, and that is to apply my values to a challenging situation and a care for people, which I spoke about in Downing Street. I believe the public will support me in recognising the clear difference between those who have served their time and more, and those who have not.

We will bring forward legislation soon, but we can find a solution to end this injustice, which balances public safety and basic fairness. And I urge colleagues on all sides of the House to help us do that. This is politics done differently. Problem solving over point scoring. It is what the country needs. It is what the public want more of, and it will characterise my time in office. Mr. speaker, I was pleased to begin cross-party talks over social care in the summer, and I thank the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the right hon.

Member for Daventry, for the spirit in which that endeavour began, and I wish the latter well as he leaves the frontbench. When it comes to the biggest issues facing the country, the economy and the cost of living crisis, people are looking for much more substantial change, as promised in our manifesto, and that is what I will bring. Britain is not where any of us would wish it to be. Things are not working as they should. Life is too expensive and too hard for too many.

This is why this government's first moves were to give businesses and people a little breathing space on tax. In my first week in office, we cut VAT on electricity bills and cut business rates for pubs, social clubs and live music venues. We reinstated the £2 cap on bus fares for the whole of 2027. These measures will provide some relief, Mr. Speaker. They were funded by Reprioritising within government, as the bedrock of our approach will be grounded in fiscal responsibility.

But in the long term, lifting growth and living standards will require much more. What I bring back to the House after ten years away is a clear diagnosis of what has gone wrong. And let me lay it out clearly, particularly for the right hon. Gentleman, since he asked from the 1980s, this country took a series of wrong turns. Political power was centralised, economic power privatised. The country deindustrialised austerity followed, hollowing out councils and depriving them of the agency to act, to reverse any of this.

And then Brexit compounded the damage, ushering in a decade of low growth and stalled regeneration. Change begins with honesty, Mr. Speaker. Not hearing much of it this afternoon unless we are blunt about what went wrong, we won't turn things around. Far from taking back control, the combination of these policies took control out of the hands of communities up and down Britain. For 40 years, too many places have been drifting. Too many British high streets tell the story of this decline.

People yearn to see them restored to what they once were. As the community Secretary and I heard on our visit to Ilkeston in the summer. But they see no hope if we continue on the same path with a failed economic model which does not trickle down much to places like theirs and instead allows wealth to be extracted and siphoned out. Britain's water industry stands as a leaking monument to that approach, a country run in the private rather than public interest.

And that is now abundantly clear to voters of all parties, including the party opposite. The government I lead will be relentless in giving people and places what they were promised ten years ago ownership and control and from that control over their destiny comes change and growth. I say this with confidence, I do, I do. Let me explain why. Because it is backed by a decade of personal experience, turning around one of the UK's former industrial heartlands and turning it into the fastest growing city region in the country.

Booking the low growth trend it has given me, Mr. Speaker, a clear theory of growth, and I will apply it to all parts of the UK, learning from what has been achieved in Greater Manchester. For a long time, the country did not have ambitions for its regions outside of London. It even talked of the managed decline of Liverpool. It took the devolution of power out of this place to allow our big city regions the ability to set new ambitions for themselves.

Now I want every single place across our regions and nations to be able to do the same, creating the conditions for good growth in every postcode. And in that spirit, I was glad to meet the Liberal Democrat Leader of Cornwall Council with my hon. Friend, the Member for Truro and Falmouth on my recent visit. I know, like many rural economies across the UK, Cornwall lacks a basic level of infrastructure which in turn harms growth and holds back living standards and life chances.

And I heard the cross-party call for a devolution deal. I understand concerns in this House about the potential emergence of a two tier England between those with devolved power and those without, and I will not ignore them. So I have asked number ten North to begin work with Cornwall Council and its six MPs on a devolution deal, with or without an elected mayor. Mr. speaker, I today extend the same offer to all parts of England without devolved power.

The First Secretary of State will today write to every member of this House, setting out how they can engage number ten North in the service of the places they represent. I extended the same offer to the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, and the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland when I met them over the summer, as they rightly pointed out, their situations are different, but there is interest in what a local model of devolution could look like in each of the home nations, and we will discuss that with them at a special meeting of the National Economic Council next month.

Mr. speaker, this government will oversee the biggest redistribution of power this country has seen. In July, we published a statement on the next stage of English devolution, and it will include powers long requested by mayors such as post 16 technical education, employment support and fiscal devolution, starting with the ability to set an overnight visitor levy to commence towards the end of financial year 2728. The driving force behind it all will be number ten North. It will oversee the rewiring of the British state, the rebuilding of resilience in our communities and the reindustrialisation of our regions.

Its creation was one of the first acts of this administration, and I believe that in time, it will be seen as one of its most significant. It is a clear answer to the question with which this country has long wrestled. Who in government drives growth? My theory of growth requires it to be driven with the full authority of the very centre of government, in close partnership with HM Treasury number ten North has been set up with that full focus.

The single front door on which regions can knock to get quicker joined up decisions from Whitehall and through which power and resources will be passed to them. Resources will include human resources. This is because a state which has grown too large at the national level now needs to redirect civil service capacity regionally and locally, repairing the damage of austerity and making the service of place the state's first priority. We can already see what is possible. Mr. speaker, I am glad number ten North was able to stand behind Mayor Richard Parker when he took urgent action in August to prevent the collapse of bus services across the West Midlands, and I want to congratulate Mayor Steve Rotherham, who this weekend, after four decades of deregulation, will see the first buses return to public control in the Liverpool City region, taking back control of essential services like transport is an enabler of a more productive economy because it allows local areas to grab hold of the levers of power for themselves.

But driving growth demands we go further. It is taking far too long for businesses to get grid connections, and they are being quoted prohibitively expensive sums of money if they try to bring those dates forward. As I heard on my visit to a farm near Truro. Household energy bills are the highest in Europe and the cost of energy is impacting business and inward investment. Too many areas have seen water supplies disrupted this summer due to a lack of reservoir capacity.

Our tourism industry is damaged by too many sewage spills. Why they say opposite it's a question they should ask themselves. This summer has shown us very clearly that water companies are failing to rise to the climate challenge. It can't go on. Later in the year, our ten year plan for Britain will set out plans for stronger public control over these essentials, making them work for people and places again. Alongside this, we will empower all areas to expand the public housing stock, building on the first allocations from the Social and Affordable Homes programme announced by the Communities Secretary last week.

Mr. speaker, bringing forward the biggest council home building programme since the post-war period is the Labour way to get the welfare bill down. So is reforming our education system so that it balances academic and technical and offers a path in life for all young people. Michael Gove calls this bringing back stupid, when in fact, for too many young people written off by his reforms, it is bringing back hope. Allowing mayors to shape technical pathways and provide work placements for young people, building back into colleges and schools from the needs of the regional economy is the way to support more young people into work, so is prioritising more accessible, community based mental health services.

As we announced in the summer, this will be a major part of our response to the forthcoming Milburn report, which will follow its publication in the autumn. For it to work. A more intentional approach to the reindustrialisation of Britain is required. We will support all parts of the country to take more public control over investment strategy, learning from the Greater Manchester model of a consolidated Good Growth Fund, drawn from their own funds, prudent loan borrowing and fragmented budgets held by government bodies, we will back local industrial strategies.

A policy of the Theresa May government I am happy to revive, by identifying priority sectors and developing the triple helix approach to economic development by entwining business, academia and government behind the plan. This is the way, Mr. Speaker. We will build a pro-business culture and an innovation led economy in all parts of the UK, finally capturing the long term benefits of the invention that is in the DNA of our nation, backing our start ups and scale ups to stay in the UK where they were founded.

Mr. speaker, when I stood outside Downing Street six weeks ago, I said Britain needs a circuit breaker. After a decade of turbulence, negativity, point scoring and divisive politics, this is what I have outlined today a clear, coherent and credible approach to growth that can unlock a feeling of positivity and possibility in every postcode in Britain. Our job in here is to make it real by taking a place first rather than party first approach. It starts with reasserting basic standards for Britain that this is a country where no one sleeps rough and no community is blighted by an illegal waste tip, and from there, working together to build a new sense of optimism around the country, we can make this next decade better than the last.

We can lift the prospects of all our people and places. We can put more power into every postcode. We can let Britain believe again. We can bring back hope. Mr. speaker, I commend this statement to the House.
15:59
Kemi Badenoch Portrait Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch MP (North West Essex, Conservative)
-
-
Now come to the Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> And can.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place at the despatch box and take this my first opportunity to congratulate him on becoming Prime Minister. He has been in office for 43 days, during which I have learnt about how he puts the milk in his tea. I have found out exactly what he thinks about pork scratchings, but I have not had the pleasure of asking him any questions, so we are all grateful. We are all grateful, Mr.

Speaker, that he has finally found time to come to Parliament to answer some. Mr. speaker, Mr. speaker, it is only fair, Mr. Speaker, it is only fair to be gentle with someone on their first day at work, so I'm only going to ask him a few very simple but very serious questions, and I hope that he can provide me with some simple and serious answers. I genuinely wish him well, as he seeks to live up to the dignity and importance of the role, and I was pleased to see him in Ukraine over the summer, continuing the Conservatives world leading support for Ukraine's fight against Russian aggression.

That being said, I am also very relieved to see that he has not brought his guitar with him today. His predecessor stood at that despatch box two years ago sounding very triumphant, having just won a landslide just two years ago. What went wrong? Where is he now? Gone. That job is not as easy as it looks from the outside. Mr. speaker, Labour MPs have not explained why they got rid of him. They have not explained their laughing, but they haven't explained why they got rid of his predecessor.

But on this side of the House, we understand that this country's problems will not be solved by lofty promises alone. In the end, the Prime Minister will be judged on what he actually delivers. This is a very different job to being mayor of Manchester, where he did not have to pick winners and losers, and he did not have to make difficult trade offs. He did not have to worry about our national security. He does now. A government's first and most important duty is keeping the country safe.

The last Prime Minister and his Chancellor left an enormous hole in Britain's defence Budget. We know this because the current Chancellor quit as defence Secretary over that black hole, saying it could put British troops at risk. He said that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030, and that not funding the defence investment plan reduces the readiness of our forces. So let me ask the Prime Minister very clearly will he provide the funding which his own Chancellor said was necessary to keep British troops safe? And that means 3% by the end of this decade? Mr.

speaker, keeping this country safe also means defending our borders. The Prime Minister mentioned boat crossings, but we must be honest. Boat crossings have not gone down because of anything that Labour has done. We have to be honest. They Mr Speaker boat crossings are down across all of Europe and have been for much longer. Let us be honest, the problem is still not solved. The Prime Minister will have seen the extraordinary scenes in Ceuta over the summer, where more than 70,000 people tried to cross into Europe.

Many of those people would like to end up in the UK. This is not just a British problem, it is a growing global problem. Even Denmark is starting to send illegal migrants to other countries as a deterrent. Exactly like the Rwanda scheme we put in place. And labour scrapped. We now hear that the Home Secretary is thinking about reviving a Rwanda Starsky. So can the Prime Minister tell me yes or no? Is that the plan? Next, he must keep British people safe from dangerous criminals.

It was interesting to hear his comments in the statement about early release. Before the summer, I sat with women who had experienced some of the most horrific crimes imaginable, and the perpetrators of those crimes were about to be let out of prison early. The Prime Minister told those women that it was too difficult to keep their perpetrators in jail. Then he changed his mind. The family of PC Andrew Harper appealed to the Prime Minister not to release his killers early, and again he told them it was a non-starter.

Then he changed his mind. The Conservatives told the government to create new spaces on the existing prison estate and to get foreign born criminals out of our jails. The government said we were wrong. Now they're doing both. He has had Mr Speaker. He has had five different positions on early release in six weeks, putting the victims through hell with his own decision. So will he now set out a timeline for his promise to get more foreign national prisoners out of British prisons, as well as keeping the country safe.

His next big challenge will be making people in this country feel richer. The biggest mistake Labour have made in office so far, and there have been quite a few to choose from, is that they crushed our economy under the weight of nearly £70 billion in new taxes. Mr. speaker, the Prime Minister wasn't here, so I will give him the list. The jobs tax, the family farms tax, the family business tax, taxes on pensioners, taxes on workers, taxes on businesses 3500 pounds a year for every working family.

He says he cares about the cost of living. Labour's taxes have made that worse. Those taxes, Mr. Speaker, have cost people their jobs, thousands of jobs in oil and gas, thousands of jobs in industry across our country. The recruitment market for new graduates is the worst it has ever been. There are 50% fewer vacancies than last year, which was already the worst on record. If he does not change course, he too, like every other Labour Prime Minister, will leave office with unemployment higher than when he came in.

So can he guarantee here and now on the floor of the House, that there will be no more tax rises in the autumn Budget? Mr. speaker, the year is 2026. The year is 2026. Yet the Prime Minister said in his statement that everything has gone wrong since the 1980s, still complaining about Margaret Thatcher. I am 46, Mr. Speaker. I'm 46 years old. I may not look it, but I'm 46 years old. He is talking about a woman who became Prime Minister before I was born.

He is living in the past, and he wants to take us back to the 1970s. On this side of the House, we are for the future. We are for the future, Mr. Speaker, not the past. That is the difference between them and us. His ideas are all about more government control, more spending, more tax, more politicians. Conservatives want people to keep more of their own money. We want businesses to grow, to invest, to expand and to create more jobs. That is the difference between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party.

His diagnosis is completely wrong. His theory of growth is completely wrong. He thinks that if government spends more money, we will all get richer. That is not how this works. Companies are not leaving our shores because there isn't enough government. Another difference between us, Mr. Speaker, is dealing with the ballooning welfare bill up and down this country. Hard working people are fed up with going to work, fed up of paying for their neighbours to sit at home with mild health conditions which don't stop them from working.

They are fed up of hearing, as we did this summer, that working in boots is not good for your mental health. Ridiculous. We are on the side of those hard working, fed up people, Mr. speaker, we are on their side. So I ask him, will he stand up to his backbenchers in a way that his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

predecessor never could, and cut the benefits Bill? Yes. It is a simple question, Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a simple question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister engineered it so he could have as long a summer holiday as possible, long a summer holiday as possible, so he should be ready with some answers. Mr. speaker, I'm even hearing rumours. I'm even hearing hearing rumours. I'm even hearing rumours that he doesn't want to do PMQs next week. But it is my job to PMQs next week. But it is my job to ask him serious questions, and it is time for him to start answering.

I know they don't like hearing the questions, Mr. Speaker, but they're going to hear them. It is my job to speak on behalf of all of those people out there who want to know what he has planned. That is time for him to start answering some serious questions. Governing is hard, but the country needs him to succeed where it is in the national interest. I will help him and he may find conservative votes come in handy when Labour MPs are too scared to do the right thing.

Britain faces many serious challenges to our national security and to our economic security. There are difficult decisions to make and they will show whether the Prime Minister is serious about governing. On defence, his own Chancellor said 3% was needed to keep British troops safe. Now, apparently he doesn't believe this. On illegal migration, Labour scrapped Rwanda. Now they appear to be considering a Rwanda style scheme of their own on prisons. He said dangerous criminals could not be exempted from early release. Then he changed his mind.

This country cannot afford a government swerving all over the place. Labour have already tried government by U-turn. It doesn't work if he wants to be different from his predecessor, if he wants to live up to the optimistic vision he is painting, he's going to have to start taking this job seriously. That is not that is not what we heard from the Prime Minister today. But that is what the Conservatives are offering.
16:09
Andy Burnham Portrait Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )
-
-
They the. >> Prime Minister. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I thank the hon. Lady Speaker. Can I thank the hon. Lady for the welcome that she gave me and to her kind words, and can I appreciate the tone of some of what she she had to say there, and I do want to try and work with her across the floor of this house where we can. She mentions my summer, Mr. speaker. I notice she spent hers travelling all the way to Rome, to be told by the Italian Prime Minister not to do a deal with reform.

Well, if she'd have called me, I would have told her that and saved her the. The trip, that and saved her the. The trip, Mr. Speaker. She was right. She was right to start on Ukraine, as I did. And I did mention the work of previous prime Ministers in setting the right tone. Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak everybody played a role in setting that tone, and it has been carried on by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras and it is a very challenging situation, but I was there to send a very clear message that with a change of Prime Minister, that does not come any change, Mr.

Speaker, in Britain's approach, and I hope I speak for the vast majority of members of this House in making that completely plain, she said that the job of Prime Minister is different to the job of mayor of Greater Manchester, and I can vouch that I know that now, Mr. speaker, after six weeks in the role. She was wrong to say, though, that in that role I didn't have to worry about national security. I did have to worry about national security.

Within two weeks of taking office, I had to deal with the appalling terrorist attack at the Manchester Arena, and I send all my best wishes to those who gathered last night at the Heaton Park Synagogue. Mr. speaker, remembering our friends who lost their lives, the incredible efforts of Rabbi Daniel Walker and others to hold the attackers at the door and we all send them our very best wishes and reaffirm again, hopefully from all sides of the House, that anti-Semitism is a scourge, that we should work together to remove from our society.

She mentions defence, Mr. Speaker, and she again is right to, because this is a changing and challenging world in which we live. But can I say to her very, very directly, I appointed this Chancellor of the Exchequer precisely because of his commitment to the defence of our realm and the arguments he has made, and he will set out at the. He will set out at the spending review, the path to honouring our international commitments in full, as I said we would.

When I was before the steps of Downing Street. Mr. speaker, I think those listening at home will find it hard to accept what the right hon. Lady said about the boat crossings that are significantly down halved on last year, had nothing to do with anything this government has done. That is plainly not the case. I heard an opposition spokesperson on on the the radio this morning trying to find any any excuse to justify it, the weather and all kinds of things.

Can they not just accept that the action that we're taking is making a progress? The cooperation with the French that I that I mentioned, and yes, we will continue to look at all measures. The Home Secretary and I, we will be relentless in making sure we continue to make progress, but it would, I think, do the party opposite well to recognise that significant progress has indeed been made on the early release of prisoners. I don't think there is any moral high ground here for any party in this House.

The Justice Secretary will make a statement and lay out the timeline for foreign national offenders to be returned after after mine, and I hope we can work together on that. Question of IPP sentences, because, Mr. Speaker, too often issues in this House just get left. I left ten years ago worried about this issue, and I come back to find it's not resolved. Social care was something I spoke about a lot when I left. I come back, it's not resolved. We have to do better, don't we? We have to find more ways of working across this house and not just leave issues unresolved and all the harm that that causes on growth.

Mr. speaker, I cut tax twice in my first week, and I can say to the hon. Lady that I am committed to bringing down the welfare bill, but there's a way of doing that isn't about crude cuts, but is about providing the right support for people, particularly young people, whom, in my view, the education system has has let has let down. She mentions the 1980s. I have to say to her, that is the legacy that we are still struggling to reverse.

It's the reason why. Well, let's have this argument in this House. Why? Why are people paying such high water bills and the infrastructure is crumbling before our eyes? Why are energy bills in this country the highest in Europe? Why do members opposite represent constituencies where bus services year after year have been cut and the fares have gone up, and they know the truth of what I'm saying? Mr. Mr. speaker, let's have some honesty so that we can deal with these issues properly.

And, Mr. Speaker, if I conclude by saying, you know, she raises an ideological point, I noticed yesterday she appointed a new shadow Cabinet, the new shadow Chancellor. I welcome him to his position to, I believe, the author of the mini Budget I. I think at least half of the the Shadow Cabinet supported the Liz Truss government, the hon. Lady said the fact that I had been in my position for 43 days. Well, can I turn that around and say.

And that means in six days this government will have outlived the Truss government and will be here for a lot, a lot, lot longer. So, Mr. Speaker, I will work with the right hon. Lady where we can, and we should make that commitment to each other today. But I will still point out where she's wrong. We are not in a position, Mr. Speaker, to take to take lectures where this country is moving in the right direction. You can see that on the economy.

You can see that on small boat crossings. You can see that on the cost of living. And that is what we will continue to do to turn this country around.
16:17
16:18
16:19
Ed Davey Portrait Rt Hon Ed Davey MP (Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Ed Davey. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, and advance sight of his statement, and can I welcome him to his place, and can I associate myself with the condolences he has sent to the family and friends of the police officers killed on the A66 and his comments on the disaster on the Nepal-china border? Mr. speaker, I wished each of his predecessors well, but given how that went for them, perhaps he prefer I didn't bother this time, but I do sincerely hope the Prime Minister can turn things around and quickly, because we all know how fed up people are.

We hear it all the time. Every year it gets harder to make ends meet. The waiting lists seem to go up more and more. Things just seem broken, and we know the populists and extremists are eager to keep things that way so they can profit from it. But everything the Prime Minister has just described in his statement would only be possible if we fundamentally change the way we do politics in our country, growing the economy, cutting the cost of living, fixing our public services, restoring people's trust.

These are things every new Prime Minister has talked about, but they fail because they stuck to a broken political system, a system that makes it impossible to really change things for the better. And the reason so much is broken in our country and never gets fixed, is partly that our political system concentrates too much power in the wrong hands, in Westminster, in Whitehall, in big multinational companies. And I think he gets some of that, judging by what he's been saying.

But there are so many more problems in our political system. Too much power in the hands of social media Barons who interfere in our politics, crypto billionaires who use donations to buy influence and too little power in the hands of our people. Britain's political system too often rewards corruption and leaves everyone else feeling powerless. Our great country, Mr. Speaker, is being held back and it will only be free to thrive again if we put real power in people's hands. We've been campaigning on this for decades.

The Prime Minister himself has written about it, and his decision over the summer to finally start cross-party talks on social care talks I've been desperate to start for years in which conservative Labour Prime Minister promised but failed to deliver. That is a welcome step in the right direction, but there is a lot more work to do and more fundamental changes needed to make our politics work for the people we serve. So will the Prime Minister start that work today? And listening to the calls of over 170 members on these benches and on his own launch, a national commission to change politics so we can fix our country.
16:22
Andy Burnham Portrait Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )
-
-
Prime Minister. >> Well. >> Mr. Speaker, can I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his right hon. Gentleman for his contribution just now, and there is plenty there that I can agree with and work with him on. Too much power in the wrong hands. It's what I was saying to the right hon. Lady a moment or so ago. Can anyone in this House say that the water industry is sufficiently accountable to their constituents? Can anyone in can.

OK, Northern Ireland we will. Oh, Scotland. Sorry. My apologies, I know and Scotland, there are models elsewhere which we can follow. Mr. speaker, can anyone say with water in England that the money that is siphoned out in salaries and dividends is justifiable when the system can't provide a basic service to people? This summer, when sewage spills out onto our beaches, into our lakes, can anyone justify? I'm surprised that there isn't more recognition of that from the party opposite 40 years.

30 years, I should say, of privatisation has not left it in a in a good state, and changing some of these big things will require the different approach that the right hon. Gentleman is is calling for. I was pleased that he came on his holiday to those cross-party talks on social care. I can give him a commitment that I will keep them going up until the point where. Louise Casey reports. Next year with her options, and I hope even then we might be able to find a consensus option that we we take forward.

I do not want to leave this position, Mr. Speaker, without having put all of my political capital into solving this issue. I couldn't defend it as Health Secretary 16 years ago, that we were leaving people to lose everything that they'd worked for, but often only getting in return care that was substandard and not not good enough. And I know it from my own family experience that this can't carry on any longer. Nor can it be defended that people caring for other people's parents are on poverty, pay, and yet still giving them everything of themselves to those roles.

We owe it to millions out there to fix this. And this is a test for this Parliament. What remains of it? To see if we can do that. And I will work with the hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Gentleman to do that. On his suggestion of a National Commission, I. There is a democracy task force working out of the Cabinet Office, and I could certainly involve him in the work that that is doing. I am interested in political reform. Mr. speaker, I am interested in looking at how we restore trust in politics.

I am prepared to look at all of those issues alongside the voting system to. I think he he knows that. I believe that this Parliament does need to be a circuit breaker for this country. I do not believe we can carry on as we are. We are losing the trust and faith of the public. We need to act together to turn it around, and I look forward to working with him precisely on that theme.
16:25
16:26
16:27
16:28
16:29
16:29
16:30
16:31
16:32
16:33
16:33
16:34
16:35
16:36
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
16:48
16:48
16:49
16:50
16:50
16:51
16:52
16:52
16:53
16:54
16:55
16:56
16:57
16:59
17:00
17:00
17:02
17:02
17:03
17:04
17:05
17:06
17:06
17:07
17:08
17:09
17:10
17:10
17:11
17:12
17:13
17:14
17:15
17:15
17:16
17:16
17:18
17:19
17:19
17:20
17:21
17:21
17:22
17:23
17:24
17:25
17:26
17:27
17:28
17:29
17:30
17:31
17:32
17:33
17:34
17:35
17:35
17:36
17:37
17:38
17:39
17:40
17:40
17:41
17:41
17:42
17:42
17:43
17:44
17:45
17:45
17:46
17:46
17:47
17:48
17:49
17:49
17:50
17:51
17:52
17:53
17:53
17:54
17:55
17:56
17:57
17:58
17:59
18:00
18:01
18:02
18:03
18:04
18:05
18:06
18:06
18:07
18:07
18:08
18:09
18:09
18:10
18:10
18:11
18:12
18:12
18:13
18:14
18:14
18:15
18:15
18:16
18:17
18:18
18:18
18:20
18:20
18:21
18:22
18:22
18:23
18:23
18:24
18:24
18:25
18:26
18:27
18:27
Andy Burnham Portrait Rt Hon Andy Burnham, The Prime Minister (Makerfield, Labour )
-
-
In number ten North on this matter. And I can say is that I welcome the opportunity. I hope welcome the opportunity. I hope they'll engage in that with a very open mind.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

open mind. Well, it's a very real offer, and I'm glad that it finds favour and I'm glad that it finds favour with my hon. Friend, because we work together over a number a number of years. I do think, and I heard some groans from the other side when I mentioned overnight visitor levy. But if that was a power given to Cornwall and bear in mind many of us will have been on summer holidays when we spend a few euros extra to recognise the benefit we get from using services in a local area.

If that was extended as part of a devolution deal, I think it could be quite transformational for Cornwall because it can open up a new revenue stream that can start to address that infrastructure. Now that would be a choice for Cornwall, but I do want to consider a devolution deal that gives real levers that can help Cornwall and other rural areas start to improve their services. It might provide the revenue to sustain bus services, for instance. It's about fairness. I don't think residents.

We heard about the unfairness of council tax. It can't be right to make the residents pay for all of the services when visitors should make a fair contribution as well. We pay it elsewhere as British tourists. I don't see why visitors to Cornwall shouldn't pay a little extra, but that's the type of discussion we need to have. So it's not a fluffy discussion. It's a real discussion about what can be done to move Cornwall forward, and I Rural areas across England.
18:29
18:30
18:30
18:31
18:31
18:32
18:32
18:33
18:33
18:33
18:34
18:34
18:34
18:35
18:35
18:36
18:36
18:36
18:37
18:37
18:37
18:37
18:38
18:38
18:39
18:39
18:40
18:40
18:41
18:41
18:42
18:42
18:43
18:44
18:44
18:44
18:45
18:45
18:46
18:46
18:47
18:48
18:48
18:48
18:49
18:49
18:50
18:51
18:52
18:52
18:53
18:53
18:54
18:54
18:55
18:56
18:56
18:57
18:57
18:58
18:58
18:58
18:59
18:59
18:59
19:00
19:00
19:01
19:02
19:02
Alex Norris Portrait Rt Hon Alex Norris MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Nottingham North and Kimberley, Labour )
-
-
Act. When this Labour government took office, we inherited a crisis in our prisons regularly at 99% capacity, with fewer than 100 places available at one stage. One places available at one stage. One bad day away from running out of space. Courts forced to suspend trials, police unable to make arrests. Nowhere to put dangerous criminals. A total breakdown of law and order with victims bearing the and order with victims bearing the brunt. My predecessors have acted swiftly to stabilise our prisons, committing to the most ambitious prison building programme since the Victorians pledging 14,000 new prison places by 2031, with 3200 already delivered compared to the record of the party opposite, who added just 500 net places in 14 years.

We've also deported nearly 12,000 foreign national offenders, but we had to ensure that we never returned to the shambolic emergency releases carried out with little scrutiny or warning by the previous government. So we passed the Sentencing Act, which introduced the earned progression model, where offenders on standard determinate sentences spend at least a third of their sentence behind bars and longer if they behave badly, with more serious offences requiring serving at least half and with no upper limit for time spent inside for bad behaviour.

But released from prison is not the end of the story. We've overseen the largest ever expansion of tagging and working closely with police. We are giving probation access to the largest and toughest range of measures to manage offenders. Every single offender leaving prison can now be tagged and strict licence conditions can include curfews, bans from pubs, clubs, even football matches, exclusion zones where criminals cannot go, and for the most serious sexual and violent offenders, we are introducing world first restriction zones, confining them to specific areas, sometimes a few miles wide, curtailing their liberty to give victims more freedom.

And if conditions are breached, offenders can be recalled to prison. This clearly asks more of our brilliant probation service. So we're also investing £700 million more on probation and community services by 2829, hiring a further 1300 trainee probation officers, on top of the 2300 recruited in the past two years. But let me be clear about who this model applies to. The most dangerous offenders locked up for serious violent and sexual offences, and on life goes on. Life sentences were never eligible, but the Prime Minister and I were determined to look again.

So we move quickly to exclude rape offences and many serious child sex offences and grooming offences. And we've gone further still now. Excluding all unlawful killing offences, death by dangerous or drunk driving, causing or allowing the death of a child and of course, manslaughter, as well as indecent assault which has been used to prosecute historic child sex abuse. This means hundreds more dangerous criminals staying behind bars for longer, including those who killed PC Andrew Harper in the line of duty. This is the right thing to do, and I pay tribute to his wife, Lizzie and mother Debbie, who campaigned for this.

We would like to have gone further, but due to the lack of investment of the previous government's 14 years, we are unable to do so. I want to reassure the House that victim, the victims and the Victim Contact Scheme are being kept informed by dedicated victim liaison officers and we are rightly giving victims the opportunity to have their say on licence conditions for offenders in their case, and I've instructed my officials to attempt to trace all affected victims for whom we do not have the details.

And on top of this, we are boosting victim support with an £18.9 million funding package, including a dedicated free helpline offering emotional support for anyone affected and specialist support for victims of violence against women and girls. And I've asked the prisons Minister to work with victims groups to shape our response, because victims must come first. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister and I have pushed the system to its limits, and at the same time, my duty is to ensure that we always have the space to lock up offenders.

So today I can announce a fast track plan to create more headroom in our prison system by bringing forward more than £110 million worth of funding, we have identified where we can accelerate the delivery of more places, including converting space within prisons into cells, and we're pushing to deliver current building plans faster and will also invest in new land for prisons, building a credible pipeline of new sites to enable more prison building. Because my top priority is to build a long term, sustainable future for our prison estate, and we are also freeing up space in the shorter term.

There are thousands of foreign national offenders in our prisons at vast expense to taxpayers. We've increased removals by 41% compared to the last two years of the previous Tory government, and we've changed the law to expand the early removal scheme, and now we will go further. Next year, we will begin removing foreign national offenders, serving determinate sentences immediately after sentencing. But I want to reassure the House that the most dangerous, such as those already excluded from Sentencing Act changes, will be still required to serve prison time before being deported.

I want to be clear that all removed offenders will be barred from returning to the UK for life, because deportation is at the anchor of that punishment. If you break our laws, if you abuse Britain's hospitality, we will permanently remove you. We will also act on a long standing injustice. More than 2000 people are still trapped by the indeterminate Imprisonment for Public protection or IPP sentence. They were abolished rightly a decade ago, but offenders are still locked up for far longer than envisaged, often for crimes which have sentenced today would have seen them spend much less time in jail.

Of those who've never been released, 99% are beyond the tariff imposed by the court, and 80% have served ten years or more beyond it, and tragically, with no end of their sentence in sight, some IP prisoners have taken their own lives. Concerns about IPS have been raised across the political spectrum, including by former Justice Secretary Alex Chalk, who called them a stain on our justice system. The number of IPP offenders has been reducing, but the Prime Minister and I want to go further.

We will soon bring forward legislation to end the sentence once and for all by the end of this Parliament. These are complex cases, and some of these offenders have committed serious crimes. Public safety will be always my top priority and we must balance that with the with the fairness that I talk about with these sentences, it will take time to get this right. But the work will begin immediately, and I offer to all parties and none in this place to do so on a cross-party basis.

I will listen to experts inside and outside this House, including the former Justice secretary Robert Buckland, and former Home secretary David Blunkett, committed advocates of IPP reform, who I thank for agreeing to work with me. In the meantime, we will do everything within the existing framework to support those in prison to move towards a safe and sustainable release. I also intend to look at how we improve outcomes for offenders with complex needs. Women in prison often have high levels of trauma, abuse, mental ill health and addiction.

Many are mothers, and their children can be affected profoundly by them being in prison. So I want to reduce the number of women in custody where it's safe to do so, alongside a cross-government agenda to address the drivers of women's offending for youth offenders, I'm announcing £4.5 million of investment for robust community alternatives to locking children up in expensive, ineffective and unsuitable prisons, and to help solve the crisis in adult prisons, I've decided to temporarily hold some 18 year olds in our youth estate for longer.

Madam Deputy Speaker, my job is to balance the sustainability of our prisons with public protection, the rights of victims and public confidence in the justice system. The decisions that the Prime government inherited a system on the brink of failure. I am clear that there must always be space for dangerous offenders, because protecting the public means fixing prisons for good. Otherwise it is the victims who are let down and we will never let that happen. This government will run towards problems, including the tough decisions needed to build a justice system that is firm, fair and protects the public.

Those items, those aims, will guide me as I tackle its challenges, reform it for a sustainable future and ensure it commands the confidence of the British public. I commend this statement to the House.
19:10
Nick Timothy Portrait Nick Timothy MP (West Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
Nick. Timothy. >> Nick. Timothy. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I welcome the Justice Secretary to his place. This is the government's fifth early release policy in just six weeks since the Prime Minister took office. At every stage, we were told Ministers had no choice but to include dangerous criminals, because the alternative would be the collapse of the entire system. Now the plan is to stop one group of dangerous criminals leaving prison early by letting a different group of dangerous criminals out.

Instead, the Justice Secretary and Prime Minister have justified the plan to release IPP prisoners as a matter of principle. But it's no such thing. It's a packet policy written to get them out of this crisis. Last year, a justice Minister rejected it, saying it would put the public at risk. 1415 prisoners IPP prisoners had to be recalled to prison after release. The parole board says the rest 856 prisoners are too dangerous to be freed. And despite the new exclusions, many violent criminals will still be released after one third of their sentence.

This includes domestic abusers and some paedophiles, the justice secretary says if a domestic abuser breaches the terms of their release, tagging means probation and the police will be alerted. And he said this morning these are really good systems. But most breaches result in no action at all. In fact, the Justice Secretary said this morning that early release is now quotes business as usual and will go on for years to come. So with that in mind, the Sentencing Act provides no end date to SDS 33.

So is this a permanent provision? If not, for how long does he think it should last? Can he rule out letting prisoners out even early with the use of home detention, curfews even earlier, with home detention, curfews, will he publish detailed capacity projections and all relevant data? Will he give us a timeline and a target for his promise to get more foreign national prisoners out of the country? What is his plan to overcome barriers to deportation caused by the EC and in particular, unqualified rights like articles two and three, how many cells will be established within the existing estate by the end of 2026, 27 and 28? Will he release every IPP prisoner by the end of the Parliament? As suggested in the MoJ statement on Sunday? Will prisoners who would have received a life sentence had IPP sentences not existed remained locked up? Will the Justice Secretary rule out watering down the criteria used by the Parole Board to assess IPP prisoners? And can he confirm the changes to early release will come through secondary legislation presenting MPs with a false binary choice and no mandate to, and no chance to amend their plan? Madam Deputy Speaker, we have more than 700 fewer prison cells than last year.

1600 fewer prison officers since the election, and no new prisons have been planned or approved by this government since the election, there are more than 4000 operational available places and 4000 more that are certified but out of use because of rules and regulations, officer shortages and in the case of Dartmoor prison levels of radon gas that local residents live with every day. Madam Deputy Speaker describing the early release of criminals, a dangerous and irresponsible policy as business as unusual is an insult, not just to victims.

It's a dereliction of duty. Thank you,
19:14
Alex Norris Portrait Rt Hon Alex Norris MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Nottingham North and Kimberley, Labour )
-
-
Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the Shadow Secretary of State's kind words and welcoming. I don't know him well, but I know that he, know him well, but I know that he, like I, shares a love for this country and everything he does is seen through that prism, and my seen through that prism, and my commitment to him is to work with him. There will be times, perhaps even including today, where we need to disagree in the best traditions to disagree in the best traditions of this place.

But I know there will be a lot that brings us together over the months and years together over the months and years to come for both of us. I mean, first of all, on the point of plans and change plans, I make no apology, certainly not to the opposition, for being able to grab hold of a system that, when we left in July, was not going to exclude whether it was rape offences, child sex offences, and now those who've taken lives, that is that is good.

I do, I recognise and I would say to victims that I know that's created uncertainty and I do apologise to them, but I hope that they would understand that it was done with noble purpose. And now we must use the time available to make sure victims are getting the right support, particularly around shaping restrictions on their offenders if they do come out. But he mentions plans. The reality is if we followed his plan, we would have a prison system that was bust before Christmas.

Christmas. What would that mean for justice in this country? How could that how could that be right? And he he jumped on the point of business as usual. The point I'm trying to make here is this Parliament has changed legislation. So the Sentencing Act is the is the basis on which the basis on which a standard determinate sentences will be governed. And that will be the case for the foreseeable future. I mean, link link to that. Link to that. He talks about. He talks about how the the changes will come into force.

That will be via varying the commencement order. He talks about home detention, and I can say that I have no intention of going any further. You know, these the results, the work that we've put in as a result of the Sentencing Act, that is our way of managing the pressure in the system on capacity. And he asks for for clarity. Well, a little bit of clarity here. We should be clear that, you know, we've added 374 places in the adult male estate since the general election.

Now, that is nowhere near nowhere near where, where, where we want to get to as the end state. That's why our building programme has 14000 places in it. But I would hope that it is a point of shared interest in wanting to do more. Of course, things do come in and out of the estate, whether it's fire damage. You know, I wouldn't underestimate the importance of contamination either, but nevertheless, there will be of course, there will be significant places added in in this Parliament and in our programme to 2031.

He asks about data and the chance to scrutinise that. Well, he will know under the Sentencing Act that we are committed to publishing an annual report, and that's what we'll do, and I'm sure he and I will get into it at that point. I mean, on on foreign national offenders. I mean, I would if the hon. Gentleman has doubt, I would state my record to him and to the House. You know, we have increased by 41% the removal of foreign offenders in this country.

And I might gently say that was my role in the Home Office in doing so. So he should not doubt my vigor. There are changes. He mentions article three. He will know the important work done at the Council of Europe. My hon. Friend here has done a lot of important work in this space. Similarly, our work around article eight is also important. I hope he will support that when that's in front of Parliament too. So I don't think he should doubt our vigor. As I say, we're already doing well, better than his predecessors.

I sat next to him. He could talk to them about that. But indeed, I know we'll go further. But let me finish on this point, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I'm really interested to see how this does and doesn't hold, because I know the hon. Gentleman as a champion of individual liberty, I know the hon. Gentleman is a sceptic of what he thinks is uneven justice. Now he. If I'm able to make this acknowledgment, I hope he will at least reflect on it, that there is a real dissatisfaction that, as a result of the changes we have had to make, that some people will leave their leave prison earlier than their sentence dictated.

And there will be, in many cases, people who are still there ten years after. Now, there is no easy solution to that. All I ask of him is to engage in a resolution.
19:18
Diane Abbott Portrait Rt Hon Diane Abbott MP (Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Labour)
-
-
Mother of the House Diane Abbott. >> The members opposite seem. >> To need reminding that the early release programme was devised by a conservative government. We have been debating at great length in the media and amongst politicians about keeping people in prison for longer, and I do support what the government is, is government policy is on this issue. But I would remind the House that the only thing ultimately that makes people safer is to give more support to prison officers, including their salary, to put money into improving the prison estate.

Some of these prisons are Victorian buildings. And finally, to put the effort and the money into rehabilitation of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prisoners, not just keeping them in prison longer. Yeah. I'm grateful to the right hon. Lady, and I would agree Lady, and I would agree wholeheartedly with the with the value that she puts into the important work of our prison important work of our prison officers and our probation officers. I mean, she is exactly right. The thing that surely binds all of us is that we want to reduce reoffending. But we know that. And this is, you know, why? What is what I've presented to Parliament what I've presented to Parliament today is a is a measure to get us through a crisis.

We have to build a new criminal justice system. And that can be done from this Dispatch Box, but actually has to be done much more widely, including work with prison officers, our probation service, the police and our communities to reduce reoffending.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's what we all want to see. Yes. Liberal Democrat spokesperson Jess Brown thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. The Justice Secretary knows that the chaos and uncertainty on victims and their loved ones over the and their loved ones over the summer months, by the by, the handling of the scheme has been unforgivable. The government has changed course countless times, changed course countless times, leaving those like PC Andrew Harper's family and countless others without the certainty that others without the certainty that they deserve. Now, the reality that we all agree with is that in a properly functioning justice system, no victim or loved one should ever be told that their perpetrator is being released earlier than they were told when that sentence was handed down.

But if tough decisions have to be made, then they have to be made carefully, sensitively and preparedly with the safety of victims, loved ones and the public
19:21
Jess Brown-Fuller Portrait Jess Brown-Fuller MP (Chichester, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
front of mind. So how, therefore, will the Justice Secretary be communicating these? What I hope are final changes to those that are final changes to those that receive those generic letters, including those victims of grooming, gangs and sexual abuse earlier this gangs and sexual abuse earlier this year? And will those letters be tailored to each victim? He mentioned in his statement, those mentioned in his statement, those that are not on the victim contact scheme and an effort by the MoJ to contact them, can he please provide an assessment of how many victims he thinks that is, and how much resource he'll be giving to try and track down those victims? The reality for the new Justice Secretary is that his inheritance is now a public safety crisis.

If probation staff go ahead with strike action as threatened last month. Is the Justice Secretary confident that the system can safely manage the risks of releasing thousands of extra offenders? This has all the hallmarks of a national emergency waiting to happen. Yet where is the emergency response? Can he explain why the National Criminal Justice Board has not met all year, despite these changes being discussed last year as part of the Sentencing Act? And will he now convene Cobra to give the situation the gravitas that it deserves? The prison capacity crisis is one that this government inherited two years ago, but they now own the response.

And as highlighted by the CEO of the Howard League, we are one major incident away from a disaster. Prisons such as Wandsworth have been operating 62% above their intended built capacity as the new normal, creating dangerous conditions that undermine any effort to rehabilitate offenders. So what what can the Justice Secretary give in terms of confidence that he can deliver this increase in capacity on time, given

**** Possible New Speaker ****

past failings, to do so and then adequately staff them? I'm very grateful for the Lib

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful for the Lib Dem spokesperson for for her contribution there. And I do accept, contribution there. And I do accept, as I hope she heard me say, I do accept that the impact of us taking the summer to try to carve more offences out of this regime in a way that's safe and means we have a way that's safe and means we have a resilient prison estate. And I that I appreciate that that has an impact on victims and survivors and on their families as they wait with uncertainty.

And I hope that that's not unforgivable in the sense that I hope that that it is understood that our aims for that were noble ones and have allowed us to go further, which I think is a good thing that all colleagues would share. But my mitigation of that and my attempt to seek to balance that is by what we do now. And that is my commitment from this Dispatch Box about the quality of engagement with with victims and survivors that everyone is being written to immediately to, to have a contact to send to them a trauma informed engagement, introducing a conversation that's going to come from a VLO specific to them, specific to the information about their offender's release date and whether it's changing, and then helping them tailor the controls on their perpetrator so they can live the fullest possible life on the points, on probation and capacity.

I would say, you know, and I pay tribute to my predecessor colleagues as Lord Chancellor, the work that's been done to recruit more staff, that is not at its end state, but nevertheless, that £700 million investment is starting to bear fruit. And I think that that gives us optimism for probation. But I am aware still the challenges that have met with staff and will continue to engage. Of course, we want to avert strike action, as she says, on the on the National the point that I made to to my right hon.

Friend, I want to I want to reinvigorate that as a place that takes real ownership of a reform of our criminal justice system, which I think all of us would accept is not delivering. We're paying a lot for failure as well. And that's what I intend to do with that. I haven't had very long. I hope she would expect accept, but I certainly look forward to meeting with them. On the point of convening Cobra, I have to say that that is not in in my gift.

That's in the Prime Minister's. But what I would say is that the changes that we've made are exactly to avert that scenario where we get to a crisis. So I'm you know, I'm conscious in the spirit in which she says about some of the pressures that we have put on over the summer, they have been for good aims, but now we need to this.
19:25
19:26
19:27
19:28
19:28
19:29
19:30
19:30
19:30
19:31
19:31
19:32
19:32
19:33
19:33
19:34
19:34
19:35
19:35
19:36
19:36
19:37
19:37
19:38
19:38
19:38
19:39
19:39
19:40
19:40
19:41
19:41
19:41
19:42
19:43
19:44
19:44
19:44
19:45
19:46
19:46
19:47
19:48
19:48
19:49
19:49
19:49
19:50
19:51
19:51
19:52
19:52
19:53
19:53
19:54
19:54
19:54
19:55
19:55
19:56
19:56
19:57
19:57
19:58
19:58
19:59
20:00
20:01
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. With your permission, I will make a statement about the fatal crash near about the fatal crash near Middlesbrough on the 22nd of August and the death of two brave police officers that day, police Constable Matthew Blades and Police Constable Tom Clough. It is the most humbling duty of any Home Secretary to oversee the work of our police forces and the thousands who serve in them. That is never more true than on a day like today, when we honour those who have fallen in the line of duty, those who lost their lives as they sought to protect us all the detail of what happened will by now be well known to most in this House and beyond it.

But it is right to begin by recounting the facts. At 339 on the morning of Saturday, the 22nd of August, a Volkswagen Passat containing five young men was travelling the wrong way down the A66. As it did so, it collided with a marked Cleveland Police armed response vehicle. This police car was, I should add, travelling on the correct side of the road, a significant emergency response was deployed and I must pay tribute to all the first responders who attended the scene and worked in extremely difficult circumstances.

Despite their best efforts, PC blades and PC Clough both died as a result of the collision, as did the five individuals who were driving on the wrong side of the road. Madam Deputy Speaker, following such an incident, it is mandatory that a referral is made to the Independent Office for Police Conduct and that has happened in this case and the Iopc has begun an independent investigation. On the 23rd of August, they issued an update, which I will now summarize. Prior to the crash, Cleveland Police received intelligence regarding numerous incidents linked to a Volkswagen Passat.

The Passat was later sighted and an armed response vehicle began a pursuit. The pursuit lasted just under seven minutes before the Passat crossed over to the wrong side of the A66. At that point, the pursuit was aborted by officers who continued to travel on the correct side of the carriageway. However, around 10s later, the Passat collided with a police vehicle which was not involved in the pursuit but was in the area to assist in the search. That car contained police constables, blade and blades and cough.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this is an ongoing investigation, so we must heed the request of those best placed to examine the circumstances of this awful incident by avoiding speculation and giving them the time and space they need to carry out their vital work. Significant police activity has followed the crash. Some 27 arrests have been made as part of a wide scale investigation into suspected serious and organised crime. There are limits on what can be said publicly at this stage, but both the Iopc and Cleveland Police have my full backing in their respective tasks.

Members may be aware that Cleveland Police has also been investigating a house fire in Grangetown, in which two people died, including, tragically, a child. It should be noted that the force is not treating this as connected in any way to the A66 crash. However, it has undoubtedly added to the sense of disquiet in a community already reeling from that earlier tragedy. Many in this House and across the country will also have been troubled by the scenes in County Durham, where a number of vehicles were set on fire.

At a memorial for one of the occupants of the Passat. I recognise how unnerving it will have been for law abiding citizens, both in the affected areas and beyond, to see a spate of incidents in close proximity and in quick succession. Let me therefore assert once more lawlessness of any kind will never be tolerated, and this government stands squarely behind the police as they face down criminality and disorder on our streets. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government is supporting the police in word and deed.

Cleveland Police, like all forces, is receiving a real terms uplift this year, taking its total funding to £197.8 million, an increase of £7 million compared to 2020 526. Clearly, the events of recent days have placed exceptional pressure on Cleveland police, and I can confirm today that the force has received additional resource under mutual aid arrangements, which has seen officers deployed to Cleveland from around the region. I would like to thank those forces and personnel who have stepped up and taken on this additional work.

I can also announce today that in light of the situation the force has faced, we will allocate an additional £2 million to Cleveland Police to tackle serious crime in the area. This will build on existing operations, including the clear hold build approach, which is both tough on serious crime and on the causes of serious crime, and has been shown to work across the country. In addition, as I have said before, we are committed to a wider review of the police funding formula to ensure force funding is fair and keeps the public safe.

A new approach to allocating funding will be brought in as part of our reforms to police structures. In the meantime, the government will continue to work closely with Cleveland Police to ensure that they have all the support they need as they face these challenging circumstances, and grieve the loss of two of their own. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me end by paying tribute to those two men. PC blades and PC Clough devoted their lives to the noblest form of public service, protecting their fellow citizens.

In remembering them. We hold in our hearts those they leave behind and above all, their family and all those who love them. I think also of their colleagues in uniform, not just in Cleveland, but across policing, who have lost friends and colleagues and fellow members of the policing family. Madam Deputy Speaker, this tragedy speaks to an enduring truth. Policing is not just a profession, it is a calling answered only by those who are willing to place themselves in harm's way to protect us all.

PC, blades and PC Clough epitomise that courage. At 37 and 38, they were no age at all. But in their all too brief lives, they gave so much. An extraordinary number of tributes have poured in, but I think we must leave the final words to their families who knew them best and loved them most. PC blades wife remembers a beloved husband and the most devoted father to their two young boys. She said, and I quote, he was loved beyond words by all his family and friends, and his loss has left a space that can never be filled.

He gave his life in the line of duty, protecting and serving others with courage, dedication and selflessness. PC cloths family describe him as their hero. They remember his fantastic sense of humour and pay tribute to a man who jumped into action whenever needed and who was always on public duty. Throughout his all too short life. Madam Speaker, a death in the line of duty is a moment of profound national sorrow, but our public loss is a fraction of the private and personal tragedy for these two families.

So across this House, let us offer them our love, support and prayers. Let us never forget who those two brave men were and how much they meant to those who loved them for all they did and all they gave. PC blades and PC cloth were the very best of us, and today we remember them. And I commend this statement to the House.
20:08
Chris Philp Portrait Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)
-
-
I call the Shadow Secretary, Chris Philp. Chris Philp. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy. >> Speaker, and I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I know the whole House will join the Home Secretary and I in paying tribute to those brave officers tragically killed in the crash on the A66 in the early hours of August the 22nd. Our thoughts are with the families of PCs Matthew Blades and Tom Clough, whose lives were cut short by a car recklessly driven on the wrong side of the road by criminals.

Those brave officers made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty, and they will never be forgotten. Every day, police officers up and down the country risk their lives to keep us safe, and we owe them all a deep debt of gratitude. This tragedy has sent shockwaves through Cleveland Police and the public more widely. The Home Secretary has set out some of the steps being taken to support local police. But can she confirm that every request for extra assistance made by Cleveland police has now been met? In the aftermath of August 22nd, I was shocked to see so-called tributes staged for some of the men directly responsible for PC blades and cliffs deaths.

This included cars being driven dangerously and set on fire. Criminal activity of this kind is wrong in principle and deeply offensive in these circumstances. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning this activity and calling on the police to ensure it does not happen again? Madam Deputy Speaker, organized crime was allowed to take hold in whole parts of Middlesbrough. Criminal gangs ran rampant and engaged in retaliatory attacks on one another. Homes and properties were attacked with no consequence and it escalated even further in the days after August 22nd.

While it is welcome that 27 people have finally been arrested, this lawless gang chaos should never have been allowed to take root in the first place. And of course, the police need proper resources to stop this. Many campaigners, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, the shadow police Minister, who I can see in his place, have been raising concerns for some time that there is a multi-million pound shortfall in funding for Cleveland Police in this current financial year. Even the local Labour police and Crime Commissioner, Matt Storey, said this government's financial settlement this year, and I quote, completely fails to deliver the resources required to meet the demand faced by Cleveland police and falls far short of what is needed.

So does the Home Secretary accept her own police and crime commissioners assessment that the funding she put in place for Cleveland police this year is inadequate, lawless chaos follows that underfunding, and the Home Secretary should apologise for that. The £2 million just referred to is only 0.5% of Cleveland's Budget, and is clearly wholly inadequate in the circumstances. Now, I'm afraid this reflects a wider national trend that goes beyond just Cleveland, the last government left behind record ever police numbers.

But there are now 1800 fewer police officers under this government. As a result, crime has increased by 10% and ASB has gone up by 15% in just the last year. The Home Secretary must now accept that cutting overall police numbers was a mistake. And will she take steps to reverse that decline? The truth is that only zero tolerance of crime and disorder will ensure it's criminals who are the ones afraid, not the law abiding public. We have seen the consequence of that.

With the rampant gangs going unchallenged in Middlesbrough, and it's clear now that a zero tolerance approach is required to keep the public safe.
20:12
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, let me first start by saying that at the beginning of his statement, I appreciate the fact statement, I appreciate the fact that the shadow Home Secretary paid tribute and gave his condolences to the families of PC, blades and PC cloth on that. At least there is agreement across this House as to the enormity of their sacrifice and the need to support their family and their friends as they face this loss. Let me say to him, on the wider matters that he raises, he has absolutely no credibility.

Madam Deputy Speaker, when it comes to police numbers, it was his government that cut police numbers, not by a few thousand here and there, a few hundred, but by 20,000 police officers. They then decided to replace the 2000 that they cut, but did so in a distorted way. That meant that you have warranted police officers working in admin jobs and behind desks across police forces in this country. The truth is, the Tory government made an absolute mess of policing over their time in government.

And I've said this many times to the shadow Home Secretary, it falls on deaf ears, but it remains true, and I will keep saying it. You'd have more credibility entering this debate if he fronted up what went wrong under the Tory government and apologised for it. I notice he has got the shadow Justice Secretary sitting next to him. He was a special adviser to a former Tory Home Secretary. Until there is humility about the mess that the Tories made of our public services and our policing in particular, they have no credibility and I will take no lessons from them, especially given that on Cleveland specifically, it was his party who oversaw the loss of over 200 officers.

In Cleveland itself. It is this government that is writing those wrongs. We have increased funding to policing by £2 billion since being elected, and all forces will receive a real terms uplift in their funding this year, as part of an overall £18.5 billion package, funding to has increased by 18.3 million since 2024, and the terms increase of 4.4% over two years. So that is the truth of what we have had to deal with as an incoming Labour government, and we will not stop until we have our police service functioning exactly as the public would expect.

Let me also say to him, on the issue of criminal gangs and the efforts made by Cleveland police, I don't think it's a fair characterization of that police force to suggest that they've done nothing for all this time, and have only sprung into action since this horrifying incident took place. There are, of course, responding to this incident, and those arrests have been made, and they will continue, and this government will stand shoulder to shoulder with them as they get control of this matter and control of the streets in Cleveland.

That is why we've announced the additional funding today. That is why there are mutual aid arrangements in place to assist them as well. Let me tell him that I do agree with him on the unlawful activity that has been taking place in relation to tributes and memorials for some of those who lost their lives on in the crash. I, of course, condemn all unlawful activity and all attempts to breed public disorder as a result of what's happened. And again, we stand foursquare behind the police as they respond to those incidents.

And people should be in no doubt any attempts at instigating public order, breaking our laws will meet the full force of the law, and the government will support the police as they carry out that incredibly important work. Madam Deputy Speaker, there will be questions about the ability of the police to respond effectively and to make sure that we are able to give confidence to all of our public about the sort of standard of service that they can expect from their policing.

But people in this House should have absolutely no doubt this is a government that has increased funding to policing, is going to make sure that we reform policing, so that they are capable of dealing with every type of challenge that a modern force faces, and to have a police service that we can all be absolutely proud of and can rely on in our time of need. And I hope that that is something that all members acting reasonably across this House can unite around.
20:17
Andy McDonald Portrait Andy McDonald MP (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, Labour)
-
-
Yes. >> Andy McDonald. >> Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. paying. >> Tribute to. >> PC Matthew Blades.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

PC Matthew Blades. And PC Tom Cliff, and I also pay tribute to all the officers of tribute to all the officers of Cleveland Police who, while grieving the loss of their two colleagues who continued to serve with extraordinary professionalism, remaining visible in our communities, pursuing offenders and making arrests. My thoughts and those of my Middlesbrough, Thornaby East constituents and everyone across Teesside remain with the families of the officers, their friends and colleagues, as has been magnificently demonstrated by the overwhelming generosity shown in donations to the fund established to support the families of Matthew and Tom, and at the outpouring of love and solidarity that the Riverside Stadium on Saturday, which reflects the decency of the overwhelming majority of people in our communities.

But we must confront the reality of crime. Honestly. The latest figures show around 123 recorded crimes per 1000 people across the Cleveland Police Force area, the highest rate of any police force in England and Wales. Yet the Cleveland has experienced the largest percentage reduction in full time equivalent officers since 2010, losing around 13% of its officers. Police numbers are not the only factor, but a force facing the highest demand in the country needs the resources to respond. I am truly grateful to my right hon.

Friend for the financial assistance she's announced for Cleveland today, and that will address the mutual aid bill and some. But I ask that she meet with me and my colleagues to discuss how that deficit in resources can be urgently and permanently corrected.
20:19
20:20
Max Wilkinson Portrait Max Wilkinson MP (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Max Wilkinson. Max Wilkinson. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to join others in extending my sympathies and those of my party my sympathies and those of my party to the families and colleagues of PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough. My thoughts are with their loved ones at this extremely difficult time. By virtue of my in-laws. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm from a policing family, so I know the shock and grief is being felt in the wider policing community too.

And that should be acknowledged today in the chamber. At least one of those killed in the Middlesbrough crash is in multiple videos posted on TikTok depicting dangerous driving. This is part of a wider trend on social media platforms, where lives are being risked in the pursuit of clicks, and we must ask who is benefiting from this? Well, it's some of the world's richest people. They're getting richer off the back of these platforms, which are currently under-regulated, while communities suffer the consequences.

Can the Home Secretary explain why, despite her government's intention to force platforms to remove dangerous content that leads to dangerous activities and deaths, such platforms still have no legal obligation to do so. Events in America, Madam Deputy Speaker, have shown that these companies can be brought to heel. So will the Home Secretary work with the Culture Secretary to strengthen the Online Safety Act, so that the glorification of dangerous driving is brought into scope? It is, of course, as others have said, deeply worrying to see the scenes of unrest that have followed this incident.

We know that there are national pressures on police resources. So can the Home Secretary tell the House how long mutual aid will continue? And can she say something about the support given to the other forces that are losing resource under mutual aid arrangements? And given the apparent links. Is she confident that her reforms will give police and the National Crime Agency the resources and powers they need to tackle the scourge of organised crime that impacts not only Middlesbrough, but so many communities across our country.
20:22
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Thanks. >> I thank the Lib Dem spokesman for his comments and questions. Let me assure him that we're already. I'm already discussing the wider issues on social media platforms and content that's posted on them with colleagues across government. He will know that this government has been implementing various elements of the Online Safety Act, and from the middle of next year, the wider measures within the Online Safety Act come online, and that will mean that the larger social media platforms, including TikTok, will be under a legal duty to act against harmful content that breaches their terms of service, and that will include content of this nature.

In the meantime, most of the platforms are taking this content down. It's a reactive process in the sense that they are responding to content being flagged, and then it has been, for the most part, been removed from their platforms. But from the middle of next year, that will become a duty upon those platforms to act proactively and not just reactively. But of course, I think, as I've said to him before, there are wider questions around the efficacy of the Online Safety Act and whether we need to revisit the measures in that act and go further, given the very unique pressures that some of those some of the content on those platforms pose for law and order and criminal justice more broadly.

And those are matters that the government is considering, and other colleagues in the government will come to the House to update in due course. But let me let me assure him I do work closely with colleagues on on the specifics that are being raised by, by, by this case. Let me also say to him on the on mutual aid that will continue as long as it's needed by the chief. Chief Constable in in in Cleveland. But I do think this case does show the need for wider police structure structural reform.

Cleveland is a relatively small force, and we can see the pressures on a small force that is having to do local neighbourhood policing, as well as the sorts of much more specialist investigations that go with organised crime and public order related issues. As I've made clear before, moving to a three tier system with local forces, regional forces and then also the new National Police Service, I think puts us in the best possible position to be able to provide a policing service that is able to respond to local issues in the way that local people expect, with a very visible local policing presence.

Give us the flexibility to respond to cases, as we've seen in Cleveland, across a larger area, where you've got the capacity and the numbers that you need in order to deal with public order risk, for example, without having to rely on mutual aid to get through and to survive day by day. And then a national police service that can then take up the the types of crime that we know are prevalent nationally, and then also have an international dimension as well. We will bring forward our proposals on reform later this year, and I look forward to debating those with him and others across this House.
20:25
20:25
20:27
20:28
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
I'm sorry. know the hon. Gentleman is also a local member, and he is taking the opportunity to ask a question from the backbenches to reflect his local interest. I just want to pay local interest. I just want to pay tribute to him as well for his response to to this incident and the wider pressures in his local area. Let me assure him that when we begin the work on reforming the funding formula, we will start with a first principles approach of what we are seeking to achieve, and that will include broader issues on demand for, for, for, for policing, and reflect the reality of what policing different areas looks like in the new police force structure.

Of course, a new regional force model that is big enough to be able to surge capacity to local areas when required, will give the flexibility to make sure that forces are not condemned to permanently relying on mutual aid, which is, you know, it's to the credit of the policing system that people step up and do what is required to keep their areas safe. But nobody could argue that that is the right way to run policing in our country in the 21st century.

It does need desperately does need reform. Most of the policing system leaders recognise that the structure needs reform, and funding reform will therefore flow as a result of that. I can assure him of that. And the first phase of consulting on funding reform will be on the first principles of what the funding is for and how to reflect the needs of different areas.
20:29
20:30
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
Well, let me thank my hon. Friend and also pay tribute to his Friend and also pay tribute to his work in providing reassurance to his local community. And I know it's particularly difficult when you have a personal connection to somebody who has lost their lives in these circumstances. And so I just want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he's doing in, in what are obviously very difficult circumstances for local representatives. And also, obviously, all all members of our emergency services in the area.

Let me just reassure him that the work that we are going to be doing on police funding is a very real part of the wider police reform programme, and I hope that when we discuss these matters, as I know we will when I meet local members of Parliament. For, for for the area, we're able to see how this fits in with the wider programme of police reform. As I say, this incident in a very horrifying way, does show why we need to reform policing structures so that we have the right level of policing in each of our areas, such that we can respond to everything from shop theft, anti-social behaviour on our high streets, make sure that we can deal with localised, organised and serious crime, and then also make sure that specialist investigation and public order are not things that are left to be looked after by mutual aid arrangements.

So the case for reform, I believe, is made out and as a necessary part of that reform, we will, of course, be looking at the funding formula, and I look forward to discussing that with him very soon.
20:32
20:33
Shabana Mahmood Portrait Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood KC MP, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Birmingham Ladywood, Labour)
-
-
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, and let me assure him that the usual arrangements on the engagement of the National Police Wellbeing Service have been activated and Service have been activated and support is being provided, and we will obviously monitor that to make sure that that is adequate and can rise to the challenge of what we are seeing in Cleveland. It's an incredibly important point because, you know, police officers are human beings at the end of the day, and they are still running towards danger, working very long hours, helping people in their local community.

But they do need support. And when you've lost two of your own in such terrible, terrible circumstances, the case for that support is more than made out. It is being provided, but the policing Minister will be making sure that she continues to talk to the Chief Constable and others to make sure that our officers are being supported and looked after. I absolutely agree with him on the need for fundamental change in the way that we do the funding formula for policing, but also that is tied to the fundamental change that we need on police force structures as well.

He will know Cleveland is a force of about 1500. Even before the cuts under the conservative government, it was around 1700 officers. That is very different to a force such as mine in the West Midlands, which is 6000 officers, or Greater Manchester, which is around 8000 officers. We have a system that is very lopsided in terms of police force sizes, but more importantly, the size of officers that you have in each of those forces. And that does limit what some of the smaller forces can sometimes do without needing mutual aid to support them.

So there is a case here for structural reform, but done in a way that makes sure that the public can have absolute

**** Possible New Speaker ****

confidence that their local Forces in future will be highly focused on local issues. Regional forces able to handle the specialist investigations and public order issues that we're seeing made out in a case like this, and then the National Police and then the National Police Service on top of that as well. And I look forward to discussing those issues with him as well as I know

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issues with him as well as I know we will, because he's a member of the Home Affairs Select. Jim Dickson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I thank the Home Secretary
20:35
20:36
20:37
20:38
Adam Jogee Portrait Adam Jogee MP (Newcastle-under-Lyme, Labour)
-
-
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's good to be back. I beg to move that leave be back. I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a bill that would require local authorities in England to prepare and publish a England to prepare and publish a road safety plan in respect of each school in their area and for connected purposes. The reasons behind my road safety plans Bill and my bringing it to the House this evening are due to the events of December 2025 in Madley Heath, in the northern part of my constituency.

A local dad was walking his daughter to Meadows Primary School, not far from their home, and on this fateful day was struck down by a reckless and speeding driver. That's what this bill is about today. Madam Deputy Speaker, we are here to demand action and to ensure that those responsible, in our case, Staffordshire County Council, gets on with actually doing something rather than more on occasion, warm weasel words about understanding the problems. Newcastle under Lyme is home to many brilliant schools, from Meadows Primary School to Saint Wolstan's and Wolstanton to Hassall Street Primary, where I was outside yesterday with Labour's candidate in the town by election scheduled for October the 8th.

Andrew Fox Hewitt, who went to that school back in the day. Madam Deputy Speaker, up to Churchfields and Chesterton, Saint Mary's on Silverdale Road and of course, Maybank infants, all excellent schools, all returning to school this week and all will be safer with the provisions of my bill became law. This is important, Madam Deputy Speaker, because no child, no parent, no carer, nobody in Newcastle or anywhere else in England should be at risk of injury, serious injury or indeed death when on the journey to school in the morning or from school in the afternoon.

And whilst we all agree that no one should be at risk of losing a loved one, or should be pushed to, or should be forced to push a child out of harm's way, or indeed be at risk themselves. We've seen far too many close calls in Newcastle-under-lyme, and since my election to this place, I've heard countless reports from local people back home of serious incidents on our roads. Whether that is the continued speeding on Hambridge Avenue that's seen near misses for humans and family, pets killed by reckless drivers, to concerns from a number of local people about speeding along Batsford Park Road and Silverdale Road, not to mention the disgraceful boy racers who wreak havoc up and down the A34 and in the car parks of neighbouring hotels, or indeed the junction at Bawsey Wood Road, where there was a recent fatality.

And, of course, the incident at Meadows Primary School back in December 2025. Dangerous driving boy racers and the associated impact are the very worst forms of anti-social behaviour. My constituents had enough of this anti-social behaviour, Madam Deputy Speaker and they want it sorted. Just a few days ago, I was copied into an email from a constituent of mine that was sent to Staffordshire County Council. I want to share a few of the sentences from that email with the House. The community and I quote, has established a community speedwatch group with volunteers dedicating their own time to conduct numerous monitoring sessions.

More than 10,000 vehicles have been observed. Police presence was recommended by the council as the primary and short term solution. However, it is not proved to be a readily available option. Nevertheless, as previously stated, police presence cannot be considered a suitable substitute for a permanent solution such as the provision of a pedestrian crossing. In light of the above, and I continue to quote Madam Deputy Speaker, we would be grateful for a clear update from Staffordshire County Council on the current position and in particular, whether any specific road safety measures have now been identified for the A525 A531 junction.

The local community remains committed to working constructively with Staffordshire County Council and relevant partners to find a lasting solution. I couldn't put that better myself, Madam Deputy Speaker and I'm grateful to my constituents, Susanna, for her tenacity and to Carol, Rebecca, Louise and another of my constituents, Jill Whitmore, who's been a lollipop lady outside Meadows Primary School for many years and sits on the borough council. These brilliant campaigners had me out on a cold, wet morning earlier this year. It was raining cats and dogs.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I think I at the time used other words and it was clear from being with them that morning that the junction at Meadows Primary School was not safe, nor is it fit for purpose. They have together in all weathers, campaigned hard and demanded action from the county council and the police to do more, to stop speeding drivers and to keep our community safe. That is why this bill is so important and so timely, not just in my community back in Newcastle, but right across England.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I've repeatedly called out Staffordshire County Council for failing, falling and failing, falling short and failing on their duty to get a grip of the situation and to finally install the necessary traffic calming measures. And whilst we wait for the county council and its leadership to wake up, there continues to be what feels like near misses every day. This bill would mean the council has no excuses. Now, I know that members of the county council like to watch my speeches, Madam Deputy Speaker, and so I hope they are watching this one.

And then they get up from their desks and get on with doing whatever is needed to make our roads safe. We can start that by ensuring that journeys to and from school are made safe. But it doesn't stop at that. At my coffee morning or one of my coffee mornings in the summer, I met a constituent of mine and that speaker, 97 year old man, and very, very good shape indeed, who came along to the church hall at Saint Warburg's in Clayton. And he noted the speeding along Dartmouth Avenue outside the library and the medical centre on Kingsbridge.

Now, my constituent told me he's almost been knocked down several times and has seen families with small children in similar situations. So whilst my bill starts with schools and making the school journey a better experience for all those concerned, let it be a catalyst for safer roads. Madam Speaker, in Newcastle, Lyme and right across the country there were 160 casualties in Newcastle under Lyme alone last year. Madam Deputy Speaker, including two fatalities. The case for my bill is made by those statistics and the many, many families who are impacted by dangerous driving, by speeding and criminality because this is a crime and we need to tackle it.

I'm proud that this Labour government has made some vital progress on road safety since the election of July 2024, and I welcome the publication of the first road Safety strategy in over a decade earlier this year. And I'm particularly grateful to the excellent Minister for Road Safety, my hon. Friend from Nottingham South for her engagement with me on issues of road safety in Newcastle, and for speaking to me about my Bill before the summer recess. Suffolk County Council, if I may say, madam, you could learn a thing or two from the Minister because I'm sick and tired of receiving responses that tell me the councillor for the division will look at my request for action.

But to date no county councillor has properly set up to be counted. Reviews, investigations, empty words and broken promises are all well and good, but they're boring. We need action and we need a comprehensive approach, not a ward by ward attempt at a solution. My bill will help make that so. It forces those who dither and delay to fix up and look sharp. I know that that applies to councils across the nation now, whilst accidents outside our schools often result from small, careless mistakes, the very worst consequences are felt for the rest of the lives of those impacted.

So as I bring this bill before the House today, my thoughts are with all those in Newcastle, Lyme and beyond who have lost a loved one or suffered an injury and one of our roads. By backing this bill, we can make our road network, specifically those surrounding our schools, safer for pupils, parents and teachers, school entrances should be amongst the safest crossing points for pedestrians in our communities. My bill is about ensuring that everyone in Newcastle, under Lyme and across England feels safe on their journey to school and back home.

By mandating all local authorities to develop and implement a bespoke road safety plan for every school in England. What a good idea, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like people in my community and across the country, I know exactly where the problems lie, as do those who walk these journeys every day and listening to those who share those experiences. Important. If we want to ensure that every child can make that journey between their home and school safely, but we should not have to rely on the hard work of local campaigners to fight for change, or be waiting around for another serious accident before action is taken.

As each and every school in England is nestled in different communities with different road networks, the existing macro approach to school road safety just hasn't worked. It's missed the concerns and challenges that children, parents and and teachers face in different locations. One size clearly does not fit all, and that's why my bill will provide local authorities with a mandate to take action to address specific problem areas, dangerous crossings, speeding vehicles and blind spots all contribute to these near misses, and they need to be targeted on a case by case basis, by proactive local authorities.

My bill sets out a local first approach, designing plans that respond to the concerns experiences of local people who know their areas best. Every child and every parent and carer deserves to walk to school safely without living in fear that they may not make it to the school gates. And the same goes at the end of the school day. Every teacher should also be able to expect their pupils to arrive safely for a full day of learning, and to come back the next morning, and no member of this House should be forced to come to the House with a bill like this again, I hope the Road Safety Plans Bill and its aims find swift and productive support.

I look forward to working with one and all to keep people safe on the way to and from school. Madam Deputy Speaker, it isn't difficult or controversial, but it's vital. So let's get on with it. Because our children and their families in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Newcastle and across England deserve nothing less. The question is that the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the Bill. As many as have that opinion, Bill. As many as have that opinion, say I, I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill? Anna Dixon, Callum Anderson, Dame. Karen. Bradley, Mrs. Elsie. Blundell, Sarah. Russell, doctor. Al. Pinkerton, Lee. Ingham, Simon. Hall. Doctor. Alison. Gardner, Jacob. Collier, Anna. Geldard and myself. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Road Road safety Road safety plans Road safety plans bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Reading. What day? Friday the 16th of October.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday the 16th of October. That was my fault. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We now come to motion number two on business of the House Minister on business of the House Minister to move. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I, I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the motion on the sovereign Grant. I call the Minister to move the motion.
20:48
None Portrait Motion: Sovereign Grant
-

Thank you.
20:49
Dan Tomlinson Portrait Dan Tomlinson MP, Exchequer Secretary (Cabinet Office) (Jointly with HM Treasury) (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
-
-
move the motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer relating to the the Exchequer relating to the sovereign Grant. If we approve the motion, the Bill to establish the sovereign Grant will be published later today, and the House will later today, and the House will have an opportunity for a longer and more detailed debate. I'm sure and more detailed debate. I'm sure at Second Reading, the sovereign Grant is the annual funding provided to support the sovereign's official duties and the work of the official duties and the work of the Royal household, including staffing, official travel and the maintenance of the occupied royal palaces.

Since 20 2012, the level of the grant has been determined through a statutory framework that links it to a specified percentage of the revenue of the Crown Estate, an independent public business whose net revenue profits are returned to the Exchequer. Additionally, in 2016, the previous government agreed a temporary £369 million uplift to the grant over ten years from 2017 18 to 2627, specifically to fund the Buckingham Palace resurfacing programme, a major ten year project to modernise and safeguard the palace's essential infrastructure.

Periodically. Madam Deputy Speaker, Parliament requires the Royal Trustees to review whether the arrangements for the sovereign Grant remain appropriate. Earlier this year, the then royal trustees completed that review and made recommendations for the appropriate level of the sovereign grant funding from 2027 to 2032. The trustees recognise that with the Buckingham Palace resurfacing programme nearing completion, the exceptional funding requirement for this scheme no longer exists. They therefore, recommended that the overall level of funding provided through the sovereign Grant should reduce from next year from 137.9 million to 90 9.9 million in 20 2728.

This recommendation was made based on an assessment of the Royal Households expected costs and the Crown Estates expected revenues between 2027 and 2032. The new level of the grant will ensure that the Royal household can continue to deal with property maintenance backlogs, following some years of constrained funding during the pandemic. It will also allow the Royal Household to replace ageing systems, to strengthen cyber security and to install energy efficient heating systems. Given that we are, with the consent of the House, will be debating the clauses in the Bill in more detail.

I'm sure in Second Reading later this month, I'll bring my remarks to a close. Madam Deputy Speaker, by saying that, overall, these measures ensure that the grant will continue to fulfil its core purpose of supporting the official duties of the monarch and maintaining the occupied royal palaces and the clauses in the Bill. I hope the House will agree, will improve the existing framework governing the sovereign Grant so that it continues to operate just as Parliament intended.
20:52
James Wild Portrait James Wild MP (North West Norfolk, Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. >> The question is, as on the Order Paper, shadow Minister James Wilde. >> Here, here. >> Thank you very. >> Much, Madam. Deputy Speaker. In

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the background to this motion. Dates from 1760. When the agreement. Was reached.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With George the Third, to surrender the Crown Estate revenues to the taxpayer in return for to the taxpayer in return for government support. But it wasn't until the 2011 act that the financial support was delivered financial support was delivered through the sovereign grant, and the purpose of that act was to bring together what was a patchwork bring together what was a patchwork of funding streams and arrangements with a more transparent system, with greater accountability to taxpayers, and the motion that the Ministers move proposes three important changes to set the baseline for the sovereign grant for next year to update the percentage.

And finally, it creates a mechanism to allow the Treasury to set the grant in future years in certain circumstances, which includes potentially reducing the amount in the sovereign grant. And given the grant funds, the duties of the monarch and the royal household. We support this approach and the motion. I think it's worth reflecting that in an era when many institutions struggle to find public support and respect, the monarchy continues to play a unique role in our life. Whether representing Britain overseas, supporting charitable organisations, strengthening diplomatic relationships or bringing communities together at moments of celebration or national reflection, the Royal Family performs an indispensable public service and we saw that in the response following the death of the late Queen and in the support that His Majesty the King has had, as he's taken on the responsibilities of the Crown, I should note that His Majesty is a constituent when he is resident at Sandringham, in my north west Norfolk constituency, which we can't vote, which, while a private residence, also hosts official events that are covered by the grant and the value of the royal family is not simply symbolic.

Independent analysis has shown the substantial soft power and economic benefits flowing from the institution, whether trade, tourism, cultural influence or indeed the prestige associated with royal warrants, many of which are constituent firms, are fortunate to benefit from. The grant enables these benefits to be realised for this financial year. The sovereign grant stands at £137.9 million, with 97 of that in core funding and £40 million as the final payment for the Buckingham Palace Reservicing programme. And at a time when many construction projects can think of a number to to mention, seem to miss their Budget and targets, it's right to acknowledge the National Audit Office findings that the ten year programme has managed to remain in Budget despite challenges by making trade offs, actively managing risk and learning lessons.

But completion of that resurfacing programme would mean that without these proposed changes, funding would remain at that 137.9 million level in 2027, which clearly could not be justified. And that's what lies behind the resetting of the baseline of 99.9 million and raising the reference percentage to 20.5% for the period 3 to 2132. And at first glance, that looks like a significant reduction from the current level, but it does come across come after the completion of the ten year programme, and core funding has actually increased to 97.6 million this year, from around 52,000,000 in 20 245, according to the House of Commons Library.

If it had simply increased with inflation from 2016, it would now be £59.4 million. So we have to ask what lies behind that growth and the jump from 52 to 70 2,000,000 in 2526 was largely driven by property maintenance, higher payroll and other spending, alongside a top up to the reserve Sovereign grant. After a period of flat, largely flat grants and over half the total grant was allocated to the preservation of the occupied royal houses, which must be right.

The further rise to 97.6 million appears to mainly relate to Royal travel, digital services, housekeeping and hospitality, although I would welcome if the Minister can shed some more clarity on where the remaining cuts costs come from and as we move forward, there is a considerable backlog of maintenance at the occupied Royal palaces need to modernise ageing systems, improve cyber security and invest in more energy efficient infrastructure. And I'm grateful to the royal household and the keeper of the Privy Purse for the constructive conversations I've had with him on behalf of His Majesty's Opposition regarding the settlement, which does two things to preserve the historic national buildings and run a modern, secure, fit for purpose operation.

I have a few points. I'd like clarification from the Minister further. First, ahead of the Second Reading of the bill, where obviously we'll be able to get far more into the detail than we will this evening. Can the Minister commit to writing to me, with a breakdown of the planned expenditure behind the new 99.9 million figure, for example, why is payroll expected to rise by 7 million between 267 and 3132? Core property maintenance rises by 25%. And clearly the case for addressing maintenance, particularly in stateroom areas, for example, is clear.

Is the Minister confident that the broader programme reflects value for money? And can the Minister confirm that any capital expenditure above £6 million, such as replacing the boilers at Windsor, would require Treasury approval of a business case? And, encouragingly, income supplementing the grant is forecast to increase by a quarter over the period. How confident is the Minister in those projections? It's important. There is also a focus on efficiency and what external benchmarking of the royal household cost base has there been, which comparator organisations were used and what specific efficiencies have resulted or are planned as a result? In terms of the reserve? As I mentioned, this fell with the impact of Covid and now stands at £21 million.

Is there a formal target reserve level the household is managing to award for resilience purposes, distinct from the statutory 50% reduction trigger threshold, and if so, over what time frame is that expected to be reached? The motion provides for the reference percentage used to calculate the grant, and the government has set this out, will rise from 12% to 20.5%. This is described as being calibrated to the household's expected cost for that five year period. What specific cost forecasts underpins that rate and has it been independently tested or benchmarked, or is it effectively set simply by reference to the household's own submitted Budget? And for those who may be concerned that this is a too generous settlement, the reality that there will be a real terms reduction as the grant remains flat in cash terms over the period.

One of the significant parts of this motion, which we will scrutinise carefully in the legislation, is a mechanism to allow the sovereign grant to decrease where circumstances warrant it. This reforms a long standing feature of the existing system, the Golden Ratchet, set out in section six of the 2011 act, under which funding cannot decrease in cash terms, and the government's King speech briefing note Madam Deputy Speaker tells us that the proposed change means the grant can be reduced from one year to the next, preventing inappropriately high funding.

Of course, it's important that all taxpayer money represents value for money, but can the Minister elaborate on the rationale for that, given the settlement is expected to be flat cash over the period, in what type of circumstances would a reduction be considered appropriate, and what would the role of Parliament be in scrutinising any such decision? To conclude, we support the motion and resetting the sovereign Grant following the completion of the Buckingham Palace works. It is important that we establish a sustainable fund funding framework for the years ahead.

However, there are important questions I have raised over the increases in the last year ahead of setting this new baseline. In what circumstances the government may look to reduce the funding, and these are asked in the spirit of supporting both the institution of the monarchy and the principle of responsible stewardship of public money. Thank you.
21:01
Neil Duncan-Jordan Portrait Neil Duncan-Jordan MP (Poole, Labour)
-
-
Neil Duncan Jordan. >> Neil Duncan Jordan. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the government's decision to bring forward legislation to make it possible for the sovereign grant to be reduced, but there remain a number of issues surrounding the grant that I believe the government should also address. The first is the link between the grant and the profits of the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate is quite separate from the monarchy and operates to generate revenue for the Treasury.

This seems a very odd form of indexation and begs the question why the grant isn't based on the needs of the monarchy or its costs. This, I believe, needs to be reviewed. The fact that the grant could only ever go up until the government brought this motion forward was also described by the Ft as an arrangement where in a good year the monarchy would win and in a bad year the taxpayer would lose. It's right, therefore, that the government is addressing this anomaly.

This also goes on to raise the question of how the grant should be set. I believe the Treasury should have the power to specify the amount of grant on an annual basis. It's important that the funding of the monarchy is transparent and open to MPs for debate. Numerous times I have tried to table questions about these issues, only to be told this is not something for Parliament to discuss. This has to change. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are some anomalies when we look at the monarch's wider financial arrangements.

Why, for example, are they not subject to inheritance tax? Why is no account taken of the profits of the Duchy of Lancaster when setting the level of the sovereign grant? And why are the monarch's financial affairs exempt from freedom of information legislation? Whilst today's bill might be viewed as an administrative adjustment, it's important that we ask the question why the grant needs to be 322% higher than it was when it was first introduced in 2012. Even allowing for inflation, the proposed grant is well over twice the real value of its starting point, so I would be grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, if the Minister would comment on these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issues when he sums up. Spokesperson Lisa Smart.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Spokesperson Lisa Smart. Madam Deputy Speaker, the sovereign grant does not provide personal income to the king, to the Queen or to any member of the royal Queen or to any member of the royal family. The grant funds, the work of the institution and the largest of the institution and the largest part of it funds buildings between 2025 and 2026, £67.5 million went
21:03
Lisa Smart Portrait Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
2025 and 2026, £67.5 million went on property maintenance alone, including the Buckingham Palace Reservicing programme and the installation of more energy efficient heating. These are heritage sites carrying maintenance backlog that has built up over decades, and the resurfacing work exists to stop a serious risk of fire and flood. We should, of course, take the action needed to protect these national heritage assets. The grant is also funding green infrastructure across the estate and better cyber security, which in the current international climate is not an optional extra for any national institution.

However, we should treat the increase as temporary in nature, and it is right that the sovereign grant is readjusted. Once these projects are complete. The government has already committed to legislate for exactly that once the resurfacing works finish. And that brings me to a key issue, which is transparency. The taxpayer is funding this. Taxpayers are entitled to see where their money goes. And as the hon. Member for Paul has already mentioned, Parliament is entitled to hold the government and the Treasury to account for it.

Now, some of that framework already exists and it works the sovereign Grant act. The Royal Households accounts are audited by the Auditor General and laid before this House, and the Royal Household sits within the National Audit Offices value for money remit. But that is not the whole picture. We have an institution spending over £130 million of public money a year, where the published accounts are the beginning and the end of what the public can ask for. If one of my Hazel Grove constituents wanted to know how a figure in that report came to be, there is no route for them to find out, so I wonder if I could encourage the Minister to let us know whether he has any plans to review the reporting requirements attached to the grant, so that Parliament and the public get spending detail at a level that allows genuine scrutiny? It is right that taxpayers will have questions about where and importantly, who this money goes to.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor holds no title, no office and no public role. He is, as far as the state is concerned, a private citizen and as such, not a penny of this grant should reach him, and nor should any other taxpayer funding. And that has to include what happens at the end of his life. Frequently, members of the royal family have received publicly funded funerals, either having ceremonial funerals or state funerals. And for context of how much these can cost the Queen mother's ceremonial funeral in 2002 cost more than £5.4 million, of which £4.3 million was policing.

So could the Minister confirm that no public money from the sovereign grant, or from any departmental Budget would fund a ceremonial funeral, a lying in state or state honours of any kind for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor? Thank you.
21:06
21:08
Dan Tomlinson Portrait Dan Tomlinson MP, Exchequer Secretary (Cabinet Office) (Jointly with HM Treasury) (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank members from across the House for their questions and their the beginning of the scrutiny that will take place, should the House agree for the bill to be laid and for debate to proceed at Second Reading? Let me turn to some of the points that were raised. The Shadow Exchequer Secretary. I hope he still has that title. With the ongoing junior ministerial position, junior Minister reshuffle raised a whole range of important questions and asked whether I would write to him on these matters, and I would be very happy to make sure to write to him, and I'm sure that letter can be made available to others in this place, given that a whole range of questions were asked and I may not be able to cover them all just now.

In concluding, one of the key questions that has been asked by members on all sides, in fact, is around this increase in the value of the sovereign grant above inflation. This, of course, is an important question. It's one that the trustees went over in detail in making the decision to increase the grant relative to the pre Buckingham Palace, servicing costs up to 99.9 million. Of course, it is reducing by a quarter from one year from from the current year to the next year because of the Buckingham Palace refit finishing a large part of the increase in the expenditure has been about the refurbishment and the servicing costs of the occupied royal palaces themselves.

That's was 18,000,000 in 20 1617 and it will be next year at 33.6 million. So that accounts for a large share of the above inflation increase. And then he mentioned the House of Commons library. And others have pointed to the other increases in expenditure that are facing the the Royal family that the Royal household is facing. Yes, on buildings and maintenance, but also on making sure that the palaces can make proactive steps to improve the energy efficiency of their heating in line with broader net zero goals that at least do have some level of consensus across the House.

And I hope one day we may be able to rebuild the consensus that seems to have been lost in recent months on making sure we can reduce our domestic carbon emissions, along with our international allies, and also investment in cyber security, which of course, is growing the need to do that in line with AI and to make sure that we can target other long term, long term measures to make sure the royal household is is more resilient. There are a whole range of other questions that were asked in terms of making sure, have the trustees ensured that there's a real focus on external benchmarking, on what work has been done to scrutinise these costs? I'm assured that that work has taken place, and we can discuss it in more detail at Second Reading.

And this touches on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole and others have raised around the fact that the sovereign grant will now be set at close to 20% of the revenue, rather than 12.5%. That reflects this bottom up assessment that has taken place. Looking across the needs of the royal household and making sure that it is being funded adequately for the work, for the public duties that His Royal Highness the King and the Royal Family carry out.

And it is worth pointing out that His Majesty the King forgive me, the King and other members of the Royal Family say are carrying out. And it is worth pointing out, of course, that those activities have increased significantly in recent years. Towards the end of her reign, the late Queen was not carrying out a large number of foreign engagements and also was hosting a smaller number of state visits. The King has increased the engagement that he is carrying out on our behalf as part of his public duties, and that has involved more expenditure in terms of staff costs and making sure that those engagements and the benefits that the Shadow Exchequer Secretary talked of in terms of the representation of our country and supporting good causes here in the UK, can get the funding and the support that they need.

It is worth noting, in response to the question raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, that the sovereign grant is is very clearly focused on the official duties that the Royal Family carry out on our behalf and isn't about supporting or funding their private activities or things that it wouldn't be appropriate for the sovereign grant to fund. The hon. Member for Paul also raised the need for debate on these on these topics. And of course, we will get plenty of time in Second Reading to debate the issues that he and others have raised around transparency and the the clarity on where the sovereign grant is is being spent.

I've I've set out today some initial sort of outlines of that. I'll respond in writing, and I'm sure we'll have a thorough debate later in the month. I'll have to get back to the Exchequer. The Shadow Exchequer Secretary on the business case thresholds. But we. We do we do, of course, as a Treasury, make sure that every penny of money is well spent. And that includes the 99.9 million that will be allocated here. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have, I hope, responded to many of the points that have been raised, and I thank members for their contributions.

I look forward if if we do proceed to debating this at Second Reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, As many as of that opinion Paper, As many as of that opinion say aye. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. A bill is to be brought in upon the resolution. Who will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prepare and bring in the Bill? The chairman of Ways and Means, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary, Alex Norris, and myself.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dan Tomlinson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sovereign Grant bill. Second Reading. What day? Tomorrow?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tomorrow?
21:15
21:16
21:16
None Portrait Backbench Business: Debate on the impact of strategic lawsuits against public participation
-

Backbench Business Committee. This is the second attempt we're having on having this debate. Last time I
21:16
Alex Sobel Portrait Alex Sobel MP (Leeds Central and Headingley, Labour )
-
-
on having this debate. Last time I agreed to pull the debate so we could have a longer debate on settlement goods, but I want to settlement goods, but I want to thank the backbench debate committee for giving us 90 minutes to protect the time, because to protect the time, because otherwise we'd be only having 44 minutes of this debate. So that is really why I'm thanking them this evening. So coming on to Slapps a slap is a litigation, or commonly the threat of litigation designed primarily to silence criticism rather than vindicate a legitimate legal right.

The objective is often not to win in court, but to make speaking out so expensive, stressful and risky that journalists, campaigners, academics, whistleblowers and ordinary citizens decide that remaining silent is the safer option. On the surface, Slapps might appear to be a niche media law issue. However, as will no doubt hear from examples from members today by suppressing information that is in the public interest, they undermine our democracy, our public watchdogs and the integrity of our justice system. Back in June, during justice questions, the then Secretary of State recognized the profound financial and psychological impact of Slapps and the threat that they represent to democracy and free speech.

He also highlighted that slapps extend beyond journalism and issues of free speech, including slapps being used to silence sexual abuse survivors and tenants who have complained to landlords. This is one of five reasons why today's debate is particularly important and timely. Many think slapps are confined to journalists being threatened by Russian oligarchs. In fact, the threat is more diverse than ever. The expanding scope of this abuse across all types of public interest is deeply concerning. There has been a significant spike in cases reported to the UK anti-SLAPP coalition over the last 18 months, a large portion of which are private citizens who have spoken out about concerns in their local area or services they have received.

I've no doubt will all have constituents affected by Slapps. Secondly, the tactics are also evolving. While defamation remains a common legal basis, used slapps are also now being brought through claims like harassment, data protection, privacy and trespass, demonstrating that any effective response must establish universal protections irrespective of the cause of action. Thirdly, the UK appears to be an attractive jurisdiction for this kind of legal abuse. Our expensive litigation and claimant friendly reputation have made London a popular destination, while the European Union has moved ahead with an anti-SLAPP directive, and 22 EU countries have now taken action to progress anti-SLAPP legislation at a national level.

In the UK, broad protection is still absent. We risk becoming an outlier. In recent months, the limit of the existing regulatory framework has been brought into sharp focus. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has faced challenges progressing Slapp complaints, particularly those that have reached the tribunal stage, and recent Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal judgements have failed to address the fundamental issue of Slapps as an abusive tactic. Despite opening over 70 cases since 2022, only three so far have progressed to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

Moreover, the SRA have not publicly released any data regarding the status of their Slapp related investigations since 2024. While new legislation is urgently required, it may. It must also be accompanied by strong regulatory guidance and enforcement action. Finally, Parliament now has an opportunity to act before the summer recess, two new private members bills were introduced, one by the right hon. Member opposite, and I'm sure we'll hear more from him on that, and also one in the other place by Baroness Stowell.

These private members bills aim to create broader anti-SLAPP protection. The issue before us is no longer whether the problem exists, it is whether we are prepared to legislate with the urgency the problem demands. Many of Britain's biggest national scandals came only to light because determined journalists, courageous whistleblowers and persistent campaigners refused to be intimidated. But slapps have often been present. Slapps delayed reporting on the horizon post office scandal, maternity scandals and teaching hospitals such as Oxford and My Own in Leeds and the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

Think about the scandals we have never discovered because someone successfully silenced those asking the questions. That is why this issue is about far more than protecting journalists. It's about protecting the public's right to know. I should acknowledge that the previous government recognised the problem. Following the Ministry of Justice's 2022 consultation, reforms were introduced through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, creating protections against slapps connected to economic crime, including an early dismissal mechanism and greater protections on legal costs.

Those were welcome reforms, but they are also flawed and limited. They only protect investigations to economic crime and depend on a complex and time intensive process to determine the intentions or mindsets of the claimant. These limitations matter. Public interest speech is not confined to corruption, fraud and money laundering. It also concerns patient safety and environmental harm, housing conditions, human rights abuses, sexual violence, animal welfare and failures of public administration amongst others. People should not lose protection simply because the wrongdoing they expose does not fit within a narrow statutory category.

This is why I'm calling the government to use the opportunity of these two private members bills to introduce universal anti-SLAPP legislation. I want to keep my remarks short. We are short on time, and I want to make sure everybody gets in all of those who have come to this debate, but I'd like to take the opportunity to thank all of those who've been working on this issue for the last five years, support the cases we'll hear about today, including the Foreign Policy Sense Centre index on censorship, clear death, the News Media Association, the Bureau of Investigative Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, Spotlight on corruption, Transparency International and all the members of the UK anti-SLAPP coalition, as well as the Media Lawyers Association and the APPG on Anti-Corruption and responsible tax who support their work.

But I also want to thank the targets of Slapps, who bravely spoken out about the legal threats they faced. Slapps encourage silence to avoid increasing liability, but we only know about the scale of this issue because these brave people all across the country have spoken out, and we are indebted to them. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is, as on the Order Paper, Sir John Whittingdale.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper, Sir John Whittingdale. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I begin by congratulating the hon. Gentleman for Leeds Central on obtaining this debate? This is a subject that we have discussed here a number of times over the years, and the need for action becomes even greater. And action becomes even greater. And indeed, the hon. Gentleman, I think, picked up the baton from the hon. Gentleman for Bolton West, who was going to initially hold this debate before he was elevated to high office.

I speak in my capacity as chair of the all party parliamentary group on Media Freedom, and also, as the hon.
21:23
John Whittingdale Portrait Rt Hon Sir John Whittingdale MP (Maldon, Conservative)
-
-
Gentleman said earlier, as the sponsor of a private member's bill, which I shall be introducing in which I shall be introducing in November, the reason is that slapps have been a stain on this country's reputation as defenders of media freedom for too long. We actually freedom for too long. We actually set up a Media Freedom Coalition in 2019, and I'm delighted that under the outgoing Foreign Secretary, the UK has taken back the co-chair position with Finland, and our position on media freedom is one we can be proud of.

We have gone up in the ranking produced by the World Press Freedom Index. We're now 18, but in their commentary on the UK, RSS said, quote, lawsuits aimed at gagging journalists are up in the UK are one reason why we are not in a higher position now. Slapps are not new. There have been around for a long time and I spent part of my summer in my deck chair reading an excellent book by David Hopper, which recounts the history of Slapp, starting with James Goldsmith and his War on Private Eye, followed by Robert Maxwell, who took on Aurum Press and the biographies written about him.

And then, perhaps most notoriously after that, Mohamed Al Fayed, whose appalling actions in abuse of young employees at Harrods were known about and were reported but were then suppressed as a result of lawsuits which he liberally sprayed around using very expensive lawyers. And it is the case that generally slapps are used by rich people who are seeking to suppress information which is clearly in the public interest. And when I chaired the Select Committee now 15 years ago, we looked at that and the advent of libel tourism, the fact that the UK courts were specifically being used by people who had very little connection with the UK to bring libel suits, because we were seen to be sympathetic to the idea of libel actions, to suppress information.

And since then, particularly, Russian oligarchs have queued up to come and use the British courts. And we have talked to and met as the hon. Gentleman, said Saab, the brave people who have sought to expose their actions and been subjected to slapps cases. People like Catherine Boulton, the author of Putin's People, and Tom Burgess, the author of kleptomania. And it continues today. And I'm not going to go into a number of cases, but it will perhaps have more opportunity to do so when the private member's bill comes forward.

But I'm particularly grateful to the anti Slapps coalition for the help that they have given in taking forward this campaign. Progress has been made. The Defamation Act in 2013 sought to address the worst aspects of libel tourism. The Economic Crime and Conspiracy Act focused specifically on those who are alleging economic crime and put in place some protection. But the problem with that was that some of the worst cases, and I go back to both the work of Catherine Belton and Tom Burgess, they were not allegations of economic crime.

They were more serious than that. And clearly the provisions in that bill would not have been sufficient. And it was Wayne David who, in the last Parliament then sought to extend the provisions of that act to cover a far wider range of actions. And, sadly, it did not complete its passage due to the general election. But my intention is to try and complete the work that Wayne David started with his bill, and the Minister will be very much aware that at the beginning of this year, 120 editors, including every major publication not just in the UK but across the world, wrote calling for the government to act.

And I know that the government was committed to taking action, but unfortunately couldn't find a slot to do so. And I would like to say that I'm extremely grateful to the Minister for the discussions that we've already had about how we might work together in order to bring legislation onto the statute book. The hon. Gentleman is right. Baroness Stowell, in the other place is introducing a private member's bill. Hers has been published, and there is some debate as to the mechanism which is most effective.

I think there were concerns that the attempt in the Wayne David Bill to set out lengthy definitions might make it more complex, and there is an argument for trying to make the test of a slap simpler. But those are details which I think we will want to continue to discuss with the Minister and her officials. But on my part, I very much hope that we can find an agreement which all of us are happy with and which will achieve the objective we all share.

I should say I am not opposed to people having the right to bring defamation actions or other suits where they feel that they have been wrongly accused of something that is a fundamental right. What I am opposed to is the abuse of lawsuits, with the deliberate intent of suppressing information, which is clearly in the public interest. And it is that definition which we will seek to explore, how best to set out in legislation. So I look forward to further meetings with the Minister, and I welcome this as perhaps the first opportunity to debate what I believe is a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

important issue for the freedom of speech and journalism in this country. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. And as chair of the all party parliamentary Group on Anti-Corruption and Responsible Tax, I would like to thank my Tax, I would like to thank my friend, the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley for working with me to secure today's debate. It's been about nine months since I initially presented the application to the backbench Business Committee, but I'm pleased to say it has but I'm pleased to say it has already been worth that wait. Could I also congratulate the Minister on her reappointment? It was a real pleasure to work with her in my role as a Ministry of Justice parliamentary private secretary in the last government, and I've found her no less supportive, engaged and collaborative when I've come to her constituency issues, as I will speak to in more detail later on.

I'd like to take today's opportunity to share at least one particularly egregious example of vexatious litigation in the form of a slap. Now, before I go any further, let me confirm that the cases I mentioned today are not subject to ongoing legal
21:30
Phil Brickell Portrait Phil Brickell MP (Bolton West, Labour)
-
-
proceedings. Madam Deputy Speaker, back in 2016, Jennifer McAdam invested the inheritance she invested the inheritance she received from her late father into a cryptocurrency called Onecoin. But Onecoin was a £3 billion lie. But Onecoin was a £3 billion lie. In reality, it was a global Ponzi scheme. When it collapsed the following year, millions of people following year, millions of people from 125 countries lost money in order to raise awareness and protect other investors. In 2017, Jennifer organised a webinar for other victims and cryptocurrency experts to explore ways to hold the company to account.

Three weeks later, she received a legal threat from Onecoin and its co-founder Ruja Ignatova. Dubbed the crypto queen. In the viral podcast that followed that threat, sent via law firm Carter-ruck claimed that Jennifer had defamed the so-called crypto queen during the webinar. It went on to say that the only way to avoid a court case was to refrain from publishing similar allegations and to retract the webinar video even as legal action was threatened against Jennifer, regulatory action against Onecoin was already underway in a number of countries.

Jennifer should have been celebrated for trying to help other victims and prevent future ones not threatened and harassed. In 2025. Claire Gill, a partner at Carter-ruck instructed by Onecoin, was referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Disciplinary Tribunal by the Solicitors Regulation Authority on allegations that she sent a letter to McAdam, which contained an improper threat of litigation. However, by the end of the year, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal refused to dismiss the proceedings, stating that Gill had acted on explicit client instructions and had no reason at that stage to disbelieve them, and that the Sra's allegation was founded on hindsight rather than evidence of professional misconduct.

The SRA has also been ordered to pay Gill's costs, which Carter-ruck claimed to be around £1 million. Naturally, such sizeable costs raise fears they may dampen the regulator's regulators appetite to challenge similar Slapp related cases in the foreseeable future. Now there are serious questions to be asked about the tribunal's approach in setting such a high bar of actual knowledge of wrongdoing, effectively requiring evidence of complicity before professional ethics really kick in. My concern is that the high bar makes it conveniently easy for lawyers to simply avoid asking questions they do not want to know the answers to.

And if lawyers were allowed to blindly and ignorantly pursue their clients interests, even when that involves silencing the police and to quote, in furtherance of fraud, to use the tribunal's wording before the case was thrown out, then we will never stop slapps. But this isn't just about London lawyers and international scams. According to reporting by the Manchester Mill, back in 2021, a solicitor named Andrew Milne acquired 67 residential freeholds at auction for around £130 per property in Horwich in my constituency.

Milne then proceeded to demand thousands of pounds from my constituents in return for their freeholds, often citing spurious breaches of lease covenants. And yet, when the Sheffield Tribune sought to report on Milne's equally outrageous behaviour in Yorkshire, he sent them a message which included the following threat and I quote we will definitely bring proceedings for defamation and malicious falsehood if you publish such complete and malicious lies. This is how it works. Bullies, charlatans and chancers like Milne using their privileged positions to seek to silence journalists and whistleblowers, lifting the lid on their abhorrent actions.

Now, on a general policy point, I have been encouraged by noises coming out of the SRA since the regulator's change in leadership. But as in the cases described, it strikes me that the regulatory framework, as currently stands, is not up to the job. That's why a universal anti-SLAPP law is needed to ensure those who speak out in the public interest are protected. And so I welcome the recent comments about the government's commitment to introduce universal anti-SLAPP legislation and the opportunity the two private members bills on Slapps present, both in this House and in the other place.

In particular, I know the right hon. Member for Maldon is keen to work with the government in what I trust will be an exemplar of cross-party working. So I hope that across party lines we can seize this opportunity to put to bed the spurious litigation put forward by individuals who seek to silence dissenting voices. To close, let me reiterate the ask from the UK anti-SLAPP coalition, namely, that legislation must be accompanied by strong regulatory guidance and enforcement action to ensure lawyers are held to account for abusive legal tactics.

I hope this government can deliver on that. Ask in the fullness of time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

John McDonnell. Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair. I'm Secretary of the parliamentary I'm Secretary of the parliamentary group, and I'd like to speak in that capacity, but I'm also a victim of the James Goldsmith Foundation, which the hon. Gentleman from Maldon has referred Gentleman from Maldon has referred to. And if members are unaware of what the Goldsmith Foundation was all about, was basically an organisation funded by James Goldsmith, which employed to identif James Goldsmith pleaded and targeted them.

And in my instance,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as I was writing, exposing the Then MP for my constituency, a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Then MP for my constituency, a conservative MP who was being hosted on a series of trips by Saddam Hussein to Iraq and then Saddam Hussein to Iraq and then coming back here to justify the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja, gassing of the Kurds in Halabja, where 4000 people were gassed to. What then happened? I was sued by
21:36
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)
-
-
Carter-ruck and it's the same issue over all. You just cannot afford to fight. In fact, I had to hand over the deeds of my property as a result of that action because we simply could not fund. Even though there were some Labour Party support for funding. The general view was, is that this was a sinking pit of funding that we could not match. And that was just one example of how the Goldsmith Foundation operated. But it's one example of the operation of Slapps.

As the hon. Gentleman said, over a long period of time, this was way back in the 90s. The reference has been made. This isn't just about journalists, it isn't. But the journalists have been mainly the target on all of this, and it has been devastating with regard to the consequences for some because of the legal costs that they've had to incur just to try and demonstrate that they've been writing truthful in analyses of the events that they've been trying to report.

It does stifle free speech, and it undermines that right to the general public to know information. Exactly has been said. There's a deterrence effect, a form of intimidation against telling the truth. In the past, the previous Prime Minister did give a commitment with regard to legislation. Unfortunately, it wasn't in the King's speech. We unfortunately, we felt that was unfortunate, but now's the time to pick up the pace of that, and I'm grateful for the Minister now offering briefings on how we can move forward and working on a cross party basis as well.

The issue for us is that although everyone so far has spoken welcome, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act there again, just to reiterate, it just applies to economic crime reportage. And therefore what has been happening is even though some journalists will be protected under that, the individual that who we've been reporting upon will then find another matter to take the action. And as a result of that, the journalist is not protected. And the the thresholds and criteria of judgments that are taking place where the court, the judge has to consider the intent of the Slapp filer, but also the intent of the defendant as well.

It's a threshold far too high. And there's case after case that we can cite. But the most recent one, I think that's caught the publicity was Dan Needles case, where he exposed a firm operating a tax avoidance scam, won the case, but then was left with £146,000 of costs of legal fees. As has been said, there's been various various attempts by hon. Members to try and tackle this issue. The Scottish Government has also said it was waiting a legislative opportunity to bring forward legislation itself.

The NUJ is part of the anti-SLAPP anti-SLAPP coalition, and the proposals that have been put forward really is to make sure that there's a clear criteria to identify Slapps. There's a ten point criteria that's been set forward that we hire the merits threshold for likely successor at trial, and then also that there's a filter mechanism for a a swift disposal of what are actions that are clearly seeking to, to gag individual journalists and others. That's why we welcome the government's engagement now with and including, hopefully with the NUJ over these coming weeks, that we can get this legislation on the statute book as rapidly as possible so we can protect freedom of speech.
21:39
Rachel Blake Portrait Rachel Blake MP (Cities of London and Westminster, Labour )
-
-
Rachael Blake. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. >> And I congratulate. >> My hon. >> Friend the Member for Leeds. >> Central and Headingley for securing this important debate. It really is very welcome to be here with friends who are so committed to this issue and have been for such a long time, because this debate is about much more than press freedom, although it is very much about that. It's about whether ordinary people can speak out in the public interest without fear of being silenced by those with deeper pockets, greater resources, and access to expensive legal representation, strategic lawsuits against public participation.

Slapps so unattractively described are designed not necessarily to win in court, but to intimidate, exhaust and suppress scrutiny. They are increasingly being deployed against journalists and campaigners, whistleblowers, survivors of abuse, community activists and ordinary citizens, and anyone who raises legitimate concerns about matters of public interest can find themselves on the receiving end of aggressive legal threats. As we have heard, the consequence of this is a chilling effect that extends far beyond the individual target. When one person is punished for speaking out, countless others are forced to conclude that it might be safer for them to remain silent.

And that should concern every member of this House. One case that demonstrates this danger particularly clearly is that of my constituents, the investigative journalist Claire Lucas and Brown, founder of The Sarawak Report. Miss Rewcastle Brown played a key role in exposing the one MDB scandal in Malaysia, one of the largest corruption scandals in recent history. Her reporting helped bring international attention to allegations involving billions of dollars that had been diverted from a Malaysian state investment fund, allegations that subsequently became the subject of investigations and prosecutions across multiple jurisdictions.

But instead of scrutiny being met simply with accountability, it was met with legal pressure. Between 2017 and 2019, she was pursued through the London courts in a libel action brought by Abdul Hadi Awang, the president of the Malaysian PAS party they claim was eventually withdrawn and settled in her favour before trial. The significance of that case lies not merely in its outcome, but in what it demonstrates about the power imbalance at the heart of Slapps. As Miss Rewcastle Brown has described, she understood that the objective was not simply to challenge particular words on a page.

Rather, it was to place immense pressure on a journalist through prospect of years of costly litigation, with the hope that eventually that pressure would force a retraction, damage credibility and discourage further reporting. Even when defendants ultimately prevail, they cannot recover the years lost to litigation, the stress inflicted upon them, or the time diverted away from public interest work. And that is why campaigners often say that in a slap, the process becomes the punishment. And let us consider what's at stake.

Without investigative journalists such as Clare Rewcastle Brown, one of the world's most significant corruption scandals, might never have received the scrutiny that it deserved. Important information might never have reached the public domain. Powerful individuals might never have been held accountable. Yet our legal system left the burden on the journalists to endure years of legal challenge before reaching that outcome. The reality is that many people do not have the resilience, resources or support to do what Claire did. Many local journalists do not.

Many campaigners do. Not. Many victims of wrongdoing do not. Many ordinary citizens certainly do not. And increasingly, these tactics are evolving. They are no longer confined to traditional defamation claims. We now see claims framed through privacy law, data protection law, harassment claims and injunctions. The legal mechanisms change, but the purpose remains the same to drive up costs, create fear and suppress participation in public life. And that's why the existing protections are insufficient. The anti-SLAPP provision, as we've heard in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, were an important first step.

However, they are limited to economic crime reporting and leave many people vulnerable. A journalist investigating corruption may receive some protection. A survivor speaking about abuse may not. A local campaigner raising concerns about environmental damage may not a resident in exposing wrongdoing in their community may not, and that cannot be the right approach. I'm also concerned about questions surrounding enforcement and regulation. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has made clear that solicitors must not pursue abusive litigation tactics, must not advance Unmeritorious claims, and must not use their professional position to intimidate those engaged in lawful public interest activity.

And those principles are absolutely right. But principles alone are not enough. If those subjected to abusive legal threats do not have confidence that the system is working, and that is why legislation and regulation must go hand in hand. In this scenario, we need a robust statutory framework that allows judges to dismiss abusive claims at the earliest possible stage. We need strong protections for defendants, and we need effective professional regulation that ensures lawyers who facilitate abusive tactics are held to account, and this shouldn't be a partisan issue.

Members across this House depend on a free press. We depend on campaigners, researchers, whistleblowers and engaged citizens bringing serious issues to public attention. Democracy itself depends on scrutiny. I therefore urge the government to work constructively with all colleagues, from all parties to bring forward comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation that protects public interest. Speech, upholds press freedom and ensures that our courts cannot be used as instruments of intimidation by those seeking to escape scrutiny. We should ask ourselves, what is holding us back from tackling this? Because ultimately, this debate is about a simple principle.

In a democratic society, the law should protect those who speak truthfully in the public interest, not provide powerful individuals with the means to silence them. Yeah.
21:46
Markus Campbell-Savours Portrait Markus Campbell-Savours MP (Penrith and Solway, Labour)
-
-
Markus Campbell-savours. >> Markus Campbell-savours. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, when debating this issue, I crudely used to think of Greenpeace activists taking on multinationals or journalists writing books about oligarchs. Erin Brockovich style figures exposing injustice. But as has already been raised, slapps are far more relevant to ordinary people than these cases indicate. People like my constituent Geoff Thompson. Geoff moved to Penrith to enjoy his retirement. What he didn't expect was the Penrith Pong, a foul odour that periodically hangs over the town.

Many residents believe the smell is linked to the Omega proteins rendering plant operated by Leo Group, the company dispute they are the only source of odour. So Geoff set up a Facebook group called Fresh Air for Penrith, a place for residents to moan about the pong, share information and learn how to make complaints to the Environment Agency and for running a Facebook page. Geoff received his first legal letter in February 23rd, finding himself living under the threat of a defamation claim.

With all the stress and fear of legal costs that that brings, all because he spoke up on an issue he and his neighbours cared about. When I was neighbours cared about. When I was sued, and until I learned about Geoff's case and the basis of the action against him, I dismissed those warnings as absurd. Now, I'll be honest. When I was first elected, Geoff got right under my skin. Every MP has someone in their inbox with legitimate concerns who is
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page