Harriet Cross MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for his speech and for bringing this important and very necessary measure to the House. I also thank him for the briefing I was provided with earlier today. Let us be clear what these measures are and are not about. Do we support free speech? Yes. Do we support the right to protest? Yes. Do we support freedom of expression? Yes. However, the very freedoms that make our democracy what it is are exactly the freedoms that the groups we are considering are putting at risk, which is why this order is needed. The groups we are discussing—Palestine Action, Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement—have nothing whatsoever to do with legitimate protest. They would not be facing proscription if they were demonstrating peacefully, respectfully or legally, as so many groups and organisations across the country do and must continue to be able to do freely. These groups have chosen a different path entirely, and for that reason this action is rightly being taken against them.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  The right to protest is a hugely important part of our democracy. We support the right to protest and the right to free speech. We do not support a right to commit criminal damage or to intimidate or threaten the public, but that is exactly what these groups are doing and why they are quite rightly being proscribed. We must be clear-eyed about the broader threat landscape we face. Terrorism remains one of the most serious threats to our national security. Whether it comes from international networks, those radicalised online or extremist groups operating on our soil, the threat is real and evolving and it must demand our constant vigilance. Our security services work tirelessly day and night to keep us safe. They have disrupted countless plots that the public will never know about, but we cannot be complacent. The nature of terrorism has changed—from sophisticated networks to lone actors, from physical attacks to attacks on cyber networks, and from foreign battlefields to our own communities—and our response must evolve accordingly. We should reflect on what terrorism is. As defined by the Terrorism Act 2000, it occurs when an action’s “use or threat is designed to influence the government…or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and…the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.” The full list of actions are detailed in the Act, but they include serious violence against a person, those that endanger life or health and safety, and those that seriously damage property. Proscription is not a step taken lightly, but it is a strong and necessary tool that the previous as well as the current Government have used and should use to protect the public, and to ensure that our police and security services have fuller access to the resources they need to keep the public, our institutions and our way of life safe. No one could hear the Minister’s description of the actions of Palestine Action, MMR and RIM and consider them to be those of peaceful, legitimate protest groups.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Keeping our country safe is, and must be, the first duty of any Government. That comes with decisions and choices that Governments must take to keep their citizens, our country and our way of life safe. That is why we Conservative Members support the Bill. It is much needed to close a recently created loophole that must be addressed, as Members from across the House should agree. The issue tackled by the Bill arises from the Supreme Court’s decision in N3 v. Secretary of State for the Home Department 2025. The Court held that if a person successfully appeals against a deprivation order, or if the order is withdrawn, they are considered never to have lost their British citizenship. That means that even where the Secretary of State intends to challenge such a decision through further appeals, the person’s citizenship is automatically restored in the interim. In practice, that could allow individuals to return to the UK or renounce another citizenship or nationality before the Home Office has exhausted the appeals process. The Supreme Court judgment created two vulnerabilities: an unlocked door through which dangerous individuals could return; and an escape route, allowing terrorists to regain citizenship, fly back to Britain and then renounce other nationalities to become untouchable. The Government’s own assessment identifies specific risks: immediate re-entry attempts; terrorists becoming stateless to block future action; and foreign states interfering in our security measures. The Supreme Court’s interpretation has created a situation that is unprecedented among our allies. The United States, Canada, Australia, France and the Netherlands all maintain revocation of citizenship throughout appeals. Until the February ruling, Britain’s framework operated effectively. Now, because of the judgment, we face a unique vulnerability that no other comparable democracy tolerates. Removing citizenship is quite rightly considered to be a serious step—one that is not taken lightly or without thorough consideration. The seriousness of such decisions is reflected in the fact that it is the Secretary of State who personally decides whether, based on public good and safety, an individual should be deprived of their British citizenship. The Conservative party absolutely agrees with the importance of having the power of deprivation of citizenship in order to preserve national security. It is a power that has been used sparingly but necessarily, with previous Home Secretaries rightly depriving more than 200 individuals of their citizenship for being non-conducive to the public good. These individuals risk undermining not only our security, but our society at large. British citizenship is a privilege, not an unconditional right. Those who choose to shatter their bonds of loyalty through terrorism or heinous organised crime forfeit their right to carry a British passport. That is why successive Conservative Governments never shirked from using those powers against terrorists plotting to kill our citizens, or against members of the Rochdale grooming gangs for their sickening abuse of vulnerable children. That is why we are happy to support the Government in their attempts to close this loophole today.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Social Mobility: Careers Education · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for securing this debate, and all Members for their contributions. I am, of course, very pleased to respond to today’s important debate on behalf of the Opposition. It is an undeniable truth that while talent is spread evenly across the UK, opportunity is not. We in the Conservative party take real pride in our record on expanding opportunity and social mobility to ensure that every young person, regardless of their background, no matter where they are from, has the chance to achieve their full potential and build the best possible career for themselves. More than 5.8 million apprenticeships across 700 occupations, from level 2 to degree level and backed by £2.4 billion by 2024-25, were started under successive Conservative Governments, giving young people the chance to gain real-world experience, to earn while they learn and to develop the skills needed to succeed in the workplace. We are equally proud of our achievement in the schools system. The Conservatives drove up school performance across the board, with 90% of schools rated good or outstanding at the end of our time in office, up from 68% under Labour. Under the Conservatives, England became one of the top-performing countries for education in the western world. It was named “best in the west” for reading, and recently for maths, and it is in the top five globally for science. This transformation did not happen by accident; it happened because the Conservative party relentlessly focused on standards, rigour and ensuring excellence to help drive opportunity for all. We can contrast that with other places in the UK—for example, Scotland. Nowhere is the effect of a Government allowing ideology rather than evidence to drive education policy more obvious than in Scotland. After almost two decades of the SNP being in power, its failure to close—indeed, its unrivalled ability to increase—the attainment gap in our schools is a record that should shame the SNP. Every day, the impact of this failure is being borne out in the life chances of children and young people across Scotland. The attainment gap between the poorest and wealthiest school leavers is at a five-year high. Young people from the most deprived areas in Scotland are over three times less likely to enter work or further education compared with those in the least deprived areas. Across science, reading and maths, there is an average performance gap of over 90% between the top and bottom socioeconomic classes, and pupils from the poorest areas are 23% less likely to leave school with at least one national 5, increasing to 38% for highers. Scotland’s schools were once rated among the best in the world. We are now ranked 14th in Europe for reading, 30th for maths and 32nd for science. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said: “something, somewhere is going wrong in Scottish education.” That “something” and “somewhere” can be found in the ideology of consecutive SNP Governments at Holyrood. I return to the Conservatives’ record at Westminster. We encouraged every secondary school to have a trained careers leader, to make the most of available connections and to co-ordinate and integrate the careers programme throughout schools. We launched the new careers programme, offering young people strengthened careers advice that would see all year 8 to 13 pupils have at least six opportunities to meet a range of providers of technical education, giving pupils an understanding of the full range of opportunities available to them, including apprenticeships, T-levels and higher technical qualifications —not just the traditional academic routes. If social mobility is to continue to improve, there must be no drift on the education and skills agenda under the current Labour Government. However, we have already seen the Government cut the minimum duration of apprenticeships from 12 to eight months. They have also ended the requirement for adult apprentices to complete English and maths functional skills. There is a proposal to divert half of the apprenticeship levy into other non-apprenticeship schemes—a change that will halve the number of quality apprenticeships available to young people—and level 7 apprenticeships are to be scrapped, which has been described as a direct attack on social mobility. We should also be clear that careers education and facilitation of social mobility are not delivered in a vacuum; they depend on stable staffing, adequate funding and overall stability in the education sector. Changes to the national pay and curriculum rules in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill risk undermining the very autonomy that has driven improvement in some of the most disadvantaged communities. The tax on independent schools is projected to push up to 90,000 pupils into the state system, swelling class sizes and putting even more pressure on local schools already struggling to balance the books. The rise in employer national insurance contributions has hit schools and colleges hard. When she winds up today, I hope that the Minister will outline how schools can continue to provide meaningful careers guidance and prioritise maximising social mobility for their students when they are struggling to pay their staff overheads and manage rising class sizes. If we are serious about social mobility, as I believe all hon. Members present are, then careers education cannot be an afterthought. It must be embedded in the curriculum design, teacher training, local employer partnership and the national policy. The Conservative party will continue to champion opportunity and to support high standards, academic excellence and rigorous technical education. We will always stand up for the right of every young person to choose their path, find their passion and make the most of their potential.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Windrush Day 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I think that Windrush and other scandals that have plagued our society are a stain on the UK. Whether the cause was, as the hon. Member said, a few bad apples or any other reason, the fact remains that we have to take action to address the issue that was created. We must ensure that those who were affected are compensated, that those who were affected and cannot be compensated are recognised, and that measures are put in place so that it cannot happen again. That is what I am interested in. I was not here in the last Parliament—that is not an excuse, but all I can do is my very best to ensure that injustices are not repeated in future. As I was saying, the compensation scheme has paid over £93 million, and that figure continues to rise. We hope the Government will continue to ensure that those settlements are paid. However, as we look forward to this year’s Windrush Day, while we must reflect on and learn from past injustices, we should also reflect on and honour the contributions of this remarkable generation. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who chaired the Windrush Commemoration Committee, spoke in a parliamentary debate about the importance of celebrating the positive aspects of Windrush Day. While for some, that name will forever be associated with scandal, I welcome the efforts of communities and members of the Windrush generation to reclaim it in a positive light. Many campaigners want the term “Windrush” to represent, not the scandal, but the vast and very many contributions made to the UK by this generation. As His Majesty the King noted when meeting members of the community on the 75th anniversary of the ship’s arrival, this was an “indomitable generation”. He said: “History is, thankfully and finally, beginning to accord a rightful place to those men and women of the Windrush generation.” A critical element of that recognition is commemoration, and—as we have heard—we should be grateful for the work of Basil Watson, whose magnificent national Windrush monument stands as a powerful tribute to the community. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) reflected, its location at Waterloo means that thousands of people pass it every day, a constant reminder to those departing or arriving at the station. When the decision was made to locate that monument at Waterloo, officials said that the decision was taken because it was where thousands of Windrush pioneers first arrived in London before starting new lives across the UK. For many members of the Windrush generation, Waterloo was not the end of a journey, but the beginning of a new life in this country and of the many contributions that they would go on to make. A former Minister at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government captured the essence of the monument: “Basil Watson’s sculpture perfectly captures the spirit of Windrush. In it we see the strength, hope and expectation of those who arrived with little and yet gave so much.” Of course, that statue—while symbolic—is only one part of the broader support provided. As Members will recall, in 2020 the previous Government launched a fund to support community-led initiatives celebrating Windrush Day. That funding was intended to enable projects across England to commemorate the Windrush generation and their descendants. It formed part of a wider effort to recognise the Windrush generation’s lasting contribution to British society, and I am pleased to see that the funding continues in 2025, with 30 projects supported under the current grant scheme. I understand that the Government have dedicated £4.25 million in funding towards honouring the Windrush legacy. In addition, while the Government have a vital role to play, the 75th anniversary also saw a wide range of private contributions, from events and exhibitions to documentaries, articles and much more.

• 21 May 2025 · Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase of Borrowing Limits) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the official Opposition as we consider the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase of Borrowing Limits) Order 2025. As Members will be aware, the instrument proposes an increase to the Government’s resource borrowing limit from £1,779.351 million to £1,834.303 million, and the capital borrowing limit from £3,050.316 million to £3,144.519 million. This represents an uplift of around 3.1% for both limits, which is in line with the annual inflation adjustments in previous years. This is not the first time that this House or its Committees have considered such an order. These annual increases have become a routine feature of the fiscal framework between the UK Government and the devolved Administration in Scotland. This is process is familiar, but that does not mean that we should treat it as a routine exercise. What we are considering today is the capacity for the Scottish Government to borrow funds and, as in this place, that comes with significant responsibility, not just to the Treasury but to the people of Scotland—our constituents. To be clear, the UK Government, under successive Conservative Administrations between 2010 and 2024, consistently recognised the importance of providing the Scottish Government with the appropriate tools to manage their finances. These borrowing limits are not arbitrary figures; they are designed to strike a balance between providing flexibility for the Scottish Government and maintaining fiscal discipline across the UK. The annual uplift ensures that the real value of these borrowing powers is preserved in the face of inflation. However, greater borrowing levels must come with significantly greater scrutiny and far more robust accountability. It is simply not sufficient to approve increases year on year without requiring clear, transparent accounts of how the borrowed sums are being spent. It is the role of this House, and particularly of those of us representing Scottish constituencies, to ensure that every penny borrowed on behalf of the Scottish people is spent wisely and for the benefit of our communities. Currently, there are mechanisms in place for this oversight—the UK Treasury and the Scotland Office provide some level of monitoring—but, frankly, given the sums involved and the track record of the Scottish National party Administration at Holyrood, we must ask whether those are enough. There is a pressing need for improved transparency and much more detailed public reporting on how the Scottish Government allocate and spend these funds. Regular independent audits and clear public reporting are essential steps towards rebuilding public confidence, which has been sorely tested in recent years. This is not a theoretical concern. Questions have been raised about the efficiency of capital projects overseen by the Scottish Government, with serious doubts about the value delivered for the substantial sums invested. From the delays in ferry services, to millions spent on a climate review to excuse the SNP failing to deliver the dualling of the A96, to ongoing issues with the NHS, the public have witnessed too many examples of funds being allocated to projects without clear, demonstrable outcomes. The Scottish people expect to see real, tangible improvements in infrastructure, public services and their local economies, and they deserve transparency about how these funds are being spent. While we acknowledge that the SNP Government have significant devolved powers, they have too often fallen short of the standard of fiscal transparency that the people of Scotland have the right to expect. This Government, therefore, should consider what specific checks and balances they will institute to ensure that the increased borrowing is used efficiently and effectively. It is one thing to increase the borrowing capacity, but it is another to demonstrate that those funds are being used to create tangible improvements in communities across Scotland. The previous Conservative Government consistently sought to improve transparency and accountability in Scotland’s financial dealings, and we should expect the same from the Labour Government. It is crucial that this House remains an active participant in scrutinising the Scottish Government’s financial decisions. While we do not oppose this order, recognising its routine and necessary nature, I urge the Government to use this moment to strengthen the systems of oversight and reporting that accompany these powers. The people of Scotland—those in our constituencies and beyond—deserve nothing less than the highest standards of accountability. They deserve to know that their money is being used in the best way possible, and that the Scottish Government are prioritising projects that bring real benefits for our communities.

• 20 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  Our fishermen had been promised, and the EU had agreed, that annual access agreements would be reverted to from 2026, but, seemingly at the 11th hour, the Prime Minister abandoned our fishing communities, our fishing fleets and control of our seas by handing not a three, four or even five-year access agreement, but a 12-year multi-annual agreement to the EU. He sold out our fishermen to meet his self-imposed deadline for announcing the agreement and has shown that he will not stand strong for UK fishermen. Can he confirm that Parliament will have the final say on the fisheries deal, and that it will not be ratified elsewhere by unelected officials in Whitehall or Brussels?

• 14 May 2025 · Ministerial Code: Compliance · Hansard source

  More

  In early November, Mr Speaker asked the Secretary of State for Education in this Chamber to start a leak inquiry to find out why the announcement that tuition fees would be raised was first made to the press, rather than the House. It is now mid-May. Will the Leader of the House please update us on when that inquiry will report? Has it actually begun?

• 30 Apr 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Ways and Means) · Hansard source

  More

  As we have said from the outset, we will support measures that improve policing and ensure that those who commit crimes face the full weight of the law. As such, we will support this finance motion as there are a great number of things in the Crime and Policing Bill with which we agree. Indeed, as we have pointed out on a number of occasions, significant elements of the legislation are effectively carried over from the Criminal Justice Bill in the last Parliament. Although there are areas with which we disagree, we must ensure that, following the passage of this legislation, the police have the resources they need. That said, there are two elements that should be acknowledged. First, given that this is a matter of finance, the settlement for policing that we have seen from the Government is clearly causing challenges for the police. We have already seen the Metropolitan police announce cuts in officer numbers, and we are warned that 1,800 officers may be at risk. I am concerned that the number may be even higher. The Government must ensure that we do not see the decrease in officer numbers that many are concerned about and which would undermine the measures in the Bill. Separately, on the matter of the Bill itself, although it is not an issue for today’s vote, I ask Members of this House to carefully consider the proposals that are put in front of them in the future, including on Report. I hope that Members will have the opportunity to vote on sensible amendments, which we firmly believe are in the best interests of the country. Rather than merely following the whims of a party, I ask Members to consider what is right and wrong for our country, for law enforcement and for victims. When there have been decades of historical abuse, particularly in the form of rape gangs, there must be thorough investigations—with no stone left unturned. Therefore, I hope this motion will not only cover what is currently in the Bill, but provide resources for a national statutory inquiry into rape gangs.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Draft Forensic Science Regulator Draft Code of Practice 2025 (VERSION 2) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I welcome the measures put forward by the Government. The changes are necessary to ensure that standards are upheld while allowing for streamlined updates to the process. The 2011 Act was a necessary step in providing a statutory footing for the regulator, following the recommendations of several separate reviews and reports that advocated that. It is important to ensure that the code corresponds with the reality experienced by forensic science providers, which means making alterations and recognising the need to support some of the changes outlined in the draft code. For example, the change highlighted by the Government—to avoid duplicating procedures relating to the quality-management systems operated by provider organisations—appears to be a proportionate and appropriate alteration. No longer requiring individual assessments or accreditation for each department is a step that should be widely supported. The changes in the draft code are significant, which is why it is important that the Government have listened to a range of stakeholders. There is no point in pretending that I or the Minister are well versed in the day-to-day experiences of forensic science providers. The long-running consultation launched by the previous Government, and subsequent targeted consultations, appear to have reflected the voices of those in the field. Moving forward, we must ensure that the regulatory burden is appropriately set. The enabling legislation is clear in its requirement that the regulator should keep the code under review. Will the Minister outline whether there have been discussions with the regulator about assessing the changes, including whether cost avoidance occurs in practice? Will she clarify whether she is confident that the transitional period up to 30 October will be sufficient to accommodate the changes for micro and small businesses? As I stated at the start of my speech, the Opposition welcome the measures.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to clauses 32 to 34 and amendment 5. Clause 32 in part 4 of the Bill seeks to address cuckooing by introducing a new criminal offence targeting those who exert control over another’s home for criminal purposes. Cuckooing is a deeply exploitative crime that targets some of the most vulnerable people in society, including the elderly, those with disabilities and individuals struggling with addiction or mental health issues. Criminals manipulate or threaten people to take over their home, or do it forcibly, using the home as a base for illegal activities such as drug dealing, human trafficking or weapons storage. Victims often live in fear and isolation, unable to escape due to coercion or physical violence. In 2022, London saw a significant rise in the number of recorded cuckooing incidents, with 316 cases reported, marking a stark increase from just 79 in 2018. That alarming trend in the city underscores the increasingly widespread nature of criminal exploitation targeting vulnerable individuals. The impact extends beyond individuals, affecting communities by increasing crime rates, disrupting social housing and straining law enforcement resources. Cuckooing is not just a property crime; it is a form of exploitation that strips people of their safety, dignity and control over their lives, making it essential to impose strict penalties and provide robust support for victims. Clause 32 is a welcome step forward in tackling the exploitative nature of cuckooing and the vulnerable individuals impacted by it. However, while the clause’s intentions are commendable, it is crucial that we examine the provisions thoroughly, not only to understand its strengths but to ensure that it does not inadvertently create unintended legal or practical challenges. The clause seeks to criminalise the act of exercising control over another person’s dwelling without their consent with the intent of using a dwelling to facilitate specific criminal activities. That is designed to target individuals who exploit vulnerable occupants by taking over their homes to conduct illegal operations. Looking at the key provisions of clause 32, an individual commits an offence if they exercise control over another person’s dwelling without legitimate consent and intend to use it for criminality. The clause is accompanied by schedule 5, which lists the criminal activities associated with cuckooing, such as drug offences, sexual exploitation and the possession of offensive weapons. The Secretary of State holds the authority to amend this schedule as necessary. For consent to be considered valid, the occupant must be over the age of 18, possess the mental capacity to consent, be fully informed and provide consent freely without coercion or manipulation. Consent obtained through deception or intimidation is not deemed valid. On conviction, the offence carries significant penalties. On summary conviction, an individual may face imprisonment of up to six months, a fine or both. On indictment, the penalty can extend to imprisonment of up to five years, a fine or both. The primary objective of clause 32 is to safeguard individuals from criminals who commandeer their houses for illegal purposes. By establishing a specific offence of cuckooing, the legislation aims to deter perpetrators and provide law enforcement with clear authority to intervene and prosecute these exploitative practices. Although the intentions behind clause 32 are commendable, we must look at areas of possible contention. On determining genuine consent, assessing whether consent is freely given with full understanding can be complex. Vulnerable individuals may be subject to subtle forms of coercion or manipulation that are not immediately evident, making it challenging to establish the presence of genuine consent. Furthermore, effective enforcement of the clause requires adequate training and resources for law enforcement agencies to identify instances of cuckooing, to support victims and to gather sufficient evidence for prosecution. Without proper investment, the practical application of the law may be hindered. There is a concern that victims of cuckooing might themselves be implicated in criminal activities conducted in their dwellings. It is crucial to ensure that the law distinguishes between perpetrators and victims, providing support and protection to the latter, rather than subjecting them to prosecution. Criminal networks may adapt their methods to circumvent the provisions of clause 32. Continuous monitoring and potential amendments to the legislation may be necessary to address emerging forms of exploitative activities efficiently. Clause 32 represents a significant step forward in addressing the pernicious issue of cuckooing. By criminalising the exploitation of individuals through the unauthorised control of their homes for illicit purposes, the clause aims to detect vulnerable members of society and uphold the integrity of private dwellings. Careful attention must, however, be given to the implementation of the provision, ensuring that genuine consent is accurately assessed, enforcement agencies are adequately resourced, victims are protected from criminalisation, and the law remains responsive to the evolving tactics of criminal enterprises. Through vigilant application and ongoing evaluation, clause 32 can serve as a robust tool in the fight against the exploitation of vulnerable individuals and for the preservation of community safety. Clause 33 is interpretative, as its primary objectives are to provide clear definitions for terms in the Bill. It ensures that all stakeholders have a consistent understanding of the terminology. Although the intention behind the clause is to provide clarity, certain challenges may arise. If a term is defined too broadly, it may encompass behaviours or actions beyond the intended scope, leading to potential overreach. Conversely, overly narrow definitions may exclude certain areas from being covered, creating loopholes. Differences in interpretation can arise between various stakeholders, especially if definitions are not comprehensive, which can lead to the inconsistent application of the law across different jurisdictions. For example, a dwelling is defined as being any structure or part of a structure where a person lives, including yards, garages, gardens and outbuildings. The definition also extends to temporary or moveable structures such as tents, caravans, vehicles and boats. Through the wide definition of dwelling, including not just the traditional home but temporary and moveable structures, the clause ensures that cuckooing can be addressed in a wider range of living situations. That is particularly important, given that vulnerable people may live in non-traditional housing and still fall victim to such exploitation. Clause 34 grants the Secretary of State the authority to amend the definition of “relevant offence” through a statutory instrument. This provision is designed to provide flexibility and responsiveness to the legal system, enabling it to evolve with the changing landscape of criminal activity and societal needs. The primary purpose of clause 34 is to offer the Government the flexibility to adapt the law where needed. As we know, crime is constantly evolving; new tactics, methods and forms of criminal activity emerge regularly. In recent years, we have seen a rise in cyber-crime, human trafficking, online fraud and terrorist activity. Those types of crime often involve technologies or methods that are not always immediately recognised or understood by the legislation at the point it is being made. Laws must remain relevant and effective to protect the public. For example, if new criminal activities or trends emerge that were not originally accounted for in the Bill, clause 34 allows for a quick amendment to qualify what is a relevant offence. That flexibility means that rapid changes can be made without having to wait months for a new Act of Parliament to be passed. Over time, societal attitudes, technologies and criminal methods change, so what is considered a relevant offence now may not necessarily apply in future. Clause 34 allows the legal framework to be adjusted to ensure that the law can keep pace with such changes. In addition to providing flexibility, clause 34 ensures that the law remains consistent in its approach to new forms of crime. Although the definition of “relevant offence” can change, the core intention is to maintain fairness, clarity and public safety. By allowing for a timely and consistent updating of legal definitions, clause 34 helps to ensure that criminal offences are properly recognised across the country. That is important because inconsistent definitions for offences can create legal confusion and undermine effective enforcement across jurisdictions. A standardised approach ensures that law enforcement agencies in different areas can uniformly apply the law, thereby strengthening the overall criminal justice system.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 53 acknowledges that police officers operate under a different framework when it comes to responding to crimes. Quite sensibly, it modifies the mandatory reporting duty to fit their role. After all, we would not expect a police officer to file a report with themselves. If an officer learns of abuse, they are already empowered, and indeed obliged by their oath, to take investigative action directly. The Bill here is technical, but the result is likely that a constable who has reason to suspect child abuse is considered to have complied with the duty so long as they handle it through the proper police channels, for example by recording it on their system, notifying their child protection unit or initiating an investigation. They would not have to make a separate notification to, for example, the local authority, as a teacher or doctor would. The police already have established protocols for involving social services in joint investigations. Clause 54 is essentially a future-proofing and housekeeping part of the chapter. It gives the Secretary of State the ability, with Parliament’s approval, to amend the reporting regime as necessary. It also ties up loose ends by integrating new offences into related legislation. The regulation-making power means that if a list of relevant activities needs to be expanded, that can be done relatively easily. Of course, it is important that any changes undergo parliamentary scrutiny. Although we want flexibility, we must also ensure democratic oversight, given the sensitivity of the obligations. I note amendment 15, as I have the other Government amendments.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Mr Murphy, can I pick up on the point about under-18s and respect orders? What sort of age would it be beneficial for the age limit to be reduced to, if that is what you were saying? Is there a particular age group where we see prolific antisocial behaviour starting to become more apparent? Also, is the definition of antisocial behaviour in the Bill wide enough? Clause 1(2)(9) states: “‘anti-social behaviour’ means conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.” My direct question would be: is it therefore being restricted to just a “person”, or does it include instances of neighbourhood or property nuisance, where there is a large-scale impact but no single person can be identified as the recipient? Dan Murphy: On your first point, it would obviously capture more incidents and issues if the threshold was set at a lower age, but do we want to be criminalising children with this type of offence? There is a balance, and it is a matter for Parliament and society as to whether they would like to lower that age. I can understand why it has been set at 18, but I wanted to make the point that, as it is set at 18, that power could not be used for young people. On harassment, alarm and distress, that is a person-specific issue, compared with a community or area. In policing, if we could have something that captured that as well, we would welcome it—again, it is an extension of powers. You are putting me on the spot here, as I am thinking, “How would you prove that? Who would be your witness or injured party for a community?” I think what is provided at the moment is useful. Would it be good if it could be widened? Yes. Practically, could it be widened? I think we would probably need a whole other Committee and some lawyers to discuss that one.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Regarding nudifying technology and other online tools that demean mainly women and girls, though they affect others as well, what do you think we can do to look at this further? Are there parts of the Bill where it should be addressed? In general, are we tackling this area sufficiently? Baroness Newlove: To be honest, I have not really looked into the detail, but when it comes to the House of Lords I will be very vocal anyway, in that sense. However, we must educate. I have seen too many vulnerable victims, and I know that the Government have been looking at this in their violence against women and girls strategy. We had a roundtable with Jess Phillips and it is amazing what technology is out there. But we need to educate people of all ages about technology to prevent them from being a domestic abuse victim. Tech companies need to be more responsible as well—when something really does harm a person, there must be accountability. We have to bring them to the table, but unfortunately, we all work in silos. We have this AI coming out, and look at what damage that can do—we are already seeing that. That is why I welcome what is in the Bill, but I think that while we have this, they are 50 steps ahead, and down the line other things will come up. We need to be alert and aware and we need to want to understand and make things secure for people.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  The changes to national insurance contributions mean that Aberdeenshire council has to find an extra £13 million in its budget this year. How will that help with education standards and health in Aberdeenshire?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak about the impact of the Government’s changes to the energy profits levy on people and businesses in my constituency, and on the UK as a whole, in terms of the energy security the Government are meant to ensure and the Government’s ever-more ambitious decarbonisation targets, which are being put at risk. The Chancellor’s decision to increase the EPL rate to 38% and extend it to 2030, while also removing investment allowances, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of our energy sector—indeed, the global energy sector—and the communities here that depend on it. According to Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce, 100,000 energy-related jobs across the UK, but disproportionately in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, are being put at risk because of the changes. The OBR’s figures project that capital expenditure will fall by 26%, with oil production down 6.3% and gas production down 9.2%. For businesses across my constituency, that means fewer contracts, reduced investment and diminishing opportunities. Or to put it another way: fewer jobs, fewer prospects and more redundancies. What is incomprehensible about the changes to the EPL is that they make no economic sense. Studies by Offshore Energies UK show that the changes will cost the Treasury £12 billion in lost tax revenue—£12 billion. If the Chancellor is so convinced that she is in a hole, maybe not digging deeper would be a good idea. The OEUK put that down to a rapid decline in production due to under-investment. While we are still going to use oil and gas for years to come, the Government are therefore choosing to take it from overseas producers where there are low environmental credentials and worse employment standards, rather than from the UK where we will be able to increase employment, secure employment, help our tax revenues and secure our economic growth both locally and nationally. Labour’s changes in the Budget will see a wholly punitive regime, with the effective tax rate being 78% on oil and gas companies—the highest of any comparable off-sea mature basin. What other industry in the UK would be expected to deliver something as fundamental as our heating, lighting or transport fuel—indeed, energy to ensure the NHS can operate and schools can run—while also being taxed to such an extent that the Government are driving away investment in a sector so crucial to our national security? What is particularly concerning about the EPL is the impact on home-grown energy businesses. These are not global multinationals that are often used as examples of the energy giants who make massive profits; companies that can and do buffer the impacts of EPL by increasing their overseas investments and reducing their investments in the North sea. Instead, this policy hits hardest the companies that have emerged and grown out of north-east Scotland, employing local people, supporting local supply chains and helping our local economies.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister shakes his head, and he has been shaking his head throughout the debate. The issue is this: the Government are not listening to farmers the length and breadth of the country. They are not listening to the National Farmers Union, and they are not listening to the CLA. People who speak for the farming community, people who represent the farming community, are not being listened to, and that is why they are in this position. It does not matter, it seems, how much we say to the Minister, or how much we say what our constituents are saying. The Government are not listening, and they are not willing to listen. Last Friday, I met members of NFU Scotland’s north-east region. Perhaps the Minister will not listen to this either, but they told me about some matters that they had been concerned about. One was a farmer whose father, aged 90, still owns the land and still farms it. He said to me, “I will have to sell. I thought I had a lifetime of farming ahead of me, but now it turns out that I only have what is left of my father's lifetime.” He did not sound angry; he just sounded broken. Another put it like this: “It is just a waste. Do they”—the Government—“not understand the resource that we have invested into family farms for generations—the skills, health and safety, teaching about husbandry and agronomy? We invest so much more than just money into farms, and this will all be lost. It is just such a waste.” In their manifesto the Government said that “food security is national security.” They reiterated that last week, adding: “The Government’s commitment to supporting farmers and rural communities is unwavering.” —[ Official Report , 4 November 2024; Vol. 756, c. 23.] However, in the few months since the election, the Government have done nothing to justify those claims. Granting solar farms on prime land, taxing fertiliser, removing the ringfence from the agricultural budgets for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and making changes to inheritance tax will impact family farms for generations. The Government have missed a key point: it is not words that impress or satisfy our farming communities; it is action, and so far this Government’s actions have let our farmers down.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly hope that we will have the opportunity to do so, but as I am setting out, the Government’s proposals for the North sea in respect of taxation and cutting down on licences do not guarantee that. As much as I and the hon. Member want and need for that to be the case for our constituents, we cannot guarantee it. That is why it is so important that we get the transition right. The Bill must include consideration of the impact on the public. Communities such as Leylodge and Kintore in my constituency face unprecedented infrastructure pressures. Those communities have seen a 3 GW hydrogen plant, an expanded substation, multiple battery facilities and new pylons. What are their statutory protections? What assurances are there in the Bill that certain communities will not be over-saturated with an unsustainable amount of infrastructure? Before the election, the Labour party claimed that GB Energy would reduce household bills by £300. Since then, Ministers have not repeated the promise and have not explained when or how it will be achieved. I am sure that the Labour Government would not want us to think that that promise was simply a headline-grabbing figure before an election, so I look forward to their clarifying that commitment and voting for our amendments on that figure. Let me move on to the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow. We hear that GB Energy will create 650,000 jobs—apparently, 69,000 of them will be in Scotland, which, if delivered, would be welcome—but as is the running theme in this Bill, we do not have sufficient detail to offer even a grain of certainty to comfort those whose jobs are on the line now. Existing oil and gas and supply chain businesses in Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and the north-east need a timeline so that they can plan their business and workforce. How, when and where will jobs be created? What kind of jobs and skills will be required? Of course, we now have certainty that one job will not be coming to Scotland, as we hear that the CEO will be based in Manchester. Is Aberdeen a headquarters in name but not in nature? We already know that there will be satellite sites in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Which other executive management jobs will not be based in Aberdeen? We in north-east Scotland are not buttoned up the back, so will the Minister confirm today that Aberdeen is still the headquarters for GB Energy—and I mean that in no other way than the meaning that the general public would understand? The funding may not be sufficient, the overall energy strategy is incoherent and there is no clarity on the delivery of jobs or any mention of £300 energy bill savings, but surely the Bill offers certainty to the very industry that will deliver the energy transition. That brings me to the strategic statement. One thing that we know for sure is that we do not know all we need to know about what GB Energy will do. As a result, the uncertainty will continue. For communities such as mine in Gordon and Buchan, and for businesses, supply chains and those working in the existing energy industry, that is profound. We need to know how those communities will be brought with us in the transition—if it is, indeed, to be a just transition. GB Energy will not generate energy, but it cannot instead generate mass redundancies across north-east Scotland. As has been mentioned, the Bill gives the Secretary of State extensive power to dictate what is in the strategic statement, and he has given himself the huge responsibility of ensuring that GB Energy delivers its aims. The work of the existing energy industry, and of communities such as Gordon and Buchan, must be taken into account. If it is not, the transition to cleaner, greener energies will be less efficient, less affordable and less possible. As such, I sincerely ask that the Secretary of State prepares the strategic priorities in a timely manner, taking account of stakeholders in the industry, the impacted communities, the current jobs and skills, and the existing businesses that are the bedrock of our future energy generation. Because the Bill gives us all but no clarity on what is going to happen, the strategic statement—which we are all waiting for—is going to be the key document in dictating whether it will or will not be a success. As I said at the start of my speech, I want it to be a success; I want the UK to be a clean energy superpower, just as we are, and always were, an oil and gas superpower. If we get this right, that superpower status will drive the economy and jobs of the future. We cannot allow investment to be lost, because that means that investment in new technologies will be lost. If we lose the expertise, the supply chains and the private investment because of the way this Bill is handled and how GB Energy is handled—there is no guarantee that private investment will stay in the UK just because GB Energy has been created—we will look back at this time and wish we had done things differently. I really do not want to be in that situation, because it is my communities in Gordon and Buchan and in north-east Scotland who will suffer the most.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I would obviously I have to see what the TFA suggested, but I think that we need to look at the agricultural sector as a whole. If land is being taken out of farming for any purpose, it is not going to be available for tenants, so if landowners are feeling compelled to sell their land because they have to cover an IHT bill, it does not matter what happens with reforms down the line; that land will not be available for tenants to access. I fully support the tenanted sector—it is a vital part of our farming sector—but, on its own, it will not be enough to keep land in production. BPR is important for every family business the length and breadth of the country, and therefore in all of our constituencies. Family-owned businesses are the beating heart of the British economy. Across the UK, there are approximately 5.3 million family businesses, employing over 14 million people and contributing £225 billion per annum to the Treasury. BPR is especially vital for small family businesses—including many in my constituency of Gordon and Buchan—which form the backbone of our local economies, providing much needed local employment, stability and resilience in the face of economic and environmental challenges. Businesses that rely on BPR to survive a succession event are often significant local employers, and their failure would have a knock-on effect on local services and on business rates, which are vital for local authorities. Other models of business ownership, such as plcs and those backed by private equity, do not face a tax charge on the change of ownership, so BPR is a vital mechanism to ensure that family businesses—85,000 of which are passed to the next generation each year—are at least on a level playing field. About 77% of family small and medium-sized enterprises are first-generation businesses. Without BPR, these family firms would lose the opportunity to grow and transition into successful next-generation businesses. If, following a succession event, businesses effectively have to take a 40% hit on their finances or asset base to cover an IHT bill, what chance is there for them to secure longevity and flourish in the future? As we approach the Budget, I hope the Minister and his Government will take on board that APR and BPR are vital to the long-term planning and investment of rural areas and family businesses. It is not an overstatement to say that the future of rural communities and our food security depend on it. In particular, the Government should focus on four things: providing clarity and reassurance on their intentions regarding APR and BPR; committing to maintaining those reliefs in their current form for at least the duration of this Parliament; commissioning an independent review on the wider economic and social impact of those reliefs beyond just the direct cost to the Treasury; and engaging meaningfully with rural communities, farmers and family business owners before pursuing any future changes. APR and BPR are not mere tax reliefs; they are the foundation of a thriving, sustainable and entrepreneurial United Kingdom. They support our farmers and family businesses, pillars of our communities that have been there for generations. They ensure that businesses can continue to operate following a succession event and allow for the long-term planning necessary for farms and family businesses to develop and thrive. I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister appreciate that although in the run-up to the election it was assumed, or said, quite often that GB Energy would save households £300, that figure seems now to have been dropped? Is this not a mechanism to ensure that low-income households see some benefit from the Bill? They will not necessarily take the Government’s word for it that it may come later, when we have already seen announcements such as the figure of £300 being dropped.