Kieran Mullan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Apr 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing the debate, and thank him for being willing to share his personal experiences. His doing so has been incredibly valuable. Similarly, I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). The criminal injuries compensation scheme is one of the most important parts of our justice system. It does not simply punish wrongdoing but, crucially, offers some measure of direct justice—some attempt to right a wrong for those whose lives have been changed by violence and abuse, as incomplete as that attempt may often be. In 2020, the previous Conservative Government published the findings of a comprehensive review of the scheme as part of a wider review of a first ever cross-Government victims strategy. It found that overall the scheme was operating well. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was dealing with more than 30,000 applications a year and had a high satisfaction rating of 95% from applicants who had been in contact in the preceding period. Those levels of satisfaction had been broadly maintained. Today’s debate has already highlighted that, within broad levels of satisfaction, there can often be serious and consistent individual failings, which it is important we do not take for granted. However, the review also recognised that changes and improvements could be made, and a consultation was launched on a number of areas to make the scheme simpler, more transparent and easier for victims to understand and engage with. Those included the approach to classifying and compensating for disabling mental injuries, overhauling how brain injury is represented and reforming the groupings of other injury types. The review also proposed changes to bereavement awards. Members may be aware that there was a need to launch a further, targeted consultation on the unspent convictions rule to ensure that it was fully and comprehensively reviewed for possible reform. Under that rule, an applicant’s compensation award could be reduced or withheld depending on the sentence imposed for an unspent offence they had committed. The Supreme Court has previously found that the unspent convictions rule was lawful and that the rationale underlying it was legally sound. The judgment also rejected the notion that vulnerability that leads to later offending should require any special exemption from the rule, on the basis that the criminal justice system should already include measures to allow any vulnerability of victims to be taken into account at the time of their prosecution and sentencing. Following that judgment, there was further impetus to consider change, as the Government rightly sought to respond to the final publication of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which made further recommendations regarding the scheme, as a number of Members have touched on. The 2023 consultation focused on time limits and the scope of the scheme. It considered the inclusion of online abuse in the definition of a crime of violence. It also looked at whether children who suffered abuse should have longer to apply for compensation. It also raised the question of whether non-contact offences should be brought within the eligibility criteria. The variety of consultations and additional areas for reform reflects what has been a rapidly evolving area of political and public concern. That has created a greater and greater focus on groups of victims, as our understanding of the nature and impact of sexual abuse, particularly historical sexual abuse, domestic abuse and online harms has broadened. Across the consultations, hundreds of responses were received and difficult questions were explored in detail. However, before a final response could be published, the 2024 general election was called. Last month, the current Government sought to move forward to resolve those pieces of work and to progress on the basis of this extensive background. However, they have also decided to make no changes at this time to the scheme’s scope or time limits or to the unspent convictions rule, and it is important for the Minister today to clearly explain why. I recognise the concerns about singling out particular categories of offending and about the unintended consequences of such changes. However, concerns arise when the guidelines that do exist that attempt to allow for exceptionality do not operate as well as they should. If the Government choose not to make formal changes to the rules, there is an even greater emphasis, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield said, on ensuring that the guidelines that do exist that operationalise the exceptionality clauses function as they should. On unspent convictions, the Government have laid out their reasons for not making changes—again, that is on the grounds of not wanting to create unintended consequences for victims. However, a proposal for reform was put forward that would have allowed the Government to maintain an overall bar on people seeking compensation despite their offending, by considering whether lower-level offences, such as community offences, could be removed from the disbarring applications, or where there could be a significant gap between the injury suffered and the nature of the indexed offence. That would be universal, rather than singling out particular types of offending. I would be interested to hear why the Government did not take forward that suggestion. I would also like the Minister to explain further the Government’s failure to provide a comprehensive response to the 2020 consultation, which suggested many reforms. The Government have said, to quote directly from the Minister’s foreword to the Government response: “I have decided not to publish a substantive response to the 2020 consultation as the victim support landscape has changed substantially since 2020. I am concluding that consultation by writing to the Justice Select Committee notifying it of my decision.”

• 29 Apr 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I think I have clearly laid out the timetable and the sequence of events, particularly in terms of the courts requiring a further consultation, and the sensible decision to respond further to the inquiry consultation. I am interested in actually getting a response; I appreciate that the hon. Member seeks to make a party political point, but that is fine. It is slightly disappointing not to see a comprehensive response, notwithstanding the hon. Member’s concerns, as I think that the 2020 consultation and the many proposals in it—some of which were implemented on an interim basis—were important. Does that mean that the Government have now entirely rejected some of the other changes I have outlined, or will the letter set out in more detail which changes will or will not be taken forward, and the reasons why? It is important for the Government to do that. Although the scheme may be working well overall, we should continue to consider where challenges remain operationally. We know that the experience of applicants varies regionally. For example, in Birmingham, which includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield, the average time for a compensation decision was over 490 days in 2022. While there has been some improvement, wait times are far too long for some individuals, even if the majority receive their compensation in a timely manner. We have heard from a number of Members today about individual cases and their personal experiences. It is important that we hold the Government to account in terms of ensuring that as many people as possible, and as great a ratio of applicants to the scheme as possible, receive an adequate service. The true measure of our commitment to victims is not the volume of our pronouncements, but the effectiveness of the systems we create to maintain them. I want to finish by saying that the criminal injuries compensation scheme has always been about more than money: it is about recognising harm and restoring dignity. The Conservative Government took that responsibility seriously. We listened, we consulted and we left a clear foundation for action. Now it is for the current Government to build on that foundation, and we will hold them to account, simply because victims deserve nothing less.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Horizon Redress and Post Office Update · Hansard source

  More

  More than 4,000 residents have signed my cross-party petition opposing the closure of the Bexhill Crown branch. It is fair to say that this whole situation has been made worse, because the Minister has allowed the Post Office to put the cart before the horse, with the decision taken on closures ahead of a clear guarantee on what will come next for all of our constituents. I notice that in his answers, the Minister has talked about “should”, “expectations” and “starting points”, but those are not cast-iron guarantees. Can he give a cast-iron guarantee that he will veto any replacement of the Crown service in Bexhill if it does not provide exactly the same services as the current branch is providing?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Whiplash Injury Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister explained, the Government have conducted their statutory review of the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 and determined that, while the existing tariff structure remains appropriate, an inflationary uplift is required. The proposed amendments will increase compensation for whiplash injuries occurring on or after 31 May 2025 by 14% to 15% across all tariff bands. That adjustment accounts for inflation since 2021 and provides an additional buffer for expected inflation until the next statutory review in 2027. The framework of the tariff remains unchanged, including the two-tier structure for “whiplash only” and “whiplash with minor psychological injury”, the requirement for a single medical report to support a claim, and the option for a discretionary uplift of up to 20% in exceptional cases. The review process highlighted challenges in determining prognosis due to inconsistencies in medical reporting. The Ministry of Justice has committed to working with the pre-action protocol medical report provider MedCo to improve the clarity and quality of medical reports, and we welcome that commitment. I understand that the Treasury is due to report later this month on whether insurers have, in fact, passed savings from these reforms on to policyholders—the primary, or certainly an important, aim of the policy’s original intention. It is important that motorists receive the anticipated lower premiums. We look forward to the findings of the review, and it would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that it is on track. Furthermore, while the statutory instrument is limited to amending tariff amounts, it forms part of a wider framework of reforms to be reviewed. A post-implementation review of the whiplash reform programme is due to take place in 2025-26, and we welcome the opportunity to assess its effectiveness in delivering fair compensation and maintaining access to justice. We support the regulations and recognise their role in ensuring that claimants continue to receive fair and proportionate compensation. We look forward to the continued monitoring of the system to ensure that it remains balanced and effective. Given the extensive and thorough review of the regulations provided by the Minister, I do not seek to comment any further.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  We are joined in Parliament today by Katie Brett, whose 16-year-old sister Sasha was raped and stabbed to death; by Ayse Hussain, whose cousin Jan was killed by a sex offender who stored her body in a freezer; by Paula Hudgell, whose adopted son Tony lost his lower legs as a result of childhood cruelty; and by Becky and Glenn Youens, whose daughter Violet-Grace was killed by a hit-and-run driver who spent barely more time in prison than she was alive. Supporting them are Jeremy and Susan Everard, who received justice for the murder of their daughter Sarah, but who know that too many others do not. They have come together to say with one voice that it is time for us to start ensuring that sentences truly deliver justice for victims and their families. Would the Prime Minister agree to meeting them to hear their stories at first hand?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Miscarriage of Justice Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I join everyone else in congratulating the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) on securing this debate and putting it front and centre of the Minister’s timetable, which is always an important achievement. The hon. Gentleman has done an ample job of representing his constituent, whose experiences we have heard about today. Overall, the UK’s justice system is one of the most respected in the world, and it is built on a long-standing foundation of trust in, and respect for, the rule of law. At the heart of that trust and respect is the belief in the ability of the law to right injustices, including those caused by the justice system itself. Ensuring that miscarriages of justice are rectified is vital to preserving that belief, and providing compensation to victims where appropriate is an important part of the process. Work began under the last Government to reform compensation for victims. In 2023 the then Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, removed the guidance on miscarriage of justice compensation, first introduced in 2006, that allowed deductions for living expenses saved while in prison. That common-sense change applied to all future payments with immediate effect, and it was vital in restoring fairness to this aspect of the compensation schemes. The last Government’s legal aid reforms have also been important in improving fairness and reducing delays to compensation applications. As a result of these new reforms, payments made through the miscarriage of justice compensation scheme no longer make people automatically ineligible for legal aid, helping to improve access to justice for those wrongly convicted. In the light of the concerns about miscarriages of justice, comprehensive data on compensation applications was made available by the last Government. That data has proved vital in informing the ongoing debate on compensation for wrongful convictions. I urge the Government to show similar transparency in that area. It remains clear that a comprehensive assessment of miscarriages of justice was needed, which is why the Government asked the Law Commission to review the law relating to criminal appeals in criminal cases. That review expanded to include compensation for wrongful convictions, and it raised a number of important points. I understand that it focused particularly on whether the UK is meeting its obligations under the international covenant on civil and political rights. The Law Commission has now recommended a number of reforms to compensation and support for the wrongly convicted, including replacing the requirement for people to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt—an issue on which we have focused considerably today—with only needing proof of innocence on the balance of probabilities to receive compensation. It is important that those proposals are thoroughly considered before any final decision is made, and I welcome the ongoing consultation by the Law Commission to that end. It is important that the additional costs that any changes to miscarriage of justice compensation would entail are thoroughly assessed and understood. I urge the Government to conduct a thorough cost assessment of any proposed changes and to make that data publicly available for scrutiny before any final decision on reforms to compensation are taken. I am sure that all Members here would agree on the importance of providing appropriate compensation for the victims of miscarriages of justice. I urge the Government to consider the responses to the Law Commission’s consultation carefully, and to consider how we might better support the wrongfully convicted.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Draft Online Procedure Rules (Specified Proceedings) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. As the Minister outlined, the statutory instrument we are considering is enacting legislation to facilitate the work of the OPRC, which was established by the previous Government under the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 to make rules governing the practice and procedure for specific types of online court and tribunal proceedings across the civil, family and tribunal jurisdictions. For that reason, we will not oppose the legislation, but, as the Minister would expect, I seek some assurances from her to ensure that implementation is as smooth as it can be. We must ensure that the efficiencies introduced by the legislation do not come at the cost of access to justice and procedural fairness. I know that the OPRC will be mindful of that in the rules it puts in place, but we have learned painfully over recent weeks how important the watchful eye of the democratically elected Government is. A key concern relates to the digital possession service introduced by the Renters’ Rights Bill, which will rely on the rules set by the OPRC. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has highlighted concerns that the necessary procedural rules may not be in place when the Bill comes into effect. The Ministry of Justice has stated that the rules will be laid “in time”—that is the only phrase it has used—to enable the digital service to operate, yet it has failed to provide a definitive answer as to when the rules will be published. Any misalignment between primary legislation and procedural rules could create legal uncertainty, potentially undermining both the effectiveness of the digital service and access to justice. I must press the Minister for a clear timeline for publication of the rules derived from these draft regulations. I also understand that concerns have been raised about overlapping rule-making jurisdictions with the Civil Procedure Rule Committee or the Family Procedure Rule Committee, for example. I am sure the Minister knows that was the main concern raised by the judiciary during the consultation period. What steps are being taken to ensure that no confusion will arise about which sets of rules will take precedence? Finally, digital justice must not become a barrier for those lacking digital literacy or access to necessary resources, and the rules will be key to that. I note that no impact assessment has been made for the draft regulations, as they are believed to have no significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors, but of course the rules could have an impact when they are put in place. I therefore urge the Government to monitor the effects of this change, and others introducing further technological solutions, to ensure that there are no unanticipated, unintended consequences. We must ensure that no one, whatever their means, whether they are technically savvy or otherwise, is in any way adversely affected by the move to digitally driven services. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Draft Civil Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Fees (Amendment) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the draft order, which seeks to reform the setting of court fees in a number of areas, as the Minister has set out. Court fees set under section 92 of the Courts Act 2003 may recover costs at only a reasonable predictive estimate of the cost of administration. As the Minister has explained, these reforms relate to three fees. First, fee 4.1 pertains to applications for council tax liability orders, which local authorities use to collect unpaid council tax. Secondly, fee 9.1 addresses applications for warrants of entry. These warrants are most frequently used by utility companies to gain access for disconnections, but they also serve a crucial role in safeguarding vulnerable individuals. Finally, fee 11.2 of the Civil Proceedings Fees Order 2008 covers the cost of selling seized ships or goods valued over £100,000 through High Court auctions. The fees play an important role in financing the operations of HMCTS. For example, CTLO applications generated £1.1 million in 2022-23, while warrants of entry raised £7.2 million from approximately 327,000 applications. These reforms sit alongside a revised costing methodology introduced by the Ministry of Justice, which offers a more detailed and accurate assessment of administrative costs. The change ensures that cost assessments better reflect operational realities and provides a clearer basis for determining whether adjustments are necessary. Although we broadly support this draft order, we ask the Government to provide further reassurances in some key areas. As the Minister emphasised, the draft order does not change the value of fees, though it does establish a framework for future increases above costs. It is essential that any future adjustments are subject to appropriate scrutiny and do not disproportionately impact court users, particularly those on lower incomes. Enhanced fees must not become a barrier to justice. Although these fees are relatively low in nominal terms, they apply to high-volume processes and could affect a significant number of people. We ask the Government to commit to monitoring the impact of these fees to ensure they do not deter individuals or businesses from seeking redress. The Government have stated that the future revenue from fees will be reinvested in the justice system. We seek assurances that the funds will be used directly to improve court efficiency, reduce delays and enhance digital infrastructure, rather than being absorbed into broader departmental budgets. I also encourage the Government to establish a periodic review process to assess whether these fees continue to be appropriate. Costs fluctuate, so regular reviews would ensure that fees remain fair and proportionate over time. We urge the Government to engage with stakeholders and to commit to regular reviews to ensure that court fees continue to serve their intended purpose without creating unintended barriers for court users. We support this draft order, but we will remain vigilant in holding the Government accountable for its implementation.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Anti-social Behaviour: East of England · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The shadow Policing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), is busy on a Bill Committee, so it is my pleasure to respond on his behalf. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this debate. Like the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), and, I am sure, the Minister, I experience these issues in my own constituency as a constituency MP. Just this morning I was on a call with the local police to talk about a recent spate of antisocial behaviour in Bexhill. Again, it is a fantastic place to live, work and raise a family, but it is still experiencing these issues. Hon. Members present will be aware that the east of England is not easily described in simple terms. As with my own region, its towns, cities and countryside create a diverse landscape, making policing challenging. The urban-rural divide leads to varied patterns of crime and offending, and to different demands on resources. Crime rates in the east of England are lower than the national average, and crimes excluding fraud have seen the rate per 1,000 people fall by 12.5% compared with pre-pandemic levels. Additionally, the antisocial behaviour crime rate is 4.6% lower in the east of England than it was last year. However, that is not enough. We must always be more ambitious in tackling crime; our constituents deserve to live their lives free from the burden of antisocial behaviour. It is fortunate that in certain regions we have effective police and crime commissioners working hard to address the very issue that we are discussing today. I understand that antisocial behaviour accounts for 14.5% of all crime recorded in the region; it is second only to violent crime at 36.5%. It is essential that the Government work with local forces to implement effective strategies to reduce antisocial behaviour, recognising the damage that it causes in undermining trust within our communities. The Government have said that tackling antisocial behaviour is a policing priority, and I know that people across the country will welcome measures to curb this behaviour, which does so much harm. Research conducted under the last Government highlighted its impact, with one Home Office study revealing that 66% of people changed their behaviour in at least one way because of antisocial behaviour. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that Governments of both parties have sought to reduce antisocial behaviour over many decades—and, as we have discussed, over the lifetimes of some of the hon. Members present—but we have not yet been able to completely crack the problem. The previous Government produced an antisocial behaviour action plan and took steps to implement a zero-tolerance approach by banning nitrous oxide, by increasing fines for fly-tipping, littering and graffiti, and by delivering hundreds of thousands of hours of uniformed patrols targeting hotspots blighted by antisocial behaviour. Given my four years as a volunteer policeman, I felt that the immediate justice element of the plan had particular potential. Data from pilot forces, including Essex, showed that over 100,000 additional hours of ASB-focused patrols were conducted in pilot areas. That led to a significant increase in enforcement activity, including nearly 800 arrests, close to 2,000 instances of stop and search, and nearly 1,000 uses of antisocial behaviour tools and powers.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Anti-social Behaviour: East of England · Hansard source

  More

  I think memories are definitely being scrambled. The Government have talked a lot about the supposed £20 billion deficit in day-to-day expenditure. I remind the Minister that it was around £100 billion when we came in in 2010. The Government talk about difficult decisions they had to take; we had five times as many difficult decisions to take as they have.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Anti-social Behaviour: East of England · Hansard source

  More

  I am doing my best.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Anti-social Behaviour: East of England · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady must forgive me: as I explained, I am not the shadow Policing Minister so, although I have heard about that, I do not know the local circumstances in detail. I am sure that she has made representations to the police, fire and crime commissioner on behalf of her constituents, as is appropriate if she does not agree with that course of action. Analysis conducted by the Youth Endowment Fund shows that patrols are particularly valuable. Its research, based on meta-analysis, found that hotspot policing has the potential to reduce overall offending by 17%, including reducing violent crime by 14%, property crime by 16%, disorder offences by 20% and drug offences by 30%. What did Labour come in and do? It scrapped the wider roll-out of the immediate justice approach, despite evidence of its clear benefits. Was Labour ready to go with its own ideas, after 14 years in opposition in which to come up with them? No: we faced a lull at a time when the programme we had been successfully delivering could have gone further. We now have to wait for further pilots and a wider roll-out of Labour’s different approach. Behind the headline figures on police funding, the details reveal a different picture. The funding settlement for the police announced a few weeks ago by the Home Secretary and the Minister increased funding by £1.089 billion, and they made a big play of that figure at the time. However, the funding pressures faced by police forces across England and Wales—including the £230 million extra that police forces will have to pay in national insurance—add up to £1.205 billion for the coming financial year, which starts in just a few weeks. That is about £160 million more than the funding increase. The National Police Chiefs’ Council’s finance lead—the local chief constable of the hon. Member for Norwich North, as she mentioned—warned that those pressures would “inevitably lead to cuts across forces”. The 43 police forces across England and Wales may have to cut up to 1,800 officers to make up that funding shortfall, whereas we delivered the highest ever number of police officers on the country’s streets—149,679—and oversaw a 51% reduction in overall crime, excluding fraud. We should all be concerned about what may happen next. I will also pick up on the points made about youth services and again refer to my experience as a volunteer police officer. We should always be cautious about supporting a narrative that excuses criminality. The vast majority of young people from all different backgrounds, with access to exactly the same services—whether those service levels are higher or lower than we might want—do not commit crime. We should never say that a lack of a youth club is an excuse for young people to turn to crime. What we actually know is that parental background, parental responsibility and families have an incredibly important role to play. When we support the narrative that excuses criminality, we talk down the many successful parents who are doing a good job of keeping their kids on the straight and narrow, regardless of what local services are available.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Anti-social Behaviour: East of England · Hansard source

  More

  I am not familiar with the data about those notices for the hon. Member’s constituency. Of course, there is always a challenge in distinguishing between the focus of police and patterns of crime. For example, in this debate we have talked about shoplifting but we have seen, at the same time, a decrease in burglaries, car thefts and so on. The police must always be nimble and not allow themselves to be overly distracted by one particular element of crime, but I take the hon. Member’s point seriously. Recently, the Essex police, fire and crime commissioner outlined the benefits of an additional £1.6 million for hotspot patrols to tackle antisocial behaviour in 15 areas. The first phase of that initiative, known as Operation Dial, resulted in 101 arrests and the issuance of 112 fixed penalty notices—in keeping with what the hon. Member mentioned—across 13 zones. It is welcome that Essex has not been alone in this practice: police forces in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk are also utilising targeted, visible patrols that have the dual effect of addressing antisocial behaviour and serious violence.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Anti-social Behaviour: East of England · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know whether this is coming up in the Minister’s speech, but will she set a target for the reduction in antisocial behaviour that the Government are going to achieve in their time in office, as I asked in my speech?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Anti-social Behaviour: East of England · Hansard source

  More

  My point is that we have to be clear about the narrative we are all supporting. I did not hear a single Labour Member talk about the important role of parents. I am happy to acknowledge that there are risk factors, but when I talk about these issues I am always clear about the balance, and I did not hear any of that balance from any Labour Members. I am confident that the Minister will highlight the Crime and Policing Bill, which as we heard was discussed at length last night. One of the provisions that the Government have emphasised is respect orders; however, questions remain about their impact and the extent to which they will produce different outcomes in reducing antisocial behaviour. The Government have stated that the rehabilitative aspects of the orders will make them more effective than the previous regime, and that they will include more robust powers when enforced. Can the Minister clarify what resources will be allocated to support the rehabilitative elements? I note the Government recognise that the success of respect orders is not guaranteed, which is why a pilot scheme is being introduced to assess them. Will she outline where they will be implemented and how their success will be measured? My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), always a doughty champion for his constituents, talked about the importance of housing associations. This is something that I have also experienced as a constituency MP. Will the Minister confirm what engagement she has had with housing associations? In addition, has she had discussions with colleagues across Government to ensure that the approach to antisocial behaviour is co-ordinated across all Departments? As I have said, we have heard repeatedly from police forces, including those in the east of England, about the strain on their budgets. In Norfolk, the local force has expressed concerns about its £4 million funding shortfall, which has been met with an inadequate level of supplementary funding. Additionally, in Essex, there are the challenges of funding PSCOs that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) mentioned—the very group of people that we expect to be able to work in this area. I ask the Minister to give us a clear set of measures and targets for how the Government expect to do so much better through delivery of this programme.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Anti-social Behaviour: East of England · Hansard source

  More

  I can point to a number of things that we would not have done. We would not have invested the same level of money in settling public sector strikes at above-inflation pay rises. We would not have given train drivers what I think was a £7,000 pay rise. There are many different ways we would have spent the money. Police numbers ebb and flow, but the hon. Lady talks about the narrative of what we achieved in government; we achieved the highest ever number of police officers. With the potential of fewer officers, we inevitably create greater risk, making it easier for the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour to avoid detection and confrontation. If the Government are serious about reducing antisocial behaviour, they must ensure that their choices do not result in further cuts to police numbers. If they do not, their pilots and plans will not make the difference that our approaches were making and all our residents will be let down as a result.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Prison Leavers: Resettlement · Hansard source

  More

  The House will have heard very starkly that the Minister did not offer me any clarity. I can help him by telling him that there is not one word anywhere on the expectations of victims of crime and their families— [ Interruption. ] Not one word. Worse than that, it cherry-picks evidence from reports to support a narrative that an ill-informed public do not know what they want and do not understand. Does the Minister agree that for that review to have any credibility whatsoever, it must engage seriously with what victims and the public want when it comes to the use of prison for the punishment of serious offenders?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Prison Leavers: Resettlement · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the efforts to help prison leavers to reintegrate, but I am concerned that this Government will soon be keeping people out of prison who should be there as part of their proper punishment for offending. The Government commissioned a sentencing review running on that very premise, and that review recently released its interim report. Can the Minister point to anywhere in that entire 65-page report that has anything to say about the evidence of what victims want?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Geothermal Energy · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is completely right—forgive me, she is also a member of the APPG although I did not recognise that at the start of my remarks. One thing we can do through the APPG—we started to do this in the last Parliament, and I am trying to reconstitute it—is to help interested local authorities form a group and support them. This technology is new to them, and they do not necessarily have the expertise and understanding. Again, the hon. Member is right: these are the sorts of things that a comprehensive Government-led strategy could help to address close the gaps. As I said, the resource in Europe, and the rocks that are being exploited, are essentially exactly the same veins of rock that cross the channel. There is no geological difference and no less potential than with the rocks that are being exploited in Europe. It is true that the heat and rocks necessary for deep geothermal electricity are rarer here in the UK, with Cornwall leading the field, which is where the projects I mentioned are getting off the ground, but historically the focus on electricity has caused us to overlook the potential for heat. The Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology—REA—worked with Arup to assess the UK’s potential. They estimated that the UK could support 360 geothermal plants, producing 15,000 GW of heat each year, which could supply heating to over 2 million homes through heat networks. Additionally, some of those plants could generate around 400 GW of electricity annually, enough to power a further 150,000 homes. The Minister will be looking closely at securing the best possible value for money from every penny invested in renewable technologies, but I want to make four points about the way in which this exercise should be undertaken, because too narrow a framework would underestimate the benefits of deep geothermal to our economy overall. First, as I alluded to earlier, solar and wind are cheaper now, but they did not used to be and we need to think about the potential trend costs. Secondly, as mentioned, deep geothermal is baseload, unlike solar and wind, and that has to be given due consideration. Thirdly, there is the question of where the investment will end up. I had the opportunity to work with the Durham Energy Institute as part of a national review into deep geothermal for the previous Government. We identified that deep geothermal can play a key role in levelling up, with six of the 10 least economically resilient local authorities also having the highest geothermal potential. Some 44% of the list of high potential locations for deep geothermal fall within the top 100 UK local authorities in need of levelling up, three times the amount that we would expect as a result of chance. Investing in the sector would create thousands of well-paid jobs and drive green growth in areas that need it most. Fourthly, deep geothermal provides a natural transition for oil and gas workers, as many skills, such as drilling, are directly transferable. Oil and gas companies—sometimes UK companies—are delivering these projects across Europe. Surely this is the obvious industry to invest in to protect those jobs and businesses as we transition. How might we go further in the short term? I have worked with the industry to develop a ready-made plan. I ask the Minister to look closely at the proposals that the APPG have produced to create a carve-out in the public sector decarbonisation scheme to unlock this opportunity. The PSD scheme has already played a crucial role in helping public sector buildings transition to low carbon heating solutions. However, a specific programme could be carved out to support an initial cohort of deep geothermal projects, ensuring that schools, hospitals and other public buildings can benefit from this reliable, renewable heat source. By doing so, the Government would not only accelerate the decarbonisation of public infrastructure, but provide a strong foundation for the wider geothermal industry to scale up and attract investment. I have spoken in the Chamber before about how hospitals are fantastic anchor candidates for deep geothermal plants. Industry leaders have identified that, of the 210 NHS hospitals in England and Wales that have been prioritised for decarbonisation due to their high heat demand, 109 overlie potential geothermal aquifers. The advantage of working across the NHS is that we can bundle up opportunities to create a bigger investment opportunity. I know that hospitals across the country are already exploring this, including Eastbourne district general hospital, which services my constituents in Bexhill and Battle. One of the challenges for deep geothermal is scale of cost and uncertainty. Solar and wind are cheaper and more certain investments. A single geothermal plant is expensive and cannot be guaranteed to tap into the reserves the analysis suggests will be found. By pooling together the investment opportunity of a number of sites, economies of scale are created, the risks of not all the sites delivering can be factored in and the numbers can still be made to add up. The private sector is willing and able to invest in such an opportunity. I have personally met representatives from a number of capital funds and deep geothermal developers and they would leap at such a project. We estimate that a dedicated fund of just £15 million for 10 plants at 10 public sector sites could unlock £250 million of private sector investment and kick-start a wider industry in the UK. Will the Minister meet me and other members of the APPG to discuss that in the near future? Alongside that, there is a powerful argument for a broader geothermal development incentive, modelled on the heat incentive, which will provide businesses with confidence that geothermal is part of the UK’s energy future. It could be modelled on contracts for difference, ensuring a competitive process, but by offering scale we would again be reducing risk for developments. I know there are concerns about open-ended support for any industry, but the aforementioned REA-Arup report modelled support for only an initial wave of 30 projects that would help establish a scaled industry in the UK, which could then stand on its own two feet. Establishing a deep geothermal strategy is crucial to setting clear targets and providing a long-term road map for the sector. Will the Minister advise whether the Government will produce such a strategy? Government support is key to enabling a route to market for the sector. I know the Government are shortly due to publish a review of the comparative costs of deep geothermal. When does the Minister expect the review to be published? That would provide a welcome update. I know that industry stakeholders that work with the APPG and others would be happy to act as critical friends of that review ahead of publication. Would the Minister be happy to facilitate that? It is so important to ensure that this review has looked at all the evidence and can make full use of the experience of industry. The APPG also considers and is trying to raise awareness of the benefits of shallow geothermal, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) mentioned. While it is very closely related to deep geothermal, as we might expect, that industry faces different challenges, but it could offer solutions even more widely. I know that significant private sector investment is available. Again, we are talking about a technology that could reduce the strain on electricity-driven grid connections. For both sectors, GB Energy might well be expected to play a vital role. Can the Minister confirm my expectation that its remit will extend to heat as much as to electricity, and can she confirm whether the mandate from Government will ask it to consider deep geothermal specifically?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Geothermal Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Member. The Government need an entire strategy for deep geothermal that will hopefully draw attention to those different pieces of the puzzle, including planning and licensing, which are so important. Not too far away from his constituency is the Eden Project, which people see as a byword for environmental credentials in this country. It is pioneering this technology, which is a powerful testimony to its environmental benefits. Since the closure of the non-domestic renewable heat incentive in 2021—unfortunately just as interest was peaking from industry—deep geothermal, unlike solar and wind in their early beginnings, has been without comprehensive Government support to develop the market. There have been encouraging breakthroughs, as was mentioned, and in 2023 the UK’s first operational deep geothermal plant to open in 37 years went online at the Eden Project. Deep geothermal also made its historic debut in allocation round 5 of contracts for difference, with three projects from Geothermal Engineering Ltd securing approval, totalling 12 MW of capacity. At Langarth garden village, green heat network funding is now supporting the development of a geothermal-powered heat network to turn that resource into local supply. Those successes show that, with the right backing, geothermal can become a key player in our transition to clean, sustainable energy. However, those ad hoc wins are not providing the sort of comprehensive dedicated approach that we need. As it stands, the UK has fallen far behind other countries that have for some time harnessed the potential of deep geothermal. If we look across Europe, as of 2022 there were 74 projects in France, 31 in the Netherlands, and 190 in Germany. Deep geothermal energy heats more than a quarter of a million homes in Paris, and the French Government aim to increase the number of schemes by 40% by 2030. Munich is pouring in €1 billion through to 2035 to develop deep geothermal and make the city’s heating carbon neutral. In fact, Germany is already producing more than 350 MW annually, and the Government are targeting at least 100 new geothermal projects. Across Europe alone, hot sedimentary aquifers have the potential to provide eight terawatts of heat at 90° C—30 times more than the district heating systems that currently serve 70 million people across the region. The potential is enormous.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Geothermal Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman; that is one of the pieces of the jigsaw that will further unlock private sector investment. In my engagement with industry, that is slightly further along the chain of things that it is looking for—the numbers do not add up at all at the minute, let alone a proper regulatory regime being in place. As soon as we unlock the numbers, the demand for all the other areas will really ramp up, which is why we need this thought-through strategy from Government so that they can anticipate and prepare to bring in the other elements when they become particularly important. I hope that I have done an adequate job of showcasing the industry and its potential. Everything we have learned in recent years shows that we need to take advantage of every opportunity. We need to build the biggest coalition, deploy the largest possible workforce and spread the benefits of decarbonising as widely as possible if we are to succeed and bring the country with us in the challenge. I cannot think of a better way of doing that than putting dedicated resources into deep geothermal. I know that it could bring benefits to my constituents and to the constituents of many other Members and unlock hundreds of millions, if not billions of pounds of investment into our economy. I look forward to hearing about the Minister’s plans and ambitions, which I hope will get us there.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Geothermal Energy · Hansard source

  More

  The point to emphasise is that the current scheme is based on going project by project, which undermines our ability to bundle up the risk, which is so vital to deep geothermal. That is the key change we are looking for: the opportunity for a number of sites to be pulled together, which is what will be most attractive to investors.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Geothermal Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to have been granted this Adjournment debate, as it provides a welcome opportunity to put on the record in this new Parliament the benefits that deep geothermal could deliver for our country, in particular for parts of our country that most need investment, while making a contribution to the vital issue of energy security. Helping me in this effort is the all-party parliamentary group on deep geothermal, which the Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology helps to administer. I am delighted to spot the hon. Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and for Rushcliffe (James Naish) in the Chamber, who are all members of the APPG, which provides me with an opportunity to recognise and thank them for the work they are doing for the cause. Deep geothermal energy remains an underutilised resource in the UK, despite its potential to provide reliable renewable heat in particular, and also power. With growing pressure to secure our energy future and decarbonise heating, now is the time to give this technology the attention it deserves. As we work towards energy security and decarbonisation, we must explore every viable renewable energy source. Deep geothermal offers a stable and sustainable solution, yet it remains largely untapped in the UK. To unlock its potential, the Government must take the lead, providing the necessary support to get projects off the ground and demonstrate their long-term viability. One of the biggest challenges we face in the journey to net zero is the decarbonisation of heating, which must be treated as a priority. The UK has more than 28.5 million homes and 1.9 million other buildings—including offices, hospitals, shops and warehouses—the vast majority of which rely on gas boilers for both heating and hot water. These buildings alone account for nearly one fifth of the UK’s total emissions. The Climate Change Committee has identified decarbonising heat as one of the most difficult yet essential steps in reaching net zero. Achieving net zero by 2050 requires us to use every tool at our disposal. While much of the Government’s attention has been focused on air and ground source heat pumps, alongside other electrification methods, which have an important and certainly dominant role to play, converting the entire housing stock to those technologies will put immense pressure on our electricity grid and supply chains. That is where deep geothermal stands out. It offers a reliable, low-carbon solution for heating that is not dependent on sun or wind—it is there all year round, whatever the weather—and has been successfully deployed in other countries to great effect.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Geothermal Energy · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is right, and I join him in paying tribute to the BGS, an organisation I have had the pleasure of working with over recent years. It has done fantastic work in mapping and identifying the potential, and with funding it will have the appetite to go even further, reducing uncertainty by helping developers and investors to understand the resources underneath our feet. The UK is already a world leader in tackling climate change and clean energy, having been the first major economy to halve our emissions, and renewables now account for more than 50% of our electricity, up from just 7% in 2010. With deep sedimentary basins in east Yorkshire and Cheshire, granites in Cornwall and Scotland, hot sedimentary aquifers in Surrey, Dorset, and Sussex—in my constituency—the UK’s unique geography puts us in an ideal position to exploit the benefits of geothermal energy.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Geothermal Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I fully support the hon. Member’s efforts to raise this issue. She will know from the local projects in her constituency that we are making a start, but it is not enough, and this needs to be part of the broader plan in a comprehensive way. When I first learned about deep geothermal technology, I thought it sounded too good to be true: an environmentally friendly, reliable and cost-effective source of heat and power right underneath our feet. But the more I explored it, the more I realised it truly lives up to its promise. Let me briefly explain the technology. Deep geothermal taps into naturally occurring hot water deep underground to produce significant amounts of usable heat and energy. Making use of that is no different from the way in which the Romans built their baths above hot springs; we just run a pipe down instead of relying on the water making its own way to the surface. People sometimes wonder whether the technology is fracking mark 2. Fracking involves the use of high pressure to crack the rocks to create artificial flows. Like Europe, we have access to resources of naturally flowing water that simply need to be tapped. Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the United Nations all support deep geothermal in the light of its environmental benefits. A site is typically 1 to 2 acres. It does not take up huge swathes of farmland like solar panels can or involve erecting wind turbines, which some communities think detract from the local landscape.