Kieran Mullan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2025 · Criminal Justice · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition to this estimates day debate on Ministry of Justice expenditure as it relates to criminal justice. I thank the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for securing and opening the debate. We are in Armed Forces Week, and those of us who have been involved in the criminal justice system in various guises over the years know that in our prison service, around a quarter of prison officers have an armed forces background. In that sector alone, we see the ongoing contribution that people from the armed forces community make to our public services in different ways. It is a pleasure to be able to pay tribute to them on the record today. Criminal justice is, of course, a very important topic for discussion. Our courts, prisons and probation services are the bedrock of our criminal justice system. This Government have been in charge of these key areas of public expenditure and activity for almost a year now, and we have heard from Members about the challenges that those who are in contact with the criminal justice system continue to face. We all know that, almost from day one, this Government have lurched from crisis to crisis, and sadly the Ministry of Justice has not been spared. As we consider the estimates for expenditure and the Government’s linked plans to overcome challenges in the criminal justice system, we can only have a meaningful debate if we consider the journey we have been on to reach this point. I will begin by responding to the points that have been raised about the inheritance that this Government had. Their inheritance can only be fairly considered in the light of what we inherited, what we delivered despite the challenges, and what challenges remain. Labour Members talk about challenging inheritances in the criminal justice system, but what did we face upon arriving in office? We have heard a lot in recent months about Labour being forced into early release schemes for prisoners as a sign of the pressures on the system, but what exactly was happening with early release at the end of Labour’s last period in government? Under the last Labour Government, an astonishing 80,000 prisoners were released early—a huge number—with those releases stopping just before the election for purely political reasons. We were left to pick up the pieces across the prison estate that we inherited. During our 14 years in office, we released just 6% of that figure. If the number of prisoners that Labour Members say they have been forced to release since they came into office is a barometer of failure, what exactly do they make of releasing 80,000 prisoners early after more than a decade in charge? Perhaps Labour had a good excuse for releasing that many prisoners early—maybe it happened because Labour had been spending its time in office rightly toughening up sentencing for the worst offenders. I am afraid not. In fact, in what I consider to be an enormous historical mistake—the consequences of which we are still battling today when it comes to delivering proper punishment through the justice system—Labour introduced automatic halfway release for essentially all offenders when it was last in government. Those offenders were not included in the figure of 80,000 released early under the emergency schemes I have spoken about. Essentially, all offenders were released early, yet Labour still managed to have a sustained crisis in prison capacity, so I do not take any lectures from Labour Members about the history of the Labour party and the criminal justice sector. Under the previous Conservative Government, we worked to restore public confidence that serious offenders would face the punishment that their crimes deserved, and worked hard to ensure that—unlike when Labour was in government—we did not have to release 80,000 prisoners early through emergency release schemes. We brought in serious reforms. We reduced automatic release from halfway through a sentence to two thirds of a sentence for the most serious offenders, which was a huge step forward in introducing a greater degree of proper punishment into the criminal justice system. Building on that, we introduced whole-life tariffs for the premeditated murder of children. We increased maximum sentences for the worst child abusers through Tony’s law; for killers of emergency service workers through Harper’s law; and for those who kill through driving in memory of victims such as Violet-Grace. I am proud of all those reforms, and make no apologies for them. Such measures do create challenges for prison capacity, but as I will go on to explain, those changes were necessary. More than any other factor, it was covid that created the challenges we now face. Of course, we had to tackle the enormous challenges presented by covid, which have left a long legacy in the criminal justice arena. We prioritised the right to jury trials in a way that the rest of the world struggled to; we had one of the shortest suspensions of sittings of trials, and did what we could to support the continuation of jury trials. We increased sitting days, allowing the courts to sit at maximum capacity for three years in a row; we invested £220 million in essential modernisation work for courts up to 2025; and we extended the use of 20 Nightingale courtrooms in 2024-25. That kept our justice system moving, despite what Labour now claims. Undoubtedly, the backlog still presents challenges, but again, I am happy to compare records. Labour MPs are now deeply concerned about the backlog, but how concerned about Crown court backlogs were Labour MPs when they were last in government? I can tell Members that pre-pandemic backlogs in the Crown court reached higher levels during Labour’s time in office than they did under us. The increase in the remand population of approximately 7,000 above the historical average, which is directly linked to covid, is a major factor in the prison capacity challenges we now face. What has Labour done to make a decisive difference since coming into office? Did the Government rush to maximise sitting days to get the backlog down? No, they did not—they have repeatedly dragged their feet. For almost six months, they did not take the Lady Chief Justice up on her offer of further sitting days, and even now, there are more days available to the Government that they have not funded. With each month that has passed, that has meant more lost court days, more people waiting and more pressure on the system than if they had just increased sitting days from the outset. What has been their biggest celebration when it comes to prison building? It is the opening of a new prison, HMP Millsike, which was planned, paid for and largely built under the previous Conservative Government. Despite what Labour says, we created 13,000 prison places during our time in office, including in two new prisons, HMP Five Wells and HMP Fosse Way. I am not aware that any of Labour’s projected plans for prison places use net figures, which Labour Members want to use when looking at our record. The Government have announced plans for 14,000 prison places by 2031, supported by £7 billion, but 6,500 of those places were already in the pipeline, having been announced by the previous Conservative Government. Four of their new prisons were already planned or under construction, so this announcement is less a bold new strategy than it is a tired re-announcement. Even more concerning is the funding gap. The Government have allocated £7 billion, but the National Audit Office reports that the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service expect the cost of expansion to be closer to £10 billion. That is a £3 billion shortfall, placing a serious question mark over how the promised places will be delivered. How are the Government building on their legacy of releasing over 16,000 prisoners early just in their first six months, which is 11,000 more than planned? In the name of what they call sustainability, they are embedding even greater levels of early release into the system, unpicking the positive steps we took in government to turn around Labour’s legacy of weaker punishment. The Government are doing this on the back of a sentencing review carried out by David Gauke, based on the premise that increasing prison populations were unsustainable. I am clear that that review was an insult to the views of victims and their families—many have told me so directly—and it is unfortunate that so many Members speak positively about it. Imagine launching what you describe as a “landmark review of sentencing”, and then giving almost no consideration in the pages of that report to what victims and their families actually want from sentencing. Worse, instead of a serious attempt to engage with what victims and their families might want, Mr Gauke chose to deploy the all-too-common patronising talking points of those who want us to believe that victims and their families simply do not understand sentencing, and that if they did, they would undoubtedly feel much better about it all. This might be of particular interest to the Chair of the current Select Committee, because Mr Gauke, in particular, cherry-picked quotes from our excellent report from a previous Session on public understanding and expectations of sentencing. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick might remember, that report very much engaged with what the public wanted and how to determine that more effectively. It takes a particular type of intellectual approach to go through a report full of rich detail and just pick out what suits you, hoping no one will notice. Well, I noticed, as did representatives of victims and their families such as Justice for Victims. That half-baked exercise in considering sentencing has now served as the launch point for the Government’s sentencing policy. If halfway release was not an appalling enough legacy from the last time Labour was in government, the Government are reducing release to a third of the sentence for most offenders, and turning our two-thirds release for the worst offenders back into halfway release. Let us be clear: prisoners will now be rewarded for doing what should be expected of them. Obeying prison rules and engaging in education or working are the basic behaviours of any law-abiding citizen. They should not qualify offenders for early release, and they certainly should not allow them to serve as little as one third of their sentence. That is not justice. Labour’s model rewards serious offenders, does little to protect the public, and is a dereliction of duty. All the while, our Crown court backlogs have increased by more than 10% and stand in excess of 70,000 cases. Our remand population sits at more than 17,000 people. Wherever we look, problems that Labour promised to fix in opposition are just getting worse. How does the Lord Chancellor now plan to tackle this challenge? The £450 million committed to the courts in the spending review is a perhaps useful, if not fully adequate, indication, but how will the money be spent? Unfortunately, that is where the Government fall short. The Government have no substantial ideas of their own, with 14 years apparently not long enough for them to think of their own innovations. While we await the findings of yet another independent review that they hope will solve all their issues, they have announced that custodial sentences of under 12 months will all but vanish, replaced by community sentences. The consequences are staggering. Up to 43,000 offenders, including burglars, shoplifters and knife carriers, will avoid jail altogether. I have met local businesses at their wits’ end. They tell me about the rise in shoplifting, staff who are afraid and customers who no longer feel safe. Removing custodial sentences for repeat offenders does not send a message of reform; it sends a message of impunity. Labour has chosen the easy way out. It is tackling the prison population not with long-term reform or capacity investment, but by quietly reducing sentences and downplaying criminal behaviour. It is short-term thinking that puts public safety at risk. In fact, just last week it was reported that the Government declined to move forward with building a new prison block. They say they are doing everything possible to avoid releasing prisoners early, but how does that square with that decision? We might think that the Government would grab opportunities that cost nothing, but we have seen them stand in the way of reforms we put forward as amendments to the Victims and Courts Bill this week. Labour did not support making sure victims are awarded compensation equivalent to their losses, or allowing victims the freedom to speak their minds in victim personal statements. Labour did not support increasing the time available to collect courts fines, or giving victims and families a better chance to appeal unduly lenient sentences. All their lofty spending plans will be of little use if this Government’s ongoing mismanagement of the economy leaves us with even less money to spend on the Ministry of Justice. Across nearly every single major economic metric, Labour has made things worse. Unemployment is up, inflation is up and all the projections of economic growth it inherited from us have been downgraded. Is it any wonder why? The Office for Budget Responsibility is clear about the damaging impact of the Government’s jobs tax, and businesses can see what is on the horizon with the Employment Rights Bill. The costs of borrowing are soaring. The MOJ’s expenditure pales in comparison to what we will be paying on interest in ballooning debt over the course of this Parliament. I will finish with three short questions. First, given the funding allocated to probation and the increasing reliance on it and given that, as the Justice Committee member, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) highlighted, the number of probation officers has gone down since Labour came into power, how do the Government plan to ensure that money is delivering effective services? Secondly, how do they plan to close the £3 billion gap in the prisons budget? Thirdly, given that so much of their own thinking is relying on it, when will Brian Leveson’s report be published? The British people deserve a justice system they can trust—one that protects victims, punishes offenders and keeps our communities safe. This Government’s approach fails on every single count.

• 13 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  May I start by offering the condolences of His Majesty’s Opposition to all those affected by the Air India plane crash, including the families of the very many British citizens who, very sadly, lost their lives. Our thoughts are with all of them. As is well understood now, the Opposition remain neutral on the principle of whether assisted dying should be introduced. That will depend on the Bill’s progress through its remaining stages in this and the other place. However, I wish to raise two important matters. First, on the matter of time, all of us understand the considerable challenges that Mr Speaker faces in having to balance the desire of colleagues to speak on this matter with the limited time available for private Members’ Bills—I know that he is doing his best to strike that balance. A number of Members have pointed out that the time being given to this Bill is significant and more than that normally allocated to even quite substantial Government Bills. None the less, it is right to acknowledge that this is far from an ordinary Bill. It is hard to think of a more deeply consequential and highly contentious piece of legislation for our society. The reality is that, both today and in previous sittings, a number of Members have been unable to speak. There has been an informal time limit on speeches, and interventions have necessarily been limited as a result. Debate in this House is important not just because it decides how we vote, but because it is used by the courts to help interpret legislation. A more limited debate limits the scope for that. Ordinarily, a Minister would have significant time at the end of Report to deal with amendments, provide clarification and explain intention, in a way that the promoter of the Bill will not. Again, a majority of Members may be satisfied with that, but very many are not. Although what we decide on the business of the House is ultimately determined by majority vote, how we reach a decision and how we allow alternative views to be explored matters. We should all consider whether we want a debate of such importance to be curtailed in the manner that it has been. I ask the Government to consider assisting Mr Speaker by making more time available for us to ensure that, on Third Reading, we have the fullest debate possible, with every Member having a reasonable opportunity to speak and take interventions in the way that they would like. Secondly, Members will be aware that the Bill, although extensive, is not the full picture. As others have highlighted, significant elements of how assisted dying will operate are due to be determined by future delegated legislation. The Government’s delegated powers memo notes that the Bill contains 38 delegated powers, including Henry VIII powers, and more powers are contained in the promoter’s amendments that are scheduled for decision today. They include matters such as the content, form and thoroughness of doctors’ reports, regulations for replacing a co-ordinating doctor who is unable or unwilling to continue, and decisions on who will be notified of the panel’s decision, which has been raised as an important potential safeguard. Those are not trivial matters. These pieces of legislation cannot be amended and MPs can vote only yes or no. In some cases, they are unlikely to be debated, and they almost certainly will not be on the Floor of the House. It is important for Members to fully understand that. MPs often have to weigh up the consequences of rejecting such legislation when they disagree with it, because it could leave a void. Members are well within their rights to be content to proceed regardless. Certainly, a majority of the Committee have presented a Bill to the House with the composition as described. That is, of course, a legitimate choice for Members to make. We have heard in the debate today about amendments to curtail these powers, and Members will need to decide their views on that. I urge the Government, in the interests of helping Members to have the clearest possible idea of how a scheme they are being asked to vote on will operate, to provide as much detail as possible on what these future regulations might consist of. Although we will not be able to have all the answers, I think most Members would agree that it is better that we vote with more detail, rather than less, even if they are satisfied to support assisted dying in principle. This is something that only the Government can do. I ask that the Minister reflects on that challenge in his closing remarks, alongside giving the Government’s response to those asking for more Government time to allow wider debate with more Members able to speak. I emphasise again that the Opposition remain neutral on whether we should introduce assisted dying, but it is incumbent on us to at least draw attention to matters of procedure that can be addressed only by the Government. I look forward to the Minister addressing the concerns of Members along the lines reflected in my remarks today.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Humanist Marriage · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain, in what has been a heart-warming debate. I thank the hon. Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) for securing this debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. Marriage and civil partnerships play a vital role in fostering stable families and, as a result, more stable communities. Marriage and civil partnerships are more than personal milestones; they are cornerstones of strong, cohesive and enduring relationships—values that my party holds dear. When talking positively about marriage, I always like to point out that my parents were divorced; I do not approach this issue with some idealised view of what marriage represents and can mean, but understanding that an institution is not perfect does not mean that one cannot champion all of its benefits. I must also declare an interest in that I consider myself to be a humanist, and I am a member of the all-party parliamentary humanist group—this seems to be a gathering of humanists in Parliament today. The exact meaning of what it is to be a humanist will be different for different people, just as the interpretation and meaning of religious faith varies among individuals. To me, it has its greatest value at a community and societal level. We can all individually decide to try to lead what we consider to be moral, values-based lives, but humanism provides us with the opportunity to do so from a shared perspective. Many humanists celebrate significant milestones—births, marriages and deaths—in ways that reflect their values and worldview. As others have said, a humanist marriage ceremony is often deeply personalised, focusing on the couple’s individuality and commitment, rather than adhering just to religious traditions. Humanist ceremonies are gaining in popularity because they offer an alternative that resonates with those who prefer secular yet still meaningful celebrations. Approximately 1,200 couples a year choose to have a humanist marriage ceremony, and currently they all have to have a separate legal ceremony. The public, outward-facing nature of a marriage ceremony puts into action the idea that values can be even more powerful when shared and celebrated together as a community. Previous Conservative Governments understood and recognised the importance of marriage. We delivered the groundbreaking Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, which allowed gay and lesbian couples to lawfully marry for the first time. Indeed, that legislation provided for a review and subsequent public consultation on humanist marriages too. I understand that the majority of respondents to the 2014 consultation were in favour of changing the law. However, the coalition Government, which included the Liberal Democrats, decided that the legal and technical requirements of marriage ceremonies and registration in England and Wales should be considered more generally, alongside making a decision on this issue. The Law Commission was asked to review the law governing how and where people can marry in England and Wales, and the Law Commission concluded its work in 2022. The final 500-page report on reforming weddings law set out 57 recommendations. One feature of the proposed new scheme is that regulation would be based on the officiant rather than on the building in which a wedding takes place. The report also set out a scheme by which anybody could be authorised to conduct civil marriages. I have some concerns about the Law Commission’s proposals. I understand that the recommendations go beyond giving humanist wedding ceremonies legal status, and they would create a free-market, celebrant-based approach to the wedding industry. I disagree with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), that marriage is an entirely individual choice. We have talked about how its value sits within society; and if society does not regulate and choose how that operates, marriage loses its wider shared meaning. Alongside humanists, others have expressed that such a move could undermine the solemn nature of marriage. I understand that the current Government have also taken the view that wholesale reform is preferable. But every year that passes rightly creates further pressure, as the balance tips closer to those arguing that having specific measures to support humanist marriage ceremonies is the fairer approach. Let us not forget that Scotland and Northern Ireland already legally recognise humanist marriages. During the pandemic, the previous Conservative Government took steps to adapt our marriage laws to accommodate the social distancing regulations in place at the time. In June 2021, they recognised the need for flexibility during a challenging time for individuals wishing to marry and for wedding venues, by extending legal recognition to outdoor civil marriages on an interim basis. The measure allowed ceremonies to take place outdoors on approved premises, addressing the unique challenges posed by the pandemic. Following a consultation, that temporary reform was made permanent in April 2022, ensuring that couples could continue to celebrate their union in a safe and meaningful manner. The reform demonstrates the ongoing Conservative commitment to marriage and proves that specific adaptations to our legal framework to meet the needs of the moment are eminently possible. On a personal level, and as a member of the APPG, I share the frustration with the continued delay to marriage reform and, as a result, the recognition of humanist marriages. I also note the YouGov poll, conveniently published earlier this week, showing strong public support for recognising humanist marriages, with 70% in favour and only 15% opposed. The support is consistent across religious and belief groups of different kinds. Notwithstanding the concerns I have outlined, the Opposition are positively predisposed to the introduction of humanist marriage ceremonies. While we would need to consider any proposals in detail, we hope to be able to welcome any reform package brought forward. We are increasingly sympathetic to the need for specific measures to allow humanist marriages to take place, given the ongoing delays. A number of Conservative Members who support these measures wished to attend this debate, but as is often the case, timetables can be challenging. I hope the Minister can outline a timetable, and if she cannot, can instead explain what consideration the Government are giving to targeted reform. What do they see as the obstacles to this approach? As other Members have mentioned, the manner in which the marriage ceremonies of Quakers and Jewish groups are legally recognised provides a template for the Government. At the heart of this discussion lies a fundamental truth: marriage and civil partnerships are institutions that promote stability, responsibility and community cohesion. These are values that I, as a Conservative, champion unequivocally. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plans for bringing them to the fore for the humanists in our society.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is at pains to say that pensioners do not have to do anything to get this payment, but of course they had to do something—they had to write to, email and call Labour MPs, and tell them that this cut was wrong. At the time, the justification Labour MPs gave for the cut was the economic circumstances. Given that inflation and unemployment are higher, and growth is lower than it was going to be, was not the time for Labour MPs to listen before the cut, not after it?

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

  More

  I am grateful to be able speak in this Opposition day debate ahead of next week’s UK-EU summit. I campaigned for, believed in and continue to believe in the promise of Brexit. At its core, Brexit was a vote for the importance of national democracy, a vote for national sovereignty and a vote against regionalisation and government by bureaucrats. I believe strongly in international co-operation, but I do not believe in institutionalisation. I do not believe that decision making gets better in aggregate. My experience has taught me that it only gets worse. It gets more remote, less well informed and riddled with compromises that barely satisfy anyone and please no one. I continue to believe that the UK—its people and its Government—deciding its own future, not locked into continental bureaucracy, provides the best possible future for us. Behind all the carefully choreographed language from Ministers about resets, there is one inescapable truth: this Labour Government risk laying the groundwork and taking the first steps to betraying the full promise of Brexit. That should not be any surprise, given that they are led by a man who campaigned for the leadership of the Labour party on the basis of restoring freedom of movement. He supported a second referendum and he voted against Brexit 48 times. We on this side of the House are not prepared to watch this slow train wreck in silence. Many issues have been raised by many Members, but I want to raise just two that are of particular importance. First, on the youth mobility scheme, the fundamental issues that made freedom of movement so unpopular would remain at the core of any youth mobility scheme. The level of economic disparity across EU member states is fundamentally incompatible with the scheme becoming anything other than yet another route for mass low-skilled migration, at a time when the Government tell us they want to drive that down. Secondly, there can be no dynamic EU rule taking or ECJ oversight. Any agreement on food standards, services or carbon trading must not come at the price of automatic alignment. We did not leave the EU to find ourselves bound to it in everything but name. We must demand mutual recognition and independent dispute resolution, and that is the only thing we should accept. That would reflect a relationship of mutual respect. These are not unreasonable demands. They are the bare minimum that any sovereign state would expect when engaging in talks with a foreign bloc. The United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, whether the Prime Minister and his Ministers like it or not. Is it any wonder that they are looking for answers internationally when we look at their domestic picture? They are restricting winter fuel payments, inflation is still biting us, business confidence is shaken, working families are being hammered with job-destroying taxes, and growth is stalling. We must not allow this to serve as a diplomatic distraction from their domestic failure. We will not allow Labour to turn a reset into a roll-back, and any future Conservative Government will not be bound by any agreement that breaches these clear red lines. We will not allow Brussels to disguise control as co-operation, and we will not let the democratic choice of the British people be eroded by stealth. Brexit was not a pause; it was a pivot. It was a huge opportunity for our country, and I believe that the benefits will accrue for decades to come. The Government might be able to hide their true intentions this week but they will not be able to hide them forever, and we will be here to make sure that the British people know what they really believe in. It is not the freedom and sovereignty of Brexit.

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

  More

  As was put to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), at the start of the debate, the red tape is coming from the EU, not us. Why is the ire of the Lib Dems never directed at the people responsible for introducing the trade barriers?

• 8 May 2025 · Small Abattoirs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing this important debate. Several farmers in my constituency have contacted me to raise concerns about the threat to small-scale abattoirs, to express how vital they are to their business and to ask me to take part in this debate to share the challenges they face as a result of the disappearance of small-scale abattoirs and their fears for their future. I thank the Brighton and Hove food partnership and the Wealden food partnership for their local research on this matter. Small-scale farms go hand in hand with small-scale abattoirs, which offer the flexibility that small farms need to rear a diverse range of breeds. In Sussex, they support conservation efforts to restore a rare and highly diverse habitat. We are incredibly fortunate in East Sussex to have one of the rarest habitats in the UK—chalk grasslands, which have formed over thousands of years and have created the conditions for a rich, biodiverse ecosystem of rare plants and animals. The South Downs national park authority highlights that we can find up to 40 different species within 1 square metre. Since world war two, however, the UK has seen an 80% reduction in these chalk grasslands, making their conservation an important local issue, as the last remaining areas are under threat from spreading scrub, including nettles, hawthorns and brambles. Local farmers can support these crucial and rare grasslands through a process known as conservation grazing, which is considered an important tool in local efforts. Conservation grazing is the practice of using primarily native breeds of grass-grazing livestock to selectively graze out problem or invasive species, most often without the need for supplementary feeding. That gives our chalk grasslands the opportunity to start growing, instead of continuing to shrink. The native breed animals needed to do that, however, are typically smaller and less homogenised than the products we are used to seeing in supermarkets. Most large-scale abattoirs sell directly only to wholesalers and supermarkets, which creates a number of problems. Supermarkets have very clear specifications of what they consider to be an acceptable cut of meat. Often, the native breed animals that farmers would use in conservation grazing will not be accepted by supermarkets, as they produce cuts that are too small or too variable, meaning that large-scale abattoirs will not accept those livestock in the first place. Farmers are then restricted in the breeds they can rear. Large abattoirs usually do not allow farmers to reclaim their meat to sell locally. If farmers are able to sell their own meat, they are also often able to make a small premium, which tells the story of their farm and recognises the slow and sustainable pace at which the animals were grown. That is where small-scale abattoirs such as Down Land Traditional Meats come in. The abattoir is in Henfield, West Sussex, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who I know has been doing his best to support it. It provides an essential service to local farmers in my constituency and across Sussex. The abattoir is willing to accept those native livestock species and allow farmers to get their meat back. Sadly, like many small-scale abattoirs, Down Land Traditional Meats faces potential closure due to a range of different factors. Some are specific to its circumstances, but there are pressures outside its immediate control. One pressure, as has been mentioned by other Members, is an uplift in the FSA hourly rates for official vets and meat hygiene inspectors visiting meat premises for the 2025-26 financial year, which on average is close to 20%. It is true that the very smallest abattoirs have discounts on those rates, which have remained, but for those abattoirs in the middle bands, there has been a decrease in the discounts from 26% to 17% and from 14% to 6% respectively. That puts immense financial pressure on already tight margins. Without small-scale abattoirs, local farmers and businesses will have to start reconsidering practices such as conservation grazing or start looking further afield into other parts of England, but that comes with its own consequences. Whatever their size and make-up, there are good reasons to have a good spread of abattoirs across the country so that all farmers are reasonably close to one. In that regard, the south of England already has a disadvantage compared with the rest of the country, as there are so few abattoirs of any kind—only Scotland has fewer per square mile. Using more distant abattoirs would increase the transit time for livestock. That is a great concern to farmers in my constituency, as their livestock would have to be placed in bigger lorries and travel longer distances. Long journeys increase stress in animals as they are exposed to crowded conditions, noisy vehicles, vibrations, a lack of food and water or space to rest, and fluctuating temperatures. On an economic point for farmers, the cost of increased transportation will further cut into their tight margins, making an already costly business even more expensive and, perhaps for some, unviable. The last Government recognised the importance of small abattoirs and the role they play in providing a route for farmers to rear rare and native breeds, which is why they launched the £4 million smaller abattoir fund to boost the sustainability and efficiency of red meat and poultry abattoirs across England. The fund awarded capital grants from £2,000 up to a maximum of £60,000 to help smaller abattoirs across England improve productivity, enhance animal health and welfare, add value to primary products and encourage innovation and investment in new technologies. Six months after the launch, recognising further pressures, the last Government increased the maximum grant value to £70,000. Meanwhile, this Labour Government have instead introduced devastating changes to inheritance tax laws through their cruel family farm tax, which will mean that many small farms will have to sell land to larger so-called super farms, which may not have the same sense of guardianship over the land as our smaller local farmers. I finish with a number of questions for the Minister. First, given the increased costs, what assessments have the Government made of reforming the professions that can conduct the necessary welfare checks? Are they confident that only a vet can fulfil all the duties currently fulfilled by vets at that increased cost? Secondly, what plans are there for further direct funding support for small abattoirs? Finally, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of the fee increase? Can they commit to freezing fees for next year? I welcome this opportunity to raise those concerns on behalf of farmers in my constituency, and I look forward to the Minister providing the concrete plans and reassurances that my local farmers seek.

• 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.

• 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

  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.

• 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 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.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q10. The whole House wants the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Trump to be a success, which requires credibility on our defence spending commitments. The Leader of the Opposition gave the Prime Minister the opportunity to rule out unambiguously funding any Chagos deal from the defence budget, but I am not clear that he did that. I want him to be taken seriously in Washington, so I will make it really easy for him: will he rule out funding any Chagos deal from the defence budget—yes or no?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Arbitration Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I join the Minister in his extensive and accurate list of thanks, and particularly in his thanks to Lord Bellamy, who introduced the original Bill, and to the Law Commission for its excellent work. The Minister also mentioned Lord Thomas, Lord Hacking and Lord Wolfson. I echo his comments on the effective role of the arbitration sector, and on the wealth that it brings to our economy because of its world-leading status and the certainty and confidence that it gives businesses that they will get an excellent service on which they can rely. Finally, like most Members, I have had conversations with constituents who have said, “Why can’t you lot agree with each other more often? When I turn on the TV, it seems that all you ever do is argue,” but we work together quite effectively on Delegated Legislation Committees and in other forums. This debate is an excellent example of us working collaboratively in the national interest in the main Chamber—an example that Members might point their constituents towards.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Growing the UK Economy · Hansard source

  More

  Away from Labour’s rhetoric, I suspect that Members on both sides of this House are hearing the reality from our constituents. On Friday, I visited Saxonwood care home in my constituency, and St Michael’s hospice just across the border, which looks after my constituents. I have also heard from Bexhill chamber of commerce, and they are all clear that Labour’s planned national insurance rise will do enormous damage to their attempts to grow, and to employ people. Does the Chief Secretary agree with the OBR’s forecast that the jobs tax will harm growth, not help it?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Arbitration Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise on behalf of the Opposition to support the Second Reading of the Arbitration Bill. As the Minister has laid out, arbitration is a cornerstone of the UK’s legal and economic landscape, contributing significantly to our reputation as a global hub for dispute resolution. The Bill seeks to amend the Arbitration Act 1996 to ensure our framework remains world leading and fit for purpose in a rapidly evolving global business environment. Arbitration plays a vital role across both the domestic and international spheres. It is employed in areas ranging from family law and rent reviews to commodity trading, shipping and investor claims against states. With over 5,000 arbitrations conducted annually in England and Wales, the process directly contributes more than £2.5 billion to our economy in arbitrator and legal fees, while also supporting wider sectors, such as banking, insurance and trade. The Minister used the opportunity of this debate to cover quite extensively the long and distinguished history of arbitration in our judicial system. We all agree that London stands proudly as one of the world’s most preferred seats for international arbitration, alongside Singapore. Maintaining this position is no accident. It reflects the strength of our legal system, the confidence of global businesses in our expertise and the robustness of the original 1996 Act. However, as other jurisdictions modernise their arbitration laws, we must ensure that ours remain cutting edge to safeguard our competitive lead. The previous Conservative Government rightly recognised that need, and in March 2021 tasked the Law Commission to review the Act. I thank all those involved at the Law Commission for their hard and excellent work. After extensive consultation and input from stakeholders, the Law Commission published its final report and a draft Bill in September 2023, identifying targeted reforms to enhance our arbitration framework. A Bill to deliver those reforms was introduced by the Conservative Government in November 2023; I thank the Minister for his acknowledgment of the previous Government’s work. The Bill’s progress was interrupted by the general election. The Opposition commend the Government for reintroducing the Bill swiftly in light of the broad support. Observers may have noticed that we have a quiet Chamber today, but in this the world’s first debating chamber, the lack of attendance is a reflection of the deep and considered consensus and lack of debate around the need for this important Bill and what it is seeking to achieve. I thank Lord Bellamy in particular for his contributions as the sponsoring Minister of the original Bill and for his continued and important contributions in the development and improvement of this Bill. I also thank Lord Hacking for his contribution to the debates in the other place, particularly on the issue of corruption. We appreciate such valuable input and agree that that matter warrants further consideration. Even if, ultimately, the need to get the Bill on to the statute book for all the benefits that it brings means that it would not be appropriate to do that through the current legislation, we should continue to monitor and revisit that issue. The Arbitration Bill introduces a range of reforms designed to improve clarity, efficiency and fairness in arbitration proceedings. Those reforms address practical changes while reinforcing the UK’s position as a global leader. I will highlight a few key provisions, as the Minister has explained in detail, which make the Bill significant. First, the Bill addresses long-standing uncertainties in the legal framework, particularly regarding arbitration agreements where no jurisdiction is specified. By defaulting to the law of the seat of arbitration, the Bill aligns with international norms, thereby enhancing predictability and clarity for parties involved. Secondly, it strengthens the integrity of arbitrators by codifying the duty of impartiality and disclosure. As clarified in the landmark Halliburton v. Chubb case, the Bill ensures greater transparency and fosters trust in the arbitration process. Finally, the Bill promotes procedural efficiency. Provisions such as allowing summary awards, recognising emergency arbitrators and streamlining jurisdictional challenges represent vital steps towards making arbitration more accessible and efficient for all stakeholders. Those are just some of the many commendable provisions in the Bill that aim to modernise the 1996 Act and ensure that arbitration remains an attractive and effective method of dispute resolution. The Opposition developed the original Bill and support this one to ensure the UK’s ongoing leadership in arbitration. However, we remain committed to scrutinising its provisions in Committee to ensure they achieve their intended goals without unintended consequences. I commend the Bill to the House and I look forward to hearing the contribution of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to the debate.

• 22 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme · Hansard source

  More

  Governments make choices. I have just laid out the economic situation that we inherited, which was worse than the one Labour has inherited, and yet we prioritised NHS spending. Nobody forced Labour to give above-inflation pay increases to a number of public sector workers and enormous pay increases to train drivers, or to make a significant but unwise investment in the green investment plan.

• 22 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way yet. Yet that is exactly what the Government have done again and again, breaking not only that pledge but a series of pledges they made during the election—that they would not say in government that they had been forced into a particular situation. That was the Chancellor’s specific pledge. It was clear from the Secretary of State’s statement this week that the Government intend to continue making the issue a political football. I will reiterate the important context behind the challenges that we are seeing in NHS capital backlogs. When we came into Government in 2010, £1 in every £4 being spent by the Government was borrowed, which was clearly unsustainable. If the Labour party thinks that its current economic inheritance presents challenges for public spending, let me remind it of what we inherited. Unemployment was higher; inflation was higher; the deficit, or the black hole as Labour Members like to call it, was higher; and economic growth was lower. Even in that context, however, we prioritised NHS spending.

• 22 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme · Hansard source

  More

  I share that disappointment, which relates to some of the remarks that I will go on to make about how those costs will go up with the delays, because of the inflationary pressures globally. To address the concerns about our role in the process, I remind the Minister that the Chancellor was specifically asked during the election campaign about commitments that were being made on tax and spend. She was also asked whether those commitments would have to change when Labour was in government, because of the fiscal challenges that she had not known about—

• 22 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme · Hansard source

  More

  That remains to be seen; we will have to see what the Office for Budget Responsibility says in March about the planned public expenditure limits. To be clear about taking interventions, I am very happy to debate things, but this is a 30-minute debate in which the primary focus is on the person who secured the debate. The Minister will get a chance to make those repeated points, so I will not let anyone else make another intervention. I was happy to let people make interventions, because I am keen for you all to champion your local hospitals, but if you are not willing to play ball with me—

• 12 Dec 2024 · Prison Capacity Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  No—you cannot give way on a statement. In fact, prior to covid, we had got the Crown court backlog down to a lower level than it had been under the last Labour Government, another record of which we can be proud. To try to tackle the problem, we increased sitting days and introduced Nightingale courts, and contrary to what the Government have said, we were clear that we would carry on doing everything possible to bring that number down. We did not refuse the judiciary extra sitting days, as this Government have done, nor would we have refused them. We had agreed a floor on sitting days, not a cap, and negotiations were ongoing. If the judiciary had come to us and asked for more sitting days, we would have responded to that—and not by saying no, which is what this Labour Government have done. In the prison population estimates that sit alongside this plan is the proof that the Government truly have already given up on fixing this problem. Not only do their projections not target the remand population being brought down, but they show it going up, which means more victims waiting for trials and more prisoners released early. We should be building more prison spaces, and under our leadership we actually increased prison capacity at the fastest rate in living memory. That was not so we could accommodate more people on remand, but so we could go even further in ensuring that offenders are properly punished and victims get justice. The Government want to talk about the last 14 years, but I am afraid this plan leaves me asking what they were doing for those 14 years. They came into office telling the British public they had it all worked out. What have they done on sentencing? They have asked someone else to do a review. What have they done on how we prosecute murder? They have asked someone else to do a review. What ideas have they come into office with for tackling the court backlog? Absolutely none. Today, as the Minister knows, we have simply had a reannouncement of our planned prison building programme, with four new prisons, all of which were already announced or under way before Labour took office. This is not a bold new strategy; it is a continuation of work started under the Conservative Government. There are of course some important questions for the Minister. First, given that we did not do so, why have the Government refused additional Crown court sitting days to the judiciary? Secondly, why do their prison population figures project an increase in the remand population? Thirdly, given that they are committed to building more prison spaces whatever the sentencing review says—they will have to decide that; they cannot park responsibility with an independent review—will she commit to continuing our programme of increasing the amount of time that the most serious offenders stay in prison? Fourthly, missing from the prison population figures is any transparency at all about the number of foreign offenders, so what are their estimates for the foreign offender population in our prisons in future years? The Government blame us for their early releases, but the situation was nothing compared with the scale of the early releases they themselves oversaw when they were last in office. They released prisoners they should not have done, they botched the legislation and had to come back to this House to correct it, they let people out without tags who should have been tagged, and they have given up on fixing the fundamental issue of the remand population. The Leader of the Opposition has said that “we did not get everything right in government”, and she knows there are no easy answers to these challenges, only trade-offs. However, this Government are making it clearer and clearer how not to do it, and we on these Benches will be there every step of the way so that the British public know exactly that.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support new clause 8 in the name of the shadow Chancellor, because it will help ensure accountability on this policy, and ensure that its impacts are fully understood. I want that because of the policy itself, but perhaps more because of how the Labour party has framed it, which I have found deeply concerning. I know all parties in this place are sometimes less than accurate in how we describe tax and spending, and about how it works for political advantage at different times, but the one thing out of all the things that the new Labour Government have done that I find genuinely appalling is the vindictive way in which they have rolled the ground for this measure by pitching schoolchild against schoolchild and parent against parent. I have genuinely found it really deplorable. We do not have hypothecated tax or spending in this country. Money from road taxes goes on things other than roads, and our national insurance payments do not get put into a pension pot. The Government know that, so to suggest that someone spending money on their own child without being taxed is taking money away from other children is completely and utterly wrong. The UK Government spend more than £1 trillion a year, and the Government can choose what they spend that money on. The suggestion that this money is going into a legally defined pot of money for education, and that if it was not there, there would be less money available for education, is completely without merit, not least because if there was such a pot, the parents we are talking about would for many years have been contributing to it, not taking money out of it. They would already have been subsidising mainstream education, according to the Government’s own arguments. The idea that schoolchildren in mainstream education are going without directly because we did not have VAT on private schools—that all sorts of parents for all sorts of reasons are choosing to invest some of their money in their own children’s education, but because we have not been taxing that, children elsewhere are missing out on their education—is a deeply unpleasant and unnecessary way to frame this argument. Imagine being a parent who—like people I know—had a modest start in life but then perhaps went on to medical school and became a GP. They are honest, hard-working people, and the fact that they were not being taxed on that spend means that they are now being made to feel that somehow that has been taking away from the education of other children. That is completely wrong. It really is the worst sort of politics. It was exemplified by the despicable tweet from the Education Secretary, which was rightly and roundly criticised. A private school having a swimming pool does not in any way affect the availability of mental health support in other schools, any more than spending extra money on potholes or defence or healthcare does. I reiterate that the Government have more than £1 trillion to spend every year on what they want, and ways in which to raise that.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I did not talk about motivation in my speech; I spoke about how the Minister has framed it. Does he accept that with a general taxation pot, where all the money goes into one amount that is doled out as the Government see fit, there is absolutely no basis for saying that children in the state sector have less because of the exemption of VAT for private schools? The two things are totally unconnected in the Budget and the financing of the Government.