Rebecca Paul MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jun 2026 · Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and to be responding today on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. I begin by sincerely congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this debate, and I thank all Members who have spoken so passionately about their constituencies. As my hon. Friend is well aware, hospitality is far from just another part of the economic picture in coastal Britain; in many coastal towns, it is the local economy. Whether the café on the seafront, the family-run hotel, the pub overlooking the harbour, the fish and chip shop or the restaurant by the beach, these are businesses that come to life when the sun comes out and, more often than not in this country, even when it does not.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman, as I often do. Hospitality businesses are valued employers, community anchors and, for many young people, the first step on the career ladder. I think we all agree that such businesses should be supported right across the country—a point that the hon. Gentleman just eloquently made—but that support especially matters in coastal areas, as has been highlighted so clearly. The first point I want to make is that seasonal hospitality is, by definition, seasonal. That may sound obvious, but from studying the Government’s approach to employment regulation, one sometimes wonders whether Ministers have grasped it. A seaside café does not have the same staffing needs on a wet Tuesday in January as it does on an August bank holiday. A hotel in a resort town cannot pretend that February occupancy and summer occupancy are the same thing. This sector hinges on the weather, the school holidays, domestic tourism and the reality that coastal footfall rises and falls sharply across the year. When Ministers push forward employment laws that make flexible and seasonal working harder, they are striking at the operating model that has sustained the coastal hospitality sector for generations. The Employment Rights Act 2025’s approach to guaranteed hours puts seasonal employers in an impossible position. The Opposition have warned the Government of this, which is why a future Conservative Government would repeal every job-destroying, anti-business, anti-growth measure in the Act as a matter of urgency. Additionally, the Government’s national insurance rise has made it more expensive to employ people. The threshold has fallen, the rate has risen and labour-intensive businesses, especially hospitality, have been hit particularly hard. At the same time, business rate relief for retail, hospitality and leisure was cut from 75% to 40%, and it is next set to end entirely. For seasonal businesses of all types, that is a brutal combination. Tragically, and infuriatingly, I know that many will not survive it. The truth is simple: this Government are hammering hospitality left, right and centre, with higher employer national insurance, higher business rates, more regulation, more risk and more costs piled on to the very businesses they claim to support. Ministers say they want growth, but their policies are doing the opposite. Businesses are closing. Pubs that have stood at the heart of their communities for generations are wondering how much longer they can last. Cafés and restaurants are looking at the bills landing on their doormats and asking whether they can afford to open their doors at all. However, there is a better way. This Government could adopt our policy of taking 250,000 high street businesses, including pubs and hospitality businesses, out of business rates entirely. That would make an immediate difference—for many, it would be the difference between thriving or closing up for good. We would also repeal the family business tax, because family firms should be able to last across generations, rather than being bled dry by the Government when one generation tries to pass a business on to the next. I will be visiting the Isle of Wight myself later in the summer for my friend’s wedding at Osborne House, which I know will be the wedding of the year. My friend has deep ties to the communities there, and she has told me much about the brilliant local businesses—from the Gossips Café in Yarmouth to traditional rural pubs such as the Horse and Groom and the Chequers Inn, whose owner, Mark Holmes, has been commendably vocal in calling for more support so that pubs can survive. These are exactly the sorts of unique places that give coastal and island communities their character.

• 21 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Would the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Jenny Rayner MBE? She has managed to raise an amazing £2 million for a new wellbeing centre locally to support young people with mental health issues and get them the support they need before a crisis is reached. We in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages are so proud of what she has achieved in raising this money and supporting our young people, so would he join me in congratulating her?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for that, Ms Jardine. I reassure you that I will not be speaking for very much longer, but I will cover the last of what I consider to be the important points. Thank you for your guidance and patience. The Law Society warns that the Bill’s proposals will increase the number of defendants in magistrates courts who are ineligible for legal aid, even though they would currently qualify if their case were heard in the Crown court, because the magistrates court means test is significantly stricter. It notes that duty solicitor numbers have dropped sharply between 2017 and 2025 and that the impact assessment does not properly address “the disparity between the magistrates’ and Crown Court means tests”. We know that individuals in full-time, minimum-wage employment may not qualify for legal aid in the magistrates court, and that unrepresented defendants often do not understand charges, and often enter inappropriate pleas, struggle with cross-examination and end up with harsher outcomes. Under the Bill, then, a defendant may face a much more serious case in a summary forum, with a possible sentence of 18 months or two years, yet be less likely to have publicly funded legal representation than they would be if the case were before the Crown court. That simply is not fair. Even if one were somehow persuaded that giving the magistrates courts the power to impose sentences of 18 or 24 months might in principle be acceptable, we would still have a major objection to how the clause is drafted. It does not simply set the limit and leave it there; it expands the regulation-making power so that the Government may increase the maximum to 18 or 24 months by statutory instrument. The delegated powers memorandum justifies that on the basis that magistrates’ sentencing limits may need to be adjusted swiftly “where operational pressures” require a “rebalancing of work”. Are we not, then, being asked to hand over a flexible tool that could be used to rebalance criminal jurisdiction by secondary legislation? I could not be more convinced that Parliament should retain oversight of increasing the powers of magistrates. At the very least, any such regulation should be made by affirmative resolution. This is not the sort of decision that should be casually adjustable at ministerial convenience. For all those reasons, I oppose clause 6 standing part of the Bill. Even Leveson did not recommend this change; on the contrary, he said his wider recommendations were “contingent upon magistrates’ sentencing powers remaining at…12 months” and recommended that the power to alter them by statutory instrument “should be repealed”. The move to 12 months has taken effect only recently and has not yet been properly evaluated. The clause will extend summary justice into cases carrying up to two years’ imprisonment, despite the fact that summary justice was designed for lower-level, swifter cases. It will push more serious cases into magistrates courts that are already under strain, and do so in a package that also weakens appeals and intensifies legal aid problems. It risks moving the backlog rather than solving it, and it does so by way of an over-broad delegated power that gives Ministers too much room to reshape criminal jurisdiction by regulation. The magistracy deserves respect, and nothing I say should be taken as criticism of the many magistrates who serve conscientiously and well, but having respect for magistrates is not the same thing as assuming that every structural burden should now be placed on the summary justice system. The Government have not even begun to make the case for the clause compellingly.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend. What is considered complex and lengthy could be quite subjective. We all know that we are potentially going to end up in the courts over defining exactly what is complex and lengthy. It feels like the Bill is not written clearly enough for us to understand exactly how it will work in reality. Amendment 51 is an important safeguard against those risks. In his written evidence, His Honour Geoffrey Rivlin KC notes that the schedule 1 list already “appears to be arbitrary, perhaps the work of a moment; and it goes beyond anything suggested before. But even that is not the end of it.” That is because part 2 of the schedule gives the Secretary of State the power by order to add or remove offences. He quotes the explanatory notes to show that offences not related to fraud or financial crime could easily be added in the future. He describes this as “a mighty step along the way to the end of jury trials.” That does not strike me as overstatement. The Secretary of State will indeed have this untrammelled power, and we should carefully heed this sober warning from a senior judge. For similar reasons, the Opposition oppose schedule 1 standing part of the Bill. Schedule 1 is the list that gives clause 4 its reach, and the list is already troubling. It is not confined to a tiny, tightly defined category of unusual mega-fraud; it covers a wider class of economic and financial offences, including money laundering and terrorist funding, and can then be expanded later. If we think the core principle of clause 4 is wrong, then the schedule that operationalises it is wrong too. Rivlin’s description of the list as “arbitrary” is worth keeping in mind. One of the reasons that schedule 1 is objectionable is that once Parliament accepts the principle that a whole category of serious Crown court cases can be singled out for juryless trial on grounds of length and complexity, the argument for confining the list to that category becomes very hard to sustain. The logic of the thing pushes outward. That is why schedule 1 is dangerous: for not only what it contains now but what it invites later. I am particularly concerned that there is an ideological push away from jury trials. My concern is that this is only the start, not the end of where the Government want to get to. I urge the Committee to think about this carefully. We are taking important decisions for the future.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It will no doubt be a relief to Members to hear that I am not going to talk for quite as long as I did this morning. I oppose clause 4 and schedule 1 standing part, and I support amendment 51, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle. As is becoming habit, I will begin with a very brief overview of what we are considering. Clause 4 and schedule 1 create a new framework for judge-only trials in certain complex or lengthy cases. The listed offences include fraud, tax evasion, false accounting, insider dealing, money laundering, terrorist funding, bribery and related offences. The court may order trial without a jury if it is satisfied that the likely complexity and/or length makes that appropriate, that it is not in the public interest for the trial to be conducted with a jury, and that there are no other reasons why it would be more appropriate for the trial to be with a jury. There would be no right of appeal against that decision. That is a serious and constitutionally significant change in its own right, but what makes it even more troubling is that it has been justified on the strength of a paper-thin theoretical benefit. The House of Commons Library states that the Government estimate clause 4 will save 200 Crown court sitting days. That is around 0.18% of current Crown court capacity, which indicates just how small the potential gain is—if there is that gain at all. That is the first and most obvious point I want to make. The Government are proposing a very serious encroachment on jury trials in return for a saving that amounts to just 200 sitting days. JUSTICE describes the change as “unnecessary,” says that it “will not impact the backlog in any meaningful way” and warns that it risks opening the door to restricting jury trials in other categories of case too. The Law Society is similarly clear: “Removing jury trials for serious fraud cases is unlikely to have a significant effect on the backlogs, but would significantly erode the fundamental principle of open justice.” That should be the frame for the whole debate on clause 4. We are not being asked to approve some modest efficiency measure; we are being asked to displace the jury in some of the most important and contested criminal cases for an alleged benefit so small that, even in the Government’s own case, it barely registers against total Crown court demand. That trade-off is so poor that I refuse to believe the Minister, in her heart of hearts, believes it is the right way to proceed. The second point is that the case against juries being used in serious fraud and related cases has never really been made. In written evidence, the Law Society tells us: “Serious cases of any complexity, including serious allegations of fraud, must be presented by the prosecution in a way that is understandable, not only to the judge and jury…but also, in line with the principle of open justice, to the public.” It goes on to say: “They should be subject to effective case management to ensure they take only a reasonable length of time, if necessary, by reducing the number of charges”. In other words, the answer to complexity is to manage it properly, not to remove the jury. It is worth reminding ourselves that the issues juries decide on in fraud trials are factual, not technical—in particular, whether the defendant was dishonest. That is judged by reference to the standards of ordinary decent people. Twelve ordinary jurors are far better placed to decide that than a single judge alone. That goes to the very nature of fraud. Fraud is not merely an accounting or regulatory puzzle; it is an allegation of dishonesty, and dishonesty, by definition, is exactly the sort of question on which the community’s judgment matters. Who should decide dishonesty: a single professional judge, or 12 citizens applying the standards of ordinary life? In a democratic criminal justice system, the answer should remain: the jury. The evidence that we have does not support the idea that juries are what make these cases collapse, drag on or miscarry. JUSTICE’s written evidence points to the Southwark Crown court data gathered by His Honour Geoffrey Rivlin KC, showing that the vast majority of fraud cases lasted less than three months, with only one or two per year lasting over three months and only two cases in total lasting over six months. That is important, because it rather punches the myth that these are all endless epics that juries simply cannot understand or follow. Rivlin’s evidence also says that jury trials compose a discipline that helps to keep fraud trials shorter. Without that discipline, judge-alone trials may end up running as long as, or even longer than, jury trials. More to the point, delays, collapses and miscarriages of justice in fraud are not caused by juries, as shown by R v . Hayes where convictions were quashed because of judicial misdirection, not because of anything the jury did wrong. That strongly refutes the suggestion that juries are the weak link in these cases. The Government have two problems here: first, they have not shown that such cases are generally too long for juries; secondly, they have not shown that juries are what is causing the failures when these cases go wrong. Unfortunately, that leaves the Government looking rather like they are indulging in ideological hostility to jury trials rather than evidence-based reform. There is also a wider constitutional point. The Law Society says, and I very much agree, that removing jury trials for serious fraud cases “would significantly erode the fundamental principle of open justice.” These are often cases involving major companies, financial institutions, public markets, public money, terrorism financing, bribery and corruption. They are exactly the sort of cases where the public must have confidence that justice has not simply been done inside a closed professional world by one member of that same world. Fraud and related financial cases often concern the conduct of powerful, well-resourced and sophisticated defendants. In those cases, public confidence matters immensely. A verdict reached by a jury of citizens commands a kind of legitimacy that a judgment by a single judge does not carry in the same way. That is not a criticism of judges, but a recognition of why juries exist in the first place. They are there to not just decide facts but connect the administration of criminal justice to the public itself.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I speak in support of amendments 23, 39 and 24 which, taken together, would do something simple but important: they would build a measure of flexibility back into the clause, so that jury trial is still available where the cause of justice requires it. The Minister should think carefully. As drafted, the clause creates a very blunt regime: unless the court predicts a sentence of more than three years, the trial is to be conducted without a jury. The amendments would go a small way towards softening that rigidity and making the system less arbitrary, more proportionate and hence more just. With the amendments, two different Committee members take two different approaches to delivering the same outcome of additional flexibility in the clause. Amendment 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, is broad in nature, setting out an additional condition for jury trial when needed to ensure natural justice, whereas the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden takes a more granular approach to the problem by listing the specific circumstances that might warrant the need for jury trial, again to ensure fairness. Both approaches seek to achieve the same thing. I will speak to each amendment in a little more detail, starting with amendment 23. Clause 3 is currently built on one single condition for preserving jury trial in relevant cases: whether the defendant is likely to receive a sentence of more than three years if convicted. Amendment 23 would change the wording from “the condition” to “one or more of the conditions”. This is the gateway to allow amendment 24, which lists various conditions, to work. The amendment matters because it opens the door to a more sensible approach, in which sentence is not the only thing that counts. That is exactly the right approach. When we deal with a constitutional safeguard as important as jury trial, the Committee should be wary of a system that turns entirely on a single mechanistic threshold. Human beings and criminal cases are not that neat, and Parliament should not pretend that they are. The amendment is therefore modest, tidy, entirely sensible and the necessary first step to add judgment, flexibility and common sense to a clause that has far too little of all three. On amendment 24 and its list of conditions, the Government’s model under the clause is to ask the court at an early stage to forecast the sentence that would likely be imposed if the defendant were convicted. If the forecast is more than three years, there is a jury; if it is not, there is none. That is far too crude a test to bear the full constitutional weight that the Government want to place on it. The Bill itself exposes the weakness in the logic, because although the allocation decision turns on a prediction about a sentence above or below three years, the Bill also expressly states that nothing prevents a court sitting without a jury from later imposing a sentence of more than three years. In other words, even the Bill recognises that the initial prediction may not tell the whole story; if that is so, why should that prediction be the sole basis on which a person loses the right to jury trial? Amendment 24 is so worth while because it states that in deciding whether a defendant should still have a jury, the court should not only look at the likely sentence but be able to consider whether: the defendant is of good character; they have previously been convicted of an imprisonable offence; they are treated as rehabilitated; conviction would cause significant reputational or professional harm; the gravity or complexity of the case might increase; and other exceptional circumstances. That does not strike me as radical. It is simply an attempt to make the law reflect reality and be less prescriptive. Additional flexibility makes for better outcomes. One of the strongest parts of amendment 24 is the recognition it gives to good character and to those who have not previously been convicted of an imprisonable offence. I raise this because the Government’s crude threshold risks producing perverse results. The people who may be hit hardest by clause 3 are precisely those who are newer to the justice system, those of previous good character and those for whom a conviction would be utterly life-changing. The Bar Council illustrated the point starkly in written evidence with the example of a 19-year-old student charged with possession with intent to supply after a small amount of Spice was found in their room—I am sure Members will remember my reciting that specific example in Committee on Tuesday. Because they are of good character, the likely sentence under the guidelines may be low enough that they lose jury trial altogether, even though the charge could destroy their future. Meanwhile, someone with previous convictions may be more likely to cross the sentencing threshold and so keep the right to a jury. That is exactly the sort of absurdity that amendment 24 tries to avoid. That is wholly consistent with the broader critique of the Bill. Conservative Members have repeatedly argued that the Government are treating this as an administrative exercise, when in fact people’s lives are at stake. The shadow Justice Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), put it clearly on Second Reading when he said that the Government were proposing to remove fundamental rights “without a mandate, without a case and without any evidence”. —[ Official Report , 10 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 207.] The Opposition also challenged Ministers on taking away jury trial for offences that cost defendants their jobs, their homes and their families. Amendment 24 responds precisely to that point. I note the inclusion in amendment 24 of cases in which the defendant would likely suffer significant reputational damage or have their employment or professional qualifications adversely affected. That is important because the seriousness of a case cannot be measured by custody alone. A sentence of under three years can still destroy a person’s livelihood, strip them of professional standing, end a career built over decades and permanently alter family life. The Government keep speaking as though anything beneath their threshold is somehow low level. The Opposition have rightly made the point that even where a sentence is below three years, the consequences can be catastrophic. Amendment 24 simply recognises that reality. There is an obvious point of fairness here, too. If the state wishes to prosecute a person in circumstances where conviction may ruin their livelihood or reputation for life, it is hardly excessive to say that jury trials should at least remain available. That is an ancient constitutional right and the Government should, even now, think very hard before removing it. I also support paragraph (f) in amendment 24, which deals with cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the gravity or complexity might increase. Again, this is simply common sense. Criminal cases often evolve, evidence changes, witnesses come forward, and issues that initially looked straightforward become anything but in the crucible that is the courtroom.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Energy Profits Levy · Hansard source

  More

  The oil and gas sector is a vital industry, not just in Scotland but for the whole UK. Does the Secretary of State share the disappointment of the Conservatives that the Chancellor deterred a reported £17.5 billion of private investment into the oil and gas sector by choosing to retain the energy profits levy last month? That money would have supported thousands of Scottish jobs, and delivered growth and energy security for the UK.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for that explanation. I hope she will bear with me as I try to take it on board. Clauses 1 and 2 amend the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 so that a defendant charged with an either-way offence is no longer able to elect trial by jury. As was clearly established earlier today, that right to elect is entirely abolished by clause 1. Instead, it will be for the magistrates court alone to decide where the case should be tried; it can either remain in the magistrates court or go up to the Crown court. Clause 2 deals specifically with situations where there is a written indication of a guilty plea. Section 17ZB of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, as inserted by section 6 of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, sets out that the court can, on the material before it, without any hearing or representations, be satisfied that it is highly likely that, were the accused to plead guilty at summary trial of the offence in question and be convicted, the court would commit the accused to the Crown court for sentencing. Section 17ZB(5) then provides the accused with the opportunity to object to being sent to the Crown court for trial for the offence. Clause 2 amends that so that the accused and the prosecutor do not have the option to object and can instead only make representations as to whether the sentencing powers of the court would be adequate. I note that “Crown Court” in the original section 17ZB is replaced with “court”. I assume that that refers to either the magistrates court or the Crown court, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation and explanation of that quite technical point, and of how it works with the Crown court bench division in the mix. The Bill’s explanatory notes suggest that it just means the magistrates court, but I went through the law— I should say that I am not a lawyer, but I dug it all out and read it—and, like a lot of Committee members, I am thoroughly confused. Normally, if something is logical and makes sense, I can follow it, so I am worried that it does not quite tie together. I am worried, even though I cannot quite articulate why, that the fact that the section will now just say “court” introduces some ambiguity. How is that defined? Quite often, these little bits of detail can be the speck of sand in the eye that can cause more problems than we realise. This is a very technical issue, and I appreciate that it is difficult to go into it here and that the Minister is very good on the technical side of things—we have worked together on other things with very technical points, so I know that she is very thorough—but I think it is worth going through it again and making sure that the whole thing hangs together, so that we do not end up in a situation where the wrong place is doing sentencing or the wrong estimate of a sentence is made, and there is no way to unwind it. I am just a bit worried that there is potential for some problems to come out of this. I appreciate the Minister’s helpful clarification that section 17ZB has not yet been commenced. However, if it had been, or if it were to be in future, it would, in a similar way to clause 1, remove powers and rights from defendants and give them less choice in how justice is dispensed in their case—essentially, a roll-back of rights. As I mentioned, I think we need to look at what will happen if the sentence estimate is wrong and how that will work its way through. I thank the Minister for explaining that the provision is procedural, but it still strips people of the right to object and replaces it with the much weaker right merely to make representations. The explanatory notes are really clear on that point, even if they are not clear on a lot of others. They say that the changes made in clause 2 “remove the ability of the defendant or the prosecutor to object to the case being sent to the Crown Court for sentence”, and instead create “a process for each to make representations about whether the magistrates’ court’s sentencing powers would be adequate.” That might have no impact if the section is never commenced, but if it ever is commenced, and we do not make sure that we have got clause 2 right, it may cause a problem and prioritise convenience over procedural protection. When someone’s liberty, livelihood and reputation are at stake, it is a serious thing indeed to say that they may no longer object and may only make representations. Once again, the defendant is being moved further from the centre of the process, and the state closer to it. That is not right. Earlier in today’s proceedings, the Minister was reminded from the Opposition Benches that the legal system is balanced in favour of the defendant. That is not the spirit in which this change is being made. Indeed, that is the common thread running through clauses 1 and 2: at every stage, the defendant’s agency is reduced and the system’s convenience is elevated. The Government call that reform and improvement, but it is not; it is a distortion of our centuries-old legal protections. There is a broader point here about confidence in the justice system. If the Government’s answer, again and again, is that defendants should simply trust the state’s estimate of seriousness, trust the allocation decision, trust the sentencing forum and trust that everything will work out in the end, that is not a strengthening of justice. It is a narrowing of the safeguards that make justice legitimate in the first place and will do nothing to address the backlog, which I recall was supposed to be the rationale for making these changes in the first place. Clauses 1 and 2 in combination are not what is required to address the Crown court backlog. It appears that the backlog may be starting to come down already, as a consequence of uncapped sitting days and other changes that have been implemented, so why are the Government not taking a more cautious approach and exhausting all the good ideas that we have heard from expert witnesses before taking a sledgehammer to jury trials? Obviously, the first problem to address is the fact that up to 24% of Crown courts are not sitting on any given day, and getting the many defendants who arrive late to court there on time would be transformational. Why are we not solving those much more straightforward issues before pressing ahead with exceptional structural reform? We need to get the basics right, address inefficiencies and, most importantly, listen to those who know how to do it, such as the Bar Council and circuit leaders, and learn from the courts that are already making progress, such as Liverpool. The Government are absolutely right to take the backlog issue seriously, but it is wrong to think that limiting jury trials will improve the situation. It could make the whole situation worse by creating years of transition and uncertainty and by moving one backlog from the Crown courts over to the magistrates. Furthermore, the cases moving over will be more complex, more technical and more sensitive. The Government are about to create a massive backlog in the magistrates court, which will then start to impact on low-level cases such as speeding offences. I say that the Government should be more cautious because they have already accepted that there are other levers available. Ministers have announced that there will be no cap on Crown court sitting days next year, and that both the Crown court and magistrates courts will be funded at their highest ever operational level. That is much welcomed, but if the Government say that investment and capacity matter, why on earth would they not wait to see the full effect of those changes before pushing ahead with exceptional constitutional reform? The Opposition position on that has been perfectly clear. On Second Reading, the Opposition’s reasoned amendment did not deny that the backlog is serious, but argued that the right answer is to improve case management, encourage earlier pleas, increase sitting days, increase the hours per day that courts are able to sit through better use of technology and improve the efficiency of prisoner transport. Those are practical, common-sense reforms; they go with the grain of the system, rather than taking a sledgehammer to jury trials and then hoping for the best. The Government’s own impact assessment rather proves the point that this issue is as much about shifting pressure as solving it. It estimates that removing the defendant’s right to elect for jury trial would reduce crown Court demand by around 16,000 sitting days, but at the same time increase magistrates court demand by around 8,500 sitting days. The same document expressly recognises that reallocating cases to the magistrates courts is expected to increase the open caseload there and is likely to extend waiting times for hearing and sentencing in that jurisdiction. Even on the Government’s own figures, it is not some clean efficiency saving. It is a transfer of burden into a part of the system that is already under strain. That is why clause 2 is more important than it first appears. Clause 1 removes the right to elect. Clause 2 then narrows the ability to resist where a written guilty plea is involved. Piece by piece, the Bill is building a system in which more serious, either-way cases are kept down, defendants have less say and the magistrates courts are expected to absorb ever more complexity. Ministers may present each provision as a small adjustment in isolation, but taken together, they amount to a very significant constitutional and practical change. That change also carries transition risk. The Government are assuming that work currently taking place in the Crown court can be absorbed more quickly elsewhere. I know I am not telling the Minister anything that she does not already know, but the magistrates courts are not just a spare room in the system waiting to be filled. They will have to take more serious, more technical and more sensitive cases while continuing to deal with the huge volume of everyday criminal business that only they can process. If the Government get this wrong, they will not have solved the backlog. They will simply have displaced it and degraded the quality of justice in the process. My plea is a simple one: “Proceed with caution. Let the effect of unlimited sitting days bed in. Fix the operational failings that everybody in the system can already see. Get defendants to court on time. Keep courtrooms sitting. Use technology better. Learn from the parts of the estate that are already improving, but do not dress up the removal of long-standing protections as if it were the only grown-up response to backlog. It is not. It is simply the most drastic one.” That is why I cannot support clause 2. On its own, it may look technical, but in context it is part of a broader attempt to reduce rights, safeguards and the defendant’s role in how justice is administered. That is the wrong direction of travel.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  I think we can all agree that tackling the rise in youth employment is very important, but I am concerned about the approach that is being adopted for that purpose. We are essentially taking money away from employers and then giving some of them some of it back. Has the Secretary of State considered, for instance, the use of existing levers in relation to employer national insurance? That would be an obvious way to address the issue and ensure that some of our young people are employed.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Onshoring: Fashion and Textiles · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Jardine—twice in one afternoon; a treat for both of us! I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) on securing today’s debate, and I have listened with huge interest to the points that have been made. We are all no doubt proud of what Britain makes, and I certainly agree that we should do all we can to create the environment for businesses to flourish and produce more here. The harsh truth, however, is that production is often offshored due to the UK not being competitive on cost. With sky-high energy costs, labour costs and taxes and all the regulatory burden, we cannot be surprised to see many of our manufacturing businesses packing up and moving elsewhere. However, the good news is that we can still compete when it comes to quality and speed, with many businesses where cost is not the driving motivation choosing to source from the UK—knitwear being a good example. Despite the challenges, the fashion and textile industry in the UK is significant and important. UK Fashion and Textile Association research commissioned from Oxford Economics found that the wider sector supported a £62 billion contribution to UK GDP, 1.3 million jobs and more than £23 billion in tax revenues. That same work underlined how geographically spread those jobs are—from London to the north-west, Yorkshire and the Humber, the south-west, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and how important the sector is for younger workers and women. Many different services and skills are needed to transform fabrics into finished garments. Designers, technicians, machinists, graders, pattern cutters, fabric technologists, dye houses, finishing plants, logistics and aftercare all play an essential role. I saw that at first hand just before I entered politics, when I worked for the retailer Jigsaw, which is also very much known for its knitwear—that seems to be a theme today. We are not going to get to a point anytime soon where every button and zip can be made in this country. Frankly, without a cheap energy plan, we will not even see garments made here either. Warm words are not enough to bring about the change the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet is calling for, but businesses are now discovering that cheaper production on the other side of the world has its downsides. Major retailers have described how customs-related supply chain frictions, increased admin costs and global events affecting major routes, including disruption around the Suez canal, have impacted transit times and driven up costs across the industry. There is clearly an appetite to address these issues by producing closer to home—maybe even at home—so that does present an opportunity. Considerations around sustainability can also play to our advantage. The rapid rise of so-called fast fashion has pushed production far from the consumer, and has often pushed environmental and social costs wholly out of sight. Now, though, we are in an era where customers, investors and regulators are far less willing to accept, “We didn’t know,” as an excuse. They want to know that their clothing has been produced ethically. Traceability is becoming a brand asset in and of itself. That is why the UK Fashion and Textile Association points to the opportunity for technology such as QR codes, radio frequency identification or even AI-enabled systems to strengthen transparency and build consumer trust in “Made in the UK” as a mark of ethical production. If that is the opportunity, we also need to recognise the barriers to us benefiting from it. First, there is cost, which I have mentioned a number of times, given its importance. UKFT’s “Reshoring for Real” report captures a real appetite among brands to source more domestically, but only if the cost model makes sense and if standards can be trusted. It really is not rocket science: if we want companies to onshore production, we need to make it cheaper for them to do so. The Government’s lack of action on bringing the cost of energy down, the imposition of the jobs tax, higher business rates and the disastrous Employment Rights Act 2025 show that they do not get it. Secondly, there is the issue of skills. When a country loses capacity, it also risks losing the training pipeline. We can talk about onshoring, but if there are not enough skilled people to do the work, the opportunity will be taken elsewhere. That is why, in previous debates, Members in both Houses have raised the need for stronger skills routes relevant to garment and textile manufacturing, and why the engagement with industry on training and technical education undertaken by the previous Government mattered. Thirdly—I was shocked to learn that this was an issue—past labour compliance issues in British factories have damaged trust to the point that some companies will remain wary of, or keep in place concrete policies against, UK sourcing until they are confident that these issues are resolved. Such circumstances make further basing or investment into the UK a difficult proposition for reputation-conscious firms. That clearly needs to be addressed, but with a careful eye on not heaping even more regulatory burdens on compliant, law-abiding businesses. In 2023, the then Business and Trade Secretary, who has now gone on to greater things, set out that her Department was engaging and promoting fashion and textile companies domestically and internationally, noting that fashion, footwear and textiles exports totalled £7.5 billion in 2022, and that Government funding was supporting London Fashion Week through the British Fashion Council, and supporting UKFT activity at key international trade shows. I hope the current Government will be as robust in their support. Such support matters, because onshoring does not sit in a silo. A stronger domestic manufacturing base goes hand in hand with strong exports and with a globally respected brand Britain. If we have a solid local supply chain, we attract design talent. If we attract design talent, we build brands. If we build brands, we export. If we export, we grow. A point in the application for the debate referenced UKFT estimates that suggest that onshoring could unlock substantial additional growth, jobs and tax receipts. There is a real prize here, particularly in places where manufacturing capability already exists or could be rebuilt. For communities that have lived through the loss of industrial jobs, modern textile manufacturing, technical fabrics and high-value apparel production can be part of a new story: one compatible with innovation, automation and clean growth. However, that can happen only if the right environment is created for those businesses. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I commit that we will continue to press for a serious, pro-growth approach to business and trade that would allow industries such as fashion and textiles to flourish. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the Government’s approach.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Postal Services: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to respond on behalf of the Opposition. I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing this debate and on the incredible persistence with which he has fought for his constituents. As my hon. Friend made clear, a functioning postal service is not a nice-to-have in rural Britain; rather, it is part of the vital infrastructure of daily life. The post is how people receive medical letters, time-sensitive official correspondence and the things they cannot simply pick up on the high street. For small businesses, farms and sole traders, it is how goods, invoices and documents move. We should not underestimate the harms when this important service fails. I want to cover two linked issues: the resilience of the post office network; and the reliability of deliveries and the way that failures fall hardest on rural areas. As of October 2025, there were about 11,638 post office branches in the UK, and the company is committed to maintaining about 11,500 branches. The Post Office is publicly owned, but the vast majority of branches are run by independent postmasters inside local shops. In my experience, that is why they are so deeply woven into rural life, and why, when a branch closes, the town or village feels it immediately and deeply. The network is supposed to be underpinned by access criteria, including a requirement that 95% of the rural population should be within three miles of a post office, and that 95% of the population of every postcode district should be within six miles of one. Even remote communities have a minimum level of access. Those are sensible measures of access, and it is therefore deeply concerning that the Department for Business and Trade Green Paper on the future of the Post Office explicitly asks whether to keep the existing requirement, remove the minimum 11,500 branch requirement or replace it with a different framework altogether. Rural Britain has heard that language before: “a different way of meeting obligations” is often a Whitehall euphemism for a quiet downgrade under which the network looks stable on paper but becomes thinner in practice, with reduced hours, reduced services and longer journeys for those without cars. Although the Government appear to be drifting, the Conservative party is clear about what the Post Office is for. It is more than a business; it is part of the UK’s social and economic fabric, especially in rural areas, and especially as bank branches continue to vanish from our high streets. For many communities, the post office is now the most realistic place to do basic banking, withdraw cash or deposit takings. There is also a straightforward point about support. The nationwide network, especially in rural areas, will not always be commercially viable based on pure retail footfall alone. That is why public funding has played a role. The Conservative Government provided more than £2.5 billion in funding in the past decade to sustain the nationwide network, including support for branches in uncommercial areas. That turned out to be money well spent, in the light of the ongoing use of the post office network. Post office data shows record levels of cash deposits at branches and significant use by both personal and business customers, alongside the roll-out of banking hubs operated in partnership with Cash Access UK. When the Minister responds, I hope we will hear some reassurance about the support for the post office network. Can we have a commitment today to retaining a minimum network size of at least 11,500 branches? Will we keep the rural and postcode district access criteria and will sub-postmasters be properly supported so that rural branches do not become financially untenable? I now turn to deliveries, which is where constituents, including my own, are impacted when the service breaks down. The universal postal service is a promise that has been repeatedly broken. In October 2025, Ofcom fined Royal Mail £21 million for missing its 2024-25 delivery targets, finding that only 77% of first-class mail and 92.5% of second-class mail was delivered on time, far below the long-standing universal service targets. Ofcom has since moved to reform parts of the universal service obligation, including allowing second-class letters to be delivered on alternate weekdays Monday to Friday and adjusting headline targets while introducing new backstop measures designed to prevent extreme delays. There is a legitimate discussion to be had about sustainability and falling letter volumes, but reform must not become cover for a two-tier Britain where rural residents simply wait longer as a matter of course. The focus must now be on delivery offices, staffing and day-to-day operational reality. In my own Reigate constituency we face ongoing concerns about the standard of postal services in the village of Banstead. Constituents have raised this with me repeatedly since the general election, and with good reason. A key issue appears to be staffing. Royal Mail has admitted to higher than normal levels of sickness and vacancies, and when I visited the delivery office that serves Banstead it was clear that morale there was extremely low. Meanwhile there is an operational inefficiency built in. Banstead is served by a delivery office based in Epsom, meaning staff travel before rounds even begin. I think we can all guess what that leads to. One constituent received 10 items of post on 30 January after receiving none in the preceding 10 days. Others report the same pattern of long gaps followed by sudden floods. If that is the experience of a well-connected part of Surrey, it should shock no one that deeply rural areas are hit even harder. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire highlighted severe delays in his constituency. The frustration felt by his constituents is wholly understandable. So what should happen next? First, the Minister should make it clear that regulatory fines are not the end of the story. Ofcom’s enforcement action was accompanied by requirements for Royal Mail to take corrective steps. The Government should press for transparent reporting at delivery office level with a particular focus on rural performance so that communities can see whether their service is improving and where the problems sit. Secondly, Ministers must ensure that any future changes to the universal service protect rural users. If second class is delivered less often, that should not translate into worse outcomes for rural areas. Backstop measures are welcome, but they must be enforced and felt in places that have been left behind. People do not care about clever statistics if their letters still arrive late, in clumps, or not at all. Thirdly, the Government should recognise the interdependence of the system. The post office is not a shop counter; it is part of the national postal infrastructure, so any reform must be judged by a simple test: does it improve the lived experience of rural users? I will end by returning to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire, who has done what good MPs should do: listened locally, engaged with the operators and brought the issue to Parliament for debate. To be clear, neither he nor rural Britain are asking for special treatment. They are asking for fairness and competence. A letter posted in this country should arrive when the sender is told it will arrive. A rural post office branch should not be quietly allowed to wither. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope we will hear some meaningful commitments on the issues today.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this important debate. In many countries, a quick kiss and fly really is quick and really is free. At Amsterdam Schiphol, the kiss and ride drop-off is free. At Paris-Charles de Gaulle the first 10 minutes are free, and at Madrid-Barajas the express departures car park gives drivers 10 minutes free. Meanwhile, here in the UK we are normalising the idea that dropping off and saying a hurried goodbye at the airport comes with a bill. Bear with me here: kiss and fly? More like kiss and buy. At Gatwick airport, which serves so many of my constituents in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, the drop-off fee was hiked to £10 for 10 minutes—a 43% jump from £7. That hits everyone: the parent, the friend taking someone to an early flight and taxi drivers trying to earn their living. It is true that Gatwick offers free drop-off in the long-stay car park with a complementary shuttle, and that blue badge holders are exempt, but we all know that that option adds time and complication, and is not always practical at unsocial hours. We should be clear about responsibility. Most airports in the UK are private businesses, and drop-off charging is a matter for the owners to decide and manage. That is certainly true at Gatwick, where the increased drop-off charge has been explained on the grounds of growing financial pressure on the operation. However, the extra costs place a burden on my constituents using the airport, and I urge Gatwick always to keep them in mind when analysing the numbers and ensure fairness, the importance of which the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) eloquently highlighted. It is easy to assume that people can use the train or bus as an alternative, but that is often not the case for the elderly, the disabled or those who simply cannot transport all their luggage by hand. Gatwick has said that the drop-off charge increase has not been taken lightly and follows a number of cost increases, including a more than doubling of its business rates by this Government, from £40 million to more than £80 million per annum. It is relevant to note that Heathrow has also increased its drop-off charge this month, although far more modestly, from £6 to £7. Unfortunately, that is what happens when the Government pile ever more taxes on our businesses: those costs inevitably find their way back to the consumer in some shape or form. If Ministers would like to see the trend of extra charges and surging prices reduce, I say gently that they might consider not continually taxing businesses. Rethinking the damaging business rates hike would be a good start and would give British businesses, including our airports, room to breathe.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  Plans to restrict access to jury trial take a sledgehammer to one of the most important protections for the people of this country. I would expect any Government suggesting a change of that magnitude to have a strong rationale for doing so. Instead, we hear the nonsensical argument that curtailing jury trials will address the courts backlog, yet the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services told the House that only 3% of court cases are jury cases. So before we even get into the debate, we need clarity on what this change will mean for the backlog. That means modelling and timescales, not justifications based on religious belief. I suggest that the Government are getting desperate when that is the best they can offer—perhaps next we will hear that the tooth fairy backs digital identification or that Father Christmas supports giving away the Chagos islands. Back in the real world, in 2024 the Lady Chief Justice gave evidence to the Justice Committee that our courts faced around 100 unplanned closures every week, with 200 near closures per month. That is in line with credible data suggesting that just yesterday, 15% of our Crown courtrooms sat empty, and it is the same today. If the Minister wants to tackle the backlog, might that not be the best place to start? Let me turn to the key benefit of jury trials: the involvement of our peers in delivering justice. These are people in our own communities with no obvious axe to grind or political motivations. Any justice system that concentrates powers in the hands of a small number of repeat decision makers inevitably risks groupthink and unconscious, or even conscious, bias. A jury is a built-in safeguard: 12 ordinary people drawn at random, bringing different instincts and experiences, and forced to test the prosecution’s case in a way that a single decision maker cannot. Simply put, it is safer to spread human fallibility across 12 people than to concentrate it in one. A system in which liberty hinges solely on inputs from various arms of the state—the police, the CPS and then a judge—cannot be as inherently fair as one in which justice is done with the people’s direct involvement. The curtailing of jury trials is not the only concern. Ministers want to expand sentencing powers in the magistrates courts by allowing them to hand down sentences of up to two years, while at the same time restricting the ability to appeal decisions taken in those courts. It is extraordinary that this Government think that someone who can sit as a magistrate from the age of 18, with no legal qualifications or experience, should be able to decide whether someone loses their liberty. If you were in the dock, would you be happy with that? Juries may not be perfect, but I know what I would prefer. If the Government are determined to push ahead with this, they are knowingly increasing the risk of wrongful convictions and excessive sentences. We know that more than 40% of appeals against decisions taken by magistrates courts are upheld. How many miscarriages of justice are this Government willing to accept? Ministers would be foolish to trade away a centuries-old safeguard for a headline about swift justice, only to discover afterwards that our courts are no speedier, just less just. I believe that the British people must remain participants in their system of justice rather than mere observers. I urge Ministers to think again. Do not curtail jury trials. Do not concentrate yet more power in fewer hands. Fix the courts. Protect our legal heritage.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Fairtrade Certification · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) on securing today’s informative and thoughtful debate. All the contributions have been insightful, but I particularly enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) who spoke about the man from Del Monte, taking me back down memory lane. I had not thought about him for a long time, probably not since the ’80s. This is a timely debate. It rightly draws attention to a topic that has relevance to how the UK positions itself as a responsible trading nation and global partner. Fairtrade certification schemes have become a visible and recognised feature of British consumer life. They are well understood by the public, well supported by major retailers and increasingly used by UK businesses to demonstrate transparency and ethical practices across global supply chains. This debate invites us to reflect on how Fairtrade sits within the wider landscape of British trade and business policy, and how it might continue to support responsible sourcing, environmental sustainability and long-term development goals. At its core, Fairtrade is a voluntary certification scheme applied to consumer goods such as bananas, cocoa, coffee, tea and sugar. It sets minimum prices for producers, offers a Fairtrade premium to be invested in community projects, and lays out standards on labour rights and environmental protection. The scheme is built on a partnership model between producers in the global south and businesses and consumers in the global north. Over time, Fairtrade has come to play a role in supporting responsible UK sourcing practices. The UK has long been a leading market for Fairtrade goods, and British supermarkets were among the first in the world to adopt the Fairtrade label at scale. The distinctive mark is now found on thousands of product lines sold in every part of the country, from major supermarket chains to small independent stores. Beyond consumer familiarity, the benefits of Fairtrade certification also flow into business practices here at home. For British companies, certification helps to meet environmental, social and governance expectations from investors and consumers alike. It offers reassurance on the ethical provenance of goods and helps to reduce reputational risk in complex and sometimes opaque global supply chains. More broadly, Fairtrade fits into a wider framework of responsible sourcing in which UK firms are increasingly engaged. For example, the cocoa industry has seen significant improvements in transparency and long-term planning due to Fairtrade and similar voluntary schemes. British food and beverage companies, in particular, have drawn on Fairtrade principles to strengthen resilience and quality across key import lines. There is also a trade policy angle. Fairtrade is not only about individual transactions; it reflects a broader outlook on how the UK interacts with developing markets. As the Government have observed in the recent trade strategy, trade and development are not mutually exclusive goals. We can support UK business while also encouraging more ethical, sustainable and secure supply chains. The developing countries trading scheme, launched in 2023 under the last Conservative Government, is one such example. It reduces tariffs on goods from low and middle-income countries and allows for easier trade in value-added products, helping to support economic diversification. The previous Government were also clear that they recognised the role that voluntary schemes like Fairtrade play in complementing formal legal frameworks, such as the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which continues to apply to large UK businesses. In this context, Fairtrade certification can be seen as one of several tools that enable the UK to act as a responsible trading nation, championing higher standards while maintaining competitive access to key goods. One of the great strengths of Fairtrade is the strong grassroots support that it enjoys. I saw that at first hand earlier this year when I was contacted by my local Reigate Fairtrade steering group to draw my attention to the “Brew it Fair” campaign. The campaign highlighted that, while the Government have committed to protecting human rights and environmental standards by endorsing the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, and by passing the Modern Slavery Act, wages, incomes and working conditions remain inadequate for the majority of the people involved in tea farming. As such, the Fairtrade Foundation called on the Government to introduce a law on human rights and environmental due diligence. Again, good work was done in that space under the previous Conservative Government. The UK was the first country to create a national action plan to implement the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, which are widely regarded as the authoritative international framework to steer practical action by Governments and businesses worldwide on this important and pressing agenda. More recently, the UK has taken a number of steps through the Modern Slavery Act to ensure that no British organisation—public or private, and unwittingly or otherwise—is complicit through their supply chains in human rights violations. I am sure that the Minister will have more to say on that in a moment. I conclude by noting that this has been an excellent debate, and I repeat my thanks to the hon. Member for Glasgow North for securing it.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Pubs: Bognor Regis and Littlehampton · Hansard source

  More

  It is incredibly depressing that the Minister does not appear to recognise the seriousness of the situation for pubs in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and, indeed, across the country, with around eight closing every week. Pubs already face huge costs and hiked taxes—there really are no more pips to squeak. It can be no surprise that, since the Chancellor’s Budget, some landlords, already emotionally drained from a difficult year, do not have the stomach to check their new business rates liability until after Christmas. If the Minister truly values our pubs, will she take meaningful action, rather than just tell us that business rates are going down when they are actually going up?

• 19 Nov 2025 · Specialist Manufacturing Sector: Regional Economies · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on securing this critical debate, which is very timely, given the forthcoming Budget. I acknowledge the very pertinent point that he made about the importance of apprenticeships for the specialist sector more broadly. The specialist manufacturing sector is one of those quiet national assets that rarely make front-page news but keep our economy alive. Its contribution to the UK is not abstract but is counted in highly skilled jobs, export strength and clusters of high-value industry. According to the latest figures, advanced manufacturing now accounts for more than 900,000 jobs across the UK and contributes more than £90 billion in gross value added to the economy. I am pleased that the Government’s industrial strategy recognises the reality of advanced manufacturing’s value, which is spread across the country. I welcome the emphasis that they are placing on specialist manufacturing, as it is clear that the industry offers Britain a comparative advantage in our trade with the rest of the world. The sector gives our communities certainty. I see that in my constituency, where we host a range of high-value specialist manufacturers whose work speaks directly to the issues raised in this debate. One such firm is Respirex International, a world-leading manufacturer of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear protective equipment, including gas-tight suits, respirators and chemically protective boots. Its products are not only exported worldwide, but used by emergency services and pharmaceutical and nuclear facilities across the UK, protecting lives in some of the most hazardous environments imaginable. We are also home to Risbridger Ltd, established in 1922—an engineering company producing advanced components for aircraft servicing and petrochemical infrastructure. It contributes directly to aerospace and energy supply chains. That is exactly the kind of innovative, precision-focused industrial capability that we should champion as part of Britain’s economic future. In Reigate and across our country, specialist manufacturing has always pulled in long-term capital because it deals in long-term capability. In 2025, the sector counted some 2,700 active companies, and the Government aim to increase annual business investment from £21 billion to £39 billion by 2035. That ambition matters, because regions such as the north-west already generate £14.4 billion in advanced manufacturing GVA. The west midlands generates £11.8 billion and the south-west generates £10.4 billion. Those are not marginal numbers; they are proof that British engineering remains globally competitive when it is backed properly. Defence manufacturing is a genuine force multiplier. The Ministry of Defence estimates that the sector supports 200,000 jobs, with 70% of spending flowing to areas outside London and the south-east. Indeed, aerospace and defence manufacturing are particularly strong drivers of regional growth. Employment in the advanced manufacturing sector in Northern Ireland has grown more than four times faster than the UK average, while areas such as north Wales remain world renowned for aeroplane wing production. In Glasgow, specialist shipbuilding and satellite technology lead the charge. Woven together in often complex supply chains, the specialist manufacturing sector demonstrates how fragile business ecosystems can be and why they need the Government’s support. But I must say, with deep regret, that the sector has received nothing of the kind, despite the Government’s lengthy blueprint earlier this year, which rightly identified eight key sectors as strategic priorities: advanced materials, agritech, aerospace, automotive, batteries, space, defence and maritime capabilities. But of course a strategy is only as good as its implementation, and manufacturers are seeing not policy support but punitive tax hikes, cost pressure and legislative risk. As the hon. Member for Calder Valley and many others said, it would be fantastic if we used more British parts in the UK, but we do not because of the cost. To address that, we must bring energy prices and tax down; warm words in this Chamber will not do it. Since their very first Budget, the Government have inflicted a barrage of attacks on manufacturing businesses. The spiralling uncertainty pouring out under the door of No. 11 is damaging the confidence of every business, but especially the specialist manufacturing sector, and the warning lights are flashing. Make UK reports that manufacturers’ operating costs have risen sharply, driven by energy prices, the Chancellor’s job tax and uncertainty around business taxation: 68% said that costs rose faster than expected, and more than half froze recruitment as a result. If specialist manufacturers are to keep delivering regional growth, energy competitiveness and a stable tax policy are not luxuries; they are prerequisites. Let us consider the UK’s industrial electricity prices, which are now estimated to be 40% to 50% higher than the International Energy Agency median for comparable industrial nations. Make UK has gone as far as to call energy costs an “existential threat” to many specialist firms. The consequences are already here. UK steel and chemicals output has dropped 35% compared with 2021 levels, while imports of those same materials are rising. Just yesterday, we heard that ExxonMobil is closing its plastics refinery in Mossmorran. Four hundred jobs are now at risk because of what the company called the “current economic and policy environment”. I am confident that in a moment the Minister will rise to spin away any criticism, but this is indefensible. The reality is that no Government that are serious about the future of advanced manufacturing in Britain would have imposed a jobs tax and changes to national insurance thresholds that hurt hardest those who employ the most. No Government who care about British advanced manufacturing firms and British workers would ignore energy costs that are four times higher than those of our competitors. No Government who believe in the future of our advanced manufacturing industry would introduce a 330-page unemployment rights Bill with job-destroying, hiring-freezing measures from cover to cover. No Prime Minister who wants to kick-start economic growth would look advanced manufacturing business in the eye and say that he has a done deal with the United States and then leave the industry in the dark as tariffs on items such as pharmaceuticals remain for months afterwards. And no Government who say they want to build skills would abolish level 7 apprenticeships. Just as night follows day, the Government will talk big on business, but their actions show that much of it is merely empty rhetoric. Our specialist manufacturing sector deserves better; it deserves a Government who stand with them, and leadership that understands that when specialist manufacturing succeeds, Britain succeeds. We have in this country the expertise, the heritage and the industrial DNA to compete and excel, but the specialist manufacturing sector will not survive on pride alone. It needs certainty, cost stability and a Government who truly get what it means to make things. We urgently need to reclaim our status as the nation that builds, and the best way to start is by listening to those firms that still do so.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  More people are now recognising that all is not well with the current approach to energy policy or net zero. That matters because the cost of energy is deeply tied to the cost of living, the cost of doing business, and the security and resilience of our country. It therefore follows that any energy policy which sees us spend £250 million per month to import energy from Europe because our own production cannot meet demand can only be called a failure and a security risk. The country urgently requires an energy policy that is realistic, reliable and rooted in the pursuit of prosperity, yet what successive Governments have legislated for has been anything but. The net zero agenda is not working and it is time we were honest about that fact. The target may have been well-intentioned, but the current pathway is unaffordable and unworkable. What many people will be wondering is, how did we get to this point? To address that, we must look back to the Climate Change Act 2008. When the Act was passed, it was the first legislation in the world to set a legally binding national framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it applies only to territorial emissions; that is, emissions that occur within the UK’s borders. This means that while it can be made to look as though we are meeting our climate targets, with a reported 54% reduction in territorial emissions since 1990, we are in fact exporting an increasing share of our emissions elsewhere. This phenomenon, known as carbon leakage, occurs when UK-based industries shut down or relocate overseas to avoid high carbon costs, only for the UK to continue importing the very same goods, often with higher embedded emissions. Net zero by 2050 may lower UK emissions on paper, but perversely, it is also driving up global emissions in real terms as we become more reliant on imports. Several forces contribute to this situation. First, UK electricity prices are now among the highest in the developed world, driven in no small part by net zero policies. Secondly, under the UK emissions trading scheme, firms in energy-intensive sectors must buy allowances for every tonne of carbon dioxide they emit—a cost their foreign competitors may not face. Thirdly, the rise of green finance regulations such as mandatory environmental, social and governance disclosure and climate stress testing has constrained domestic investment into high-emissions sectors, even as our competitors around the world forge ahead without similar constraints.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to continue, but thanks for the offer. The economic consequences are now plain to see. Since 2021, the output of UK energy-intensive industries has fallen by around 35%. In sectors such as steel, petrochemicals and fertilisers, this trend is not theoretical, and the damage already done to once-proud industries is plain to see. At Grangemouth in Scotland, INEOS recently announced the closure of its ethanol production facility. Its founder, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, issued a stark warning at the time, saying that Britain is offshoring its emissions and onshoring virtue—we close plants here, import the same products from abroad, and claim we are greener. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the decision to reduce North sea oil and gas output in favour of increased imports. On paper, this slashes the UK’s territorial emissions, but in reality, it leaves us more reliant on volatile overseas markets, increases our net carbon footprint and surrenders billions in domestic tax revenue and thousands of skilled British jobs. We appear to have confused decarbonisation with deindustrialisation. What do we have to show for years of adherence to the Climate Change Act and everything that came with it? We now have the second highest domestic energy prices and the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, with 12 million families struggling to pay their energy bills. I defy anyone to try to sell that as any kind of success. The old orthodoxy has been tried and found wanting, and we now need a better way forward. That is what we are offering today with our cheap power plan, which delivers on energy security, supports economic growth and protects the public from unaffordable green extremism.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for providing that very useful context. I will come on to that in my speech. One of the challenges we have is that property service companies are seeking to make a profit, yet they are unregulated and free to do as they will. It is for this place to get a handle on that. I hope that today we can think constructively about potential solutions to address the problem, the scale of which, across the House, we all recognise. We do not want our constituents to continue to face it. I am afraid to say that FirstPort is not covering itself in glory. I have now heard hundreds of times over about its lack of responsiveness, lack of transparency on costs and inadequate explanations of service charge increases. Residents have told me about being billed for services they have never received, like window cleaning, with no avenue to formally challenge and remediate. Any opportunity to charge a resident is used to the full. These things are all symptomatic of an industry that prioritises extracting maximum value from leaseholders, regardless of the human cost. There is no incentive for property service companies to act any differently. It is incredibly hard for leaseholders to remove them, so the companies have free rein to do pretty much what they like. This fundamental power imbalance must be addressed, and it must be made easier for leaseholders to take their business elsewhere. The Park 25 service charge for the year ending 30 April 2026 is estimated to be just under £1.9 million— 13% higher than last year’s estimate. The increase in costs is primarily to cover the future replacement of playground equipment, street lighting, road repairs and other infrastructure. Park 25 residents are also paying council tax for exactly those types of things outside the estate. Out of the £1.9 million service charge, FirstPort keeps around £142,000 in fees, which works out at just under 8% of the total service charge. How easy was it for me to find that £142,000 figure in FirstPort’s costs breakdown? Not very—I had to total up numbers across many pages of costs, as there is no nice, neat summary at the front showing the total amount. That 8% may or may not be out of kilter with industry—I found it difficult when researching to confirm one way or another, which is an issue in itself. The key point to recognise here, though, is that there is absolutely no incentive or requirement for FirstPort to keep the cost base low. In fact, the more money it spends on maintaining the estate and the more people it employs to deliver services, the smaller the percentage proportion its management fee appears to be—a perverse incentive indeed. It would be very easy for me to berate property service companies throughout my speech, and I suspect that others will take up that mantle during the debate. However, we must recognise that it is the current system that allows the companies to operate in this way.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered property service charges. It is a privilege to bring this important debate to the House today. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I remember vividly the day, over 20 years ago now, when I picked up the keys to my first flat in south-east London. It took time to get to a position where my salary was sufficient to secure a mortgage and to save up the deposit, but I managed to do it. I spent the first few weeks on a mattress on the floor while I saved for a bed, but it was the most amazing feeling in the world to own my own home. I was fortunate enough to have purchased the freehold, so I never had to face paying service charges that I could not afford and I never had to rely on a third-party management company to make essential repairs. When the time was right for me to move on, my flat was easy to sell. Others have not been so lucky. They have bought leasehold on a private estate, and with that comes a life sentence. Today, I want to give a voice to those people on the hook for ever-increasing service charges, trapped in homes they cannot afford but cannot sell either, who thought they were buying their dream home when actually it was the start of a nightmare. Make no mistake—this is no exaggeration on my part—people’s lives have been and are being ruined by excessive service charges. Let me start, Madam Deputy Speaker, by telling you about Park 25, a housing estate in Redhill. It was built 18 years ago and has 500 homes, a mixture of houses and flats. It is a contemporary and stunning site, with the type of homes that people want to live in. It is particularly attractive to key workers, such as doctors and nurses, due to its proximity to East Surrey hospital. Like many new estates, it was built by private developers with no arrangements made for the local authority to adopt the communal land after completion, so FirstPort was appointed as the property manager to maintain the estate. This means that residents of Park 25 pay an expensive service charge to FirstPort, on top of their mortgage and on top of their council tax, for pretty basic services. Those service charges are going up significantly every year, driving some homeowners to the absolute brink. I first became aware of the issue when I met Louise, a single mum, at my first ever surgery last year—a meeting I will never forget. She told me how she had purchased a one-bedroom flat on Park 25 when they were first built, but the service charges quickly increased, becoming unaffordable for her, in part due to the expensive biomass communal heating system. In desperation she tried to sell, but three times over she lost her buyer. She now lets out the flat and has moved back in with her family, unable to access the equity that would allow her to buy somewhere else. She is trapped, not able to move on with her life. Then there is Alfie, who purchased a two-bedroom flat in 2018. He was “thrilled to get on the property ladder at the age of 23, thinking it was a valuable investment.” His first service charge payment was just under £2,200 per annum. Six years later, it is over £3,600—a 70% increase. For that, he says “they basically cut the grass and insure the building”. When heating is included it gets even worse, due to the biomass system. The first amount becomes £3,400, going up to a whopping £8,000 per annum—a 135% increase. Again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I remind you that he is paying council tax and a mortgage on top. Alfie did consider challenging the service fees at a tribunal, but he was advised by the Leasehold Advisory Service that for any chance of success he would need to appoint a surveyor to review the service charges. However, to do that there needed to be a recognised tenants’ association, and to set that up, over 50% of leaseholders needed to agree. In the case of Park 25, he quickly found that to be an impossible task as many rent out their properties and so are not easily traced. With that door closed to him, he tried to sell his property for over two years—even for £50,000 less than he bought it for just to cover the mortgage. There was lots of interest, but every time the potential purchaser found out about the service charges, they withdrew. Alfie says: “Understandably, nobody wants to buy it. The ‘we buy any property’ companies won’t touch it and even the auction sites which run a ‘no sale no fee’ policy don’t want to take it on”.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his encouragement and I will keep coming up with radical ideas. Before I finish, I want to raise the issue of education and information provision to homebuyers. If most people knew the current problems with leasehold arrangements, they would not buy them—or they certainly would not pay as much for them. I am sure that conveyancers include warnings and information when managing the sale and purchase process, but it is not cutting through. People are sleepwalking into purchases with little or no understanding of the uncapped service charges they are signing up to, and we must do more to ensure that people are adequately advised and informed before signing on the dotted line. I would be most grateful if the Minister could today give his view on a few things. How can we best address the current power imbalance between leaseholders and property service companies? What role does he see an industry regulator playing in driving up standards? What default tenure model should be used for future housing estates to reduce the incidences of these issues in the first place? I would also appreciate his views on my suggestion to move to a mandatory adoption model after development completion.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for participating today. I also thank all Members for leaving politics at the door, on the whole. Everyone recognises that there is a challenge, we all agree that that challenge is impacting our constituents’ lives in a detrimental way, and I think everyone came here today to try to solve that, and I thank them for that. I also thank the Minister, who has clearly listened closely to everything that was said today. I am grateful to him for taking this with the seriousness that it deserves. He has already contacted FirstPort—that is incredible and I thank him for it. I thank the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), for his contributions and the Liberal Democrat spokes- person, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate. I think we can all agree that it was time well spent, and I am sure that the Committee will be happy with the number of hon. Members who were here to speak today. In summary, we have heard some truly astounding things today. I am sure that we are all horrified by what some leaseholders have to endure. It is clear that some property service companies are exploiting leaseholders for their own benefit and profit. Some do not provide a value-for-money service, do not adequately maintain communal areas and are most certainly not transparent in their dealings. Their actions trap residents in homes they cannot afford and cannot sell, but the law of the land currently allows those companies to do that. It is a travesty and an absolute scandal. I look forward to the Minister and the Government acting quickly to prevent further abuse, and I will support them and cheer them on in that. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered property service charges.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for yet another relevant and important point. I urge the Government to think logically about what they are trying to achieve. We all support the ambition to build more homes and recognise the problem that needs to be solved. However, the way we do it is really important, and it is important that we have those homes in the right places and that we set the targets in a logical and meaningful way. With this policy, and others like it, we are offering the public a clear choice between a party that wants to unlock aspiration and reward the hard work of our young people and a party that clings to economically damaging taxes because its own Back Benchers refuse to make even the smallest concessions on out-of-control spending. We on the Conservative Benches are clear that any significant change to tax policy must be properly costed. The public finances are in a challenging place, and reckless commitments only add to the prevailing sense of uncertainty. That is why it is so important to emphasise that our intention to scrap stamp duty on primary residences is costed, fully funded and fully paid for through our £47 billion savings package. Our plan is clear: it is costed and it is rooted in a belief that home ownership should be within reach of the next generation, just as it was for our own.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend’s excellent point is pertinent to my constituency as well, which is full of amazing and beautiful green-belt land. We are suffering from what this Government have done on housing targets, which have doubled in Reigate and Banstead while going down in London. That means that we are building more homes, but not for local people and not for the children the hon. Member for Hexham mentioned, who want to stay close to home. It is for people living in London who then move out to Reigate and Banstead.