What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I can give my hon. Friend an assurance on that. I can also reassure him that over the weekend, I was in contact with both the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, in the United States and Defence Minister Yevhenii Khmara in Ukraine to try to improve the coverage and the capability of that intelligence.
With great respect to the Father of the House, I do not think that is the right solution. I think we can reach an agreement with the United States and Mauritius—and before Opposition Front Benchers become too animated, let me just delicately point out that they were accused only last week by the United States of playing politics with national security. I could not agree more, and I hope that they can work in a more constructive spirit.
I can wholeheartedly give that commitment to the right hon. Member. This is a principle, but also a conviction that is held across the entire NATO alliance. Putin should be in no doubt that NATO stands ready to defend every inch of NATO territory. Let me place on record again that when I was in Washington last week, the United States, through the Secretary of War, thanked us for our leadership in Ukraine. It has not been an easy week for US-Ukraine relations—I would not pretend otherwise—but I think that we should recognise the support that the United States provides, and will continue to provide, for Ukraine. This country will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
I begin by welcoming the Minister to the Dispatch Box for what I believe is her first time as Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Some might argue that 11.20 pm on a Monday night is just the right time for a Minister to make their debut at the Dispatch Box, and perhaps the right time to make the kind of speech I am about to make. I assure her, though, that we on the Labour Benches are very proud of her, and I am sure Members across the House will appreciate her talents and skills as they relate to the Scotland Office, other parts of Government policy and other parts of the world, where her dedication and leadership have been shown before. That is where the praise stops, because the ask I am about to make may well go beyond the Minister’s briefing and the Scotland Office’s budget. However, I hope she will be no less ambitious than I am, or my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), and for all points in between who have stayed on tonight to show their support not just for the Minister, but for an idea that would define not only a building or a city, but a country, and leave a legacy for this reforming Government that she and I serve in. For many, I hardly need detail the catastrophe that has befallen the Glasgow School of Art’s Charles Rennie Mackintosh building, and the pall it has cast over Scotland’s largest city for more than a decade now. I will quickly summarise the brutally cruel circumstances that led us here.
I do, and I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I will detail and explore some of those options later in my speech. She is right: it is shameful that we have this shrouded ghost on Garnethill casting a shadow over the city. To summarise, the fire that brought down the Mackintosh building broke out in 2014, as art students were finalising their end-of-year degree show. That fire was devastating and heartrending—I was in a meeting of another cultural board as the news broke, and people cried in that meeting as the smoke rose above Garnethill. Around 70% of the building was saved, although the library and the famous hen run—that glazed passageway so beloved by generations of art students—were lost. Despite that blow, the Glasgow School of Art and its patrons across the globe rose to the occasion and committed themselves to the faithful restoration of the building. That was painstaking and specialised work, but it was moving on apace when a second and much more devastating fire swept through the building in 2018, engulfing not just the Mackintosh building but the neighbouring ABC music venue on Sauchiehall Street. The 2018 blaze was so fierce and all-consuming that its cause may never be known, but its consequences certainly are. Glaswegians are reminded of the destruction every single day, as the charred husk of the Mack building stoops withered and crippled on the city’s skyline. I was up there on Friday, between events at the Royal National Mòd in Glasgow—I congratulate the organisers and the city for hosting a brilliant week in the city of the Gaels. The contrast between the vibrant, youthful buzz of the revived and living culture that the Mòd represents and the tragic shadow hanging over the Mack could not have been stronger.
I do. There is a need for greater transparency, and there are great lessons to be learned from the recent management of the estate and the building. The Glasgow School of Art has committed to restoring the building. In July this year, eight years after the second fire and following extended and painful arbitration with the insurers, the GSA published a report outlining that the cost of restoring the Mack is estimated to be £265 million at today’s prices. That is a simply insurmountable sum for Glasgow School of Art alone. It is more than five times its annual turnover. That is why I am making this speech this evening.
I am glad to have the right hon. Member here bringing not just his experience, but cross-party support. I appreciate what he did and what previous Governments did after the first fire. There are hundreds of competing pressures on politics and on our political and financial capital, but he is right that it is a building of national importance. It was also a very beautiful building.
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend about the style and form of the Mack. It was a beautiful building, and we do miss it. I do not mean that in a sentimental sense, because it was not just a building of bricks and mortar; it was, as she said, more than the sum of its parts. Since its construction at the turn of the 20th century, the Mack has become a symbol of Glasgow’s flair. It has been an incubator for Scotland’s creative spirit, and it has been a building of significance, as Members have said, not just for the city, but for Scotland and the country. It is a story that runs through the Scottish nation, and through the lives of so many famous artists, writers and performers who have been inspired by their time there, and others, like me, who were simply spellbound by its beauty. If the Minister is looking for evidence of how the Mack runs through our lives, she will recall that tonight at Dover House, as she made her speech for the Poppyscotland appeal, which we all support, she was heralded by a painting by Adrian Wiszniewski on one side and one by Ken Currie on the other—the new Glasgow boys; the most recent wave of artists to come out of the art school.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The school’s influence runs everywhere, and not just in Dover House. In the Lobby tonight, the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), who is not in his place, mentioned how his brother had been to Glasgow School of Art. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has spent so much time at the Dispatch Box today, but his mother was at Glasgow School of Art, as were so many friends of mine. I was only ever a graduate of the art school dance; I never actually went to art school, but many friends, colleagues and constituents did. We shape our buildings and then they shape us. That was the phrase of another Prime Minister, which should be embossed on the walls of this Chamber, because, as we know, it was rebuilt from the ruins of world war two and functions now much as it did before that visit from the Luftwaffe in 1941. Buildings do more than occupy space; they define who we are. Few understood that more profoundly than Charles Rennie Mackintosh, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) pointed out. His design for the building created an environment in which art, everyday practicality, and beauty and simplicity of design came together as one.
I could not agree more. We must remember that the art school itself began as a design school—almost an engineering school for the shipyards and the industrial base of Scotland. There is a plan to make the art school, with a restored Mackintosh building, the anchor of cultural and economic development again. What my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East says is true: the Glasgow School of Art and the Mackintosh building have become a symbol of Glasgow, and Glasgow has a symbiotic relationship with the art school. That is why it is tragic to see it in its current condition. As the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) pointed out, the Mack is not simply a national treasure for Scotland; it is a cultural and creative asset for the whole of the UK. It is an emblem of what Scotland has contributed to the global story of design and success over the last century. It should not just be left to Glasgow School of Art, to Scotland or to the alumni of the art school to take this on. Collectively, we are all custodians of the Mackintosh. It should fall on us as a nation to restore the building to its glory. The Government should be willing and ready to engage with Glasgow School of Art in the project. Let us be clear: this can be done. We need only look across the channel to the example of Notre-Dame, which was burnt down in a fire in 2019. The French Government stepped in with the full muscle of the state to implement a reconstruction programme.
I would temper my language and invite the Scottish Government, the UK Government and other interested parties to come together, put their hands under the Mack and lift it out of the ashes. There is a case for doing that, as a fully restored Mack, in line with the Glasgow School of Art’s ambitions to deliver a re-energised cultural quarter for Glasgow, can be just as much an economic driver for the city and the country as Notre-Dame is for France.
I agree with my hon. Friend. Part of the Glasgow School of Art’s ambition is that the Mack building could anchor the regeneration of the whole of Garnethill and that part of the city. Right now, all we have are the singed bones of the building, shrouded in scaffold for so long while the Glasgow School of Art grappled with the insurance arbitration process. I understand that there may be some progress: the street may be reclaimed to some extent, and we will see the mausoleum of the building visible but protected. However, preventing the building from collapsing appears to be close to the limit of what the Glasgow School of Art can deliver on its own through the insurance claim. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) that the Scottish Government, as well as the UK Government, could have a role to play in putting their hands underneath the Mack and supporting its restoration. There is a plan for restoration. There is passion and professionalism in the design team commissioned to look at the restoration, and there is an economic analysis produced by the Glasgow School of Art to rebuild the Mackintosh. That is compelling and attractive, because heritage-led place making is often one of the most effective tools for driving urban regeneration. It is a tried and tested formula, and this approach would see the reinstated Mack building contribute to the economy and the regeneration of Glasgow, as has been pointed out, but it cannot be done by the Glasgow School of Art alone, the UK Government alone or the Scottish Government alone; we must do it together. Because I was in Glasgow on Friday attending the Mòd, I missed the Prime Minister’s speech in neighbouring Motherwell in which he offered a new direction and a promise of a new deal between Scotland’s two Governments. On the way back south, I listened to the speech— I played it back—and it struck me as a very nuanced and sophisticated offer of co-operation. I hope, beyond the rhetoric, it is recognised as such in Bute House and in Holyrood. I know the SNP First Minster had some speech making of his own to do on the weekend—I did not play his speech back, I must admit—but if I were him, I would listen closely again to the Prime Minister’s message and to my own. If he is looking for progress, he should realise that for the Mack and for Glasgow, he could be in for a big win for himself and for both Governments. Nothing could symbolise a new era of doing politics differently in Scotland than the two Governments coming together, with other interested parties, to raise the Mack out of the ashes and do nothing less than restore it to its former glory.
My hon. Friend proves my point that the Mack and its influence echoes in every postcode in every part of Britain and beyond. In terms of solutions, some have called for the Mack building to be part of an independent body. The Charles Rennie Mackintosh Society, for example, has called for an independent body to oversee the restoration of the building and for its ownership to be transferred away from the Glasgow School of Art. Personally, I am agnostic about the means but devout about the delivery. I believe that restoring the Mack simply must be done.
Restoring the Mack should be everyone’s priority. All proposals are worth exploring around the table with all interested parties. The Minister who will answer from the Dispatch Box tonight has experience and a reputation for conflict resolution. She is ideally placed to persuade both Governments to seriously consider how they can achieve this joint aim: the faithful restoration of the Mack as a living, breathing school and studio, sparking the inspiration for another generation and another century in Scotland.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) for his work on the Bill and for the way in which he engaged with our Committee, especially during our inquiry into the legacy of the troubles. As Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I have heard at first hand from families whose lives were changed forever by the troubles and who decades later are still searching for answers about what happened to their loved ones. That is why it is so important that we get the legislation right for all those who continue to carry the legacy of the past. Amendment 286 reflects a recommendation of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee following our extensive inquiry into the legacy of the troubles and speaks to the very heart of an issue we heard about time and again. Throughout our inquiry, victims, survivors and families spoke of the frustration of delay. Many have waited decades for answers, so we should be looking to remove obstacles to information recovery and not to create new ones. I pay tribute to Joe McVey, the Victims and Survivors Commissioner, who is in the Gallery, for the work he has done and for working with our Committee. The Bill as drafted requires organisations such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland to assess and classify material as “sensitive or prejudicial” before it can be transferred to the legacy commission. The Committee concluded that that requirement may be unnecessary and risks creating a substantial administrative burden. On a matter of principle, an independent commission should be trusted to make its own judgments about the handling and disclosure of information. If Parliament is establishing a body to investigate the past, that body should have direct access to the records it needs to do that work. There is also a practical case for the amendment: much of the material needed for legacy investigations is actually held by the PSNI, often in records more than 30 years old and spread across multiple systems and archives. The chief constable has warned that locating, reviewing and disclosing such material is already a resource-intensive task, yet the Bill places further obligations on the PSNI to carry out sensitivity assessments before information can even reach the commission. Those concerns are not new. During our inquiry, the PSNI argued that direct access for the commission would be far more effective, pointing to Operation Kenova, which operated without such a requirement. The chief constable recently wrote to the Government again to voice those concerns, warning that without dedicated capacity there is a material risk of delay and damage to confidence in the wider legacy process. Critically, no additional funding has been identified for the work, which creates a risk that resources are diverted from present-day policing to administer the past. The amendment would not remove safeguards for sensitive information. It would simply place responsibility where it belongs: with the independent commission. Victims and families are not asking for additional bureaucracy; they are asking for answers, as the Secretary of State rightly pointed out. If we are serious about delivering those answers, about building confidence in the process and about using public resources effectively, we should remove this unnecessary hurdle. I encourage the Government and the Secretary of State to reflect on the substance of amendment 286.
9. What steps he is taking to support defence procurement companies in Dudley.
I wholeheartedly support the Government’s ambition to buy British, and there should be no difference in defence. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his defence roundtable being held in Dudley later this year. Can my hon. Friend outline what proactive work has been done to make new small and medium-sized enterprise supply chains in Dudley and outline how industrial bases such as the Pensnett estate in Dudley are well placed to benefit from future defence investment and procurement opportunities?
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026.
Dr Huq, I am delighted to be serving under your chairmanship—I think for the first time in all these years. Let me welcome all Members to the Committee and congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East on taking up his new role. I welcome him to the Committee. Both sets of regulations were laid before the House on 1 September. The schemes to which they relate provide very important support to people who have developed certain dust-related diseases, often caused by occupational exposure to asbestos and other harmful dusts. That includes diseases such as the two named in the statutory instruments: pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma. They have a devastating effect on individuals and their families. I really welcome the opportunity to debate these schemes and the changes that we are making to ensure that they continue to provide effective support. Let me begin with an overview of the two no-fault compensation schemes and what these regulations seek to change. The scheme for pneumoconiosis, which I shall refer to as “the 1979 Act scheme”—for the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979—provides a single lump sum compensation payment to eligible people who suffer from one of the diseases covered by the scheme. That includes, as well as pneumoconiosis, diffuse mesothelioma and three other dust-related respiratory diseases. The scheme was designed to compensate people who were unable to claim damages from former employers because they had gone out of business, and who had not brought any civil action against another party for damages. To be entitled to a lump sum award, claimants must have an industrial injuries disablement benefit award for a disease covered by the 1979 Act scheme, or would have an award but for their percentage disablement. The mesothelioma lump sum payments scheme, which I shall refer to as “the 2008 Act scheme”—for the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008—was introduced to provide compensation to people who contracted diffuse mesothelioma but were unable to claim compensation through the 1979 Act scheme, for example because they were self-employed or their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 Act scheme provides support to people with diffuse mesothelioma quickly, at the time when they most need help. Both schemes aim to provide compensation to sufferers within their lifetime, but each scheme also allows for claims by dependants if the person suffering from the disease sadly dies before they are able to make a claim, which is not an unusual state of affairs, in recognition of the suffering that these diseases can impose on whole families. The regulations before the Committee make very important changes to both schemes. The most important relate to awards for dependants and the treatment of claims where a claimant dies before payment can be made. The changes deliver what I hope the Committee will agree is a fairer approach to compensation and provide better support to bereaved families. Under the current arrangements, awards payable to dependants are generally lower than those payable to sufferers. The regulations will align the rates payable to dependants with those payable to sufferers under both schemes. That means dependants will receive compensation calculated using the same rates as eligible sufferers, providing a single payment structure under each of the schemes. For families already coping with the loss of a loved one, these changes will provide greater financial support at an obviously difficult time. Campaigners have long called for this change. Let me pay tribute in particular to Joanne Gordon and John Flanagan, who I was with earlier this afternoon, of the Asbestos Victims Support Group Forum UK, and the remarkable work of Liz Darlison and her team at Mesothelioma UK, who have repeatedly raised this concern with me. I also pay tribute to Hugh Robertson of the TUC and to Thompsons Solicitors, who have campaigned for this change. Among the parliamentarians who have done so, let me single out the late Bill McKenzie, Lord McKenzie of Luton, who I think was my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire’s local council leader for some time.
As the Minister in 2010, he said that equalisation was the aim, when “resources allow”. He then campaigned for equalisation as the Opposition spokesperson in subsequent years. The regulations also make provision for circumstances where an individual dies after making a valid claim, but before payment is made. In those cases, payment may be made to the claimant’s personal representatives. That will help ensure that compensation can still be paid where somebody has done everything required of them to make a claim but sadly dies before their award can be issued. The regulations for the 1979 Act scheme also make a number of consequential changes to support the reforms. Those include introducing a clear statutory basis for determining the date used to calculate awards and removing payment provisions that are no longer needed following the alignment of award rates. Together, these changes will ensure that the schemes will provide better support to those who succumb to these devastating diseases and to their families. The Committee will join me in recognising the continued importance of the compensation offered by both the 1979 Act scheme and the 2008 Act scheme. I am required to confirm that these provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights, and I am very happy to do so. I commend these regulations, which will align compensation rates for dependants with those for sufferers and improve the operation of both schemes, to the Committee and ask it to approve them in order that they can be implemented.
I thank the shadow Minister for his support for these measures. The debate has been informed and supported, as it is every year, by the very wide recognition of the scale of the impact on those who are affected by the terrible diseases that are covered by the schemes. As usual in such debates, I welcome the cross-party support. The Government share the commitment that Members of the House have to making sure that people affected by these devastating diseases and their families receive the support that they should expect. The reforms are intended to strengthen and, as the shadow Minister pointed out, simplify these long-standing compensation schemes while making sure that support is delivered in a way that is fair, clear and consistent between different claimants. The reforms will align compensation payable to dependants with that payable to sufferers under both the schemes, and will introduce provision for payment to personal representatives, as the shadow Minister touched on, where a claimant dies after making a valid claim but before payment can be made. For the 1979 Act scheme, the regulations also introduce a clear statutory basis for determining the relevant date that is used to calculate the awards and to remove supplementary payment provisions that are no longer required following the alignment of dependant and sufferer awards. Of course, people who have additional costs as a result of their disability may also be entitled to benefits such as personal independence payment or attendance allowance, and other benefits are also available to cover income-replacement needs. We are committed to providing appropriate financial support for families who are affected. Let me pick up on the very good point the shadow Minister made about communications. That is very important and we have already started working on it. I mentioned the victim support group that John Flanagan is a member of—I was in a meeting with him earlier this afternoon—and Mesothelioma UK, who are very keen to promote awareness of these changes. I agree with the shadow Minister that that kind of route is often the most effective way of getting the information to those who need to know about it. We are also promoting information today, on the back of this debate. It is very important that people know that this significant change has been made. On the TB-related top-up, what I can say to the shadow Minister is that it has very rarely actually been claimed. I am advised that we do not think anyone would be worse off, because anyone who might be worse off will be equalised by the changes that we are making, so I do not think there is a problem. If he has in mind a particular set of circumstances where there could be a problem, perhaps he could drop me a line and I will be happy to discuss what the position is. On the question of avoiding delays, I agree with the shadow Minister that we need to make sure that these things move as quickly as they can, and the payments will be made as soon as possible. He talked about the possibility of delays around probate, which of course is true. Obviously, that is outside our immediate control—we do have to follow the legal procedures in all of this—but I very much hope that delays can be minimised. On the question of transition, I am afraid that I will have to come back to the shadow Minister on the particular point that he raised, unless inspiration suddenly—[Interruption.] Ah, it could be that some inspiration has arrived. The changes will apply only to claims determined on or after 31 October—the end of this month. Existing awards and entitlement decisions will continue to be determined under the current legislative framework. Applying the changes from a single implementation date provides clarity and ensures that the schemes operate consistently and fairly for everybody. I can understand that some people might feel a little bit hard done by as a result of that, and he expressed concern to that effect, but there is the benefit of providing clarity for everybody, which I think outweighs the possible disbenefit for a small number of claimants. The schemes continue to provide very important support to people affected by some of the most serious occupational diseases and, where appropriate, to their dependants. The reforms that the Committee is considering were prompted by an independent legal review of the schemes and they give us an opportunity to address a number of long-standing issues about the operation of the schemes, as well as to equalise compensation in the way that I have described. Taken together, the changes will align awards for dependants and sufferers, provide greater clarity in the calculation and payment of awards, and simplify the operation of the 1979 Act scheme. They will help to make sure that the schemes provide the support that is needed to those who succumb to these awful diseases and to their families, who bear the impact alongside them. I am grateful for the support from across the House and I hope that the Committee will agree to both measures. Question put and agreed to. Draft Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2026 Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2026.—(Sir Stephen Timms.)
I thank the shadow Secretary of State and the right hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) for setting out their views on this issue and keeping them brief. I will carry on in that vein by keeping my remarks about the programme motion brief, as I am keen for us to move straight to Committee proceedings. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members are similarly keen. I want to address some of the points, particularly those about the amendments. We tabled our amendments a week before Committee, in line with the usual practice for Government amendments. The amendments followed significant discussion with many Members and many stakeholder groups over many weeks and months. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned that there are many amendments, but he has to recognise that many of them are technical. Over the course of the two full days, we will be able to scrutinise, debate and consider those amendments in detail before the Bill is sent to the other place, where I have no doubt it will receive significant further scrutiny. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon is absolutely right: the Bill is about victims and we cannot allow those victims to wait any longer for answers. Almost three decades on from the Good Friday agreement, the issue of the legacy of the troubles remains unresolved. After many years of bereaved families having been let down, this may be our last chance to get things right. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will deliver on our manifesto commitment to fix the failed systems that the Tories created and ensure that a reformed legacy commission can be the route for families to get the answers that they need and deserve. More than a quarter of a century after the end of the troubles, too many families are still waiting for the truth about what happened to their loved ones. Their grief has been prolonged by uncertainty and unanswered questions. We cannot accept that any longer. It is critical that we move the Bill forward. To that end, I urge all Members to support the motion. I commend it to the House. Question put.
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Sir Desmond, for the second of my meetings today. I put on record my strong support for what the Government are doing to expand Awaab’s law, both in the social sector and the private sector. As an example of its importance, a mother in my constituency recently got in touch as she is worried about her son, who is asthmatic. In their property, which is managed by a social housing association, significant damp and black mould on the windows and walls were aggravating his condition. Awaab’s law, which places a legal duty on social landlords to address damp and mould hazards that present a significant risk of harm within fixed timeframes, was a useful foundation for me to stand on when contacting the council on her behalf. Extending those principles to the private sector will do so much for another of my constituents, who recently had his bed condemned by his letting agency for being infested with black mould. Again, the root cause was the state of the housing, which resulted in a chest infection and a hospital visit. He has had to pay for a new bed himself, which was a significant expense caused by a problem with his private rented house. I am confident that the changes the Government are making will give private tenants far more strength and backing to assert that mouldy conditions—a clear emergency health hazard—are rectified within a strict timeframe. I want to touch on a briefing that came from Shelter earlier today. I appreciate that the Minister may not have a response to it right now as it has come through only today, but I wonder whether he would commit to writing to Shelter in response to its concerns. In short, Shelter is arguing that the amended regulations state that a “‘significant risk of harm’ means a risk of harm to the occupier’s health or safety that a reasonable lessor with the relevant knowledge would make safe within 15 working days (but not within 24 hours).” Shelter is “concerned that the ‘15 day’ definition could put tenants at risk in cases where there are no quick fixes to make a home safe from a hazard ahead of further works—meaning it could fall outside the regulations”. It gives the example that “a reasonable landlord might not be able to make safe a significant structural collapse hazard within 15 working days...if no temporary fixes were available.” It argues that the amended definition could potentially—I am sure in an unintended way—undermine Awaab’s law “because, if the landlord were to argue the hazard was out of scope, tenants would lose their right to be offered suitable alternative accommodation until the hazard could be made safe.” Shelter closes by saying: “If Awaab’s family had been offered suitable alternative accommodation while the damp and mould was made safe, he may still be alive today.” I wanted to bring that briefing to the Minister’s attention so that he can respond when possible.
It is a momentous pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this vital petition. Like everyone else, I sincerely thank Paris Shears for her extraordinary bravery in turning her harrowing experience into an opportunity for positive change, helping to ensure that no other victim goes through her experience. Like many others, I always hope to see the best in people. I want to believe that our prison system can deliver meaningful rehabilitation and help to break cycles of offending, but rehabilitation can never come at the expense of victim safety. On this issue, I fear that we are giving offenders, who have already shown themselves to be manipulative and callous towards those they profess to love, additional opportunities to continue facilitating abuse and exerting control, even when arrests have been made and court proceedings are under way. How can it be right that a perpetrator is able to weaponise our justice system, drag victims back through repeated hearings, waste precious court time and inflict further trauma, only to be rewarded with a reduced sentence? That does not strengthen confidence in the justice system; it undermines it, makes it a mockery of justice and validates the concerns of many survivors who already feel that the system works better for perpetrators than those they have harmed. On the Isle of Wight, we are fortunate enough to have an exceptional women’s refuge via Paragon. Despite operating with limited resources and facilities, they are providing valuable support to some of the most vulnerable people in our community. They have told me directly about the devastating impact that these sentencing decisions can have on victims, many of whom feel let down by a system that is supposed to protect them. One survivor said: “It takes an enormous amount of personal courage, extensive evidence gathering, and significant public resource just to get a coercive control case into court. To fight through all of that, only to see the perpetrator receive a discounted sentence, completely minimises those efforts and feels like an insult to the survivors who fought so hard to be heard. Coercive control is rarely an isolated incident, it is an insidious, cumulative pattern of abuse that dismantles someone’s life over years. In my view, the psychological and emotional harm stays with a survivor for life. Giving a sentence reduction treats it like a minor transactional offence traded away for court efficiency, rather than acknowledging the lifelong damage left behind.” That fear is only heightened on the Isle of Wight, where our geographical containment brings serious safety risk. Short custodial sentences mean that perpetrators are back out into the immediate community far too soon, leaving victims constantly terrified of bumping into them. They also drastically compress the time available to put essential post-release safety plans—housing arrangements or non-molestation orders or injunctions—into place. I acknowledge the important steps this Government have already taken to put victims at the heart of our justice system, both on the Isle of Wight and across the country. Removal of the presumption of parental involvement, and the introduction of the pathfinder court on the island, are significant reforms that will make a real difference to many families. But, as always, it is the solemn responsibility of our Labour Government to be ambitious and precise about what more we can do. If we are serious about placing victims at the centre of decision making, we must listen when they tell us that the current approach to late guilty pleas is not working. Too many victims see perpetrators delay proceedings, prolong their trauma and then benefit from a reduced sentence at the very last moment. We owe it to victims, survivors and those at risk to make this change.
My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. He mentions the new Glasgow boys. Among the other notables of Glasgow School of Art is the late David Harding, the first town artist for Glenrothes. Is that not an example of the significance of the school right across Scotland and internationally, as others have said? That is why its reconstruction should be a priority for all levels of Government who have the interests of Glasgow School of Art at heart.
He was.
5. What steps he is taking to support cadet forces in Bracknell Forest.
Earlier this month I had the huge privilege of celebrating the first ever National Cadets Week alongside 7 Platoon Berkshire Army Cadets and 2211 Squadron Air Cadets. I was struck, as I always am when I meet cadets, by the young people’s confidence, skills and sense of pride. What consideration has my hon. Friend given to the role that the cadets can play in tackling the crisis of young people not in education, employment or training, and supporting more young people to develop essential skills?
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, as he is about to come to the central and important part of his speech. He will know that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I have the privilege to sit, has raised concerns that the duty of candour that this Government introduced under the Hillsborough law might not necessarily apply equally to coronial inquests as it would to inquisitorial proceedings under the legacy commission. Will he confirm that it is his intention that the duty of candour will apply to both streams, and that if that is not made clear in Committee, it will be made crystal clear as the Bill progresses through both Houses?
11. What steps he is taking to protect British interests in the High North.
The North Atlantic, High North and Baltic are the frontline of the UK’s security, which is why British leadership of the joint expeditionary force is so vital to our defence. Will the Minister update the House on the recent meetings of the joint expeditionary force counterparts in Iceland, and on the major exercises that have taken place across the region?
My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time this evening. As he knows, I went to school next door to the art school, and it has always held a special place in my life. Does he agree that the position of the art school in Glasgow is extremely important? We might be able to track some of the decline of Sauchiehall Street to the fact that the Mack, which could be seen from that street, has been in its current condition for such a long time. The regeneration of the Mack would go some way to helping the development and economy of Glasgow as a whole.
My great-aunt was one of the thousands of Canary Girls who did vital but dangerous work in Britain’s munitions factories during both world wars. Those women have no national memorial. Does the Minister agree, as we approach our national day of remembrance, that that is a historical omission, and will he meet me to discuss a national memorial for the Canary Girls?
It is clear from the lifting of US sanctions on Russia, reports of Starlink being slowed down and restricted, and President Trump’s recent Russia diesel deal that we, alongside our European allies, must step up to fill the void being left by the US. The path to peace on our continent will not be forged by sidelining Ukraine and rewarding Russian imperialism. What capabilities will now be given to Ukraine as a European alternative to ensure that President Zelensky is not further isolated?
1. What steps he is taking to help increase investment in jobs and skills in the defence sector in the north-east.
I welcome the investment outlined by the Minister, but as a north-east MP, I always want to see more. One way that can be achieved is by helping our small and medium-sized enterprises to navigate the procurement system. Steel Benders UK is making a major investment in Hartlepool and is keen to understand how it can play a greater role in the defence supply chain. I have recently written to the Secretary of State about that, as its managing director, Tania Cooper, also sits on the steering committee of the north-east regional defence and security cluster. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of the company to discuss how businesses in Hartlepool can contribute to growing our sovereign defence manufacturing capability?
The Government remain committed to growing the cadet forces, particularly in underserved communities where young people can benefit most from the opportunities and skills that a cadet forces experience provides. We are strengthening links between defence communities and employers to expand volunteering and cadet opportunities, so that more young people, including those in Bracknell Forest, can benefit from the cadet experience.
Wasn’t National Cadets Week just brilliant? I know how proud my hon. Friend is of his cadet craftsmen and women of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers Cadets at 7 Platoon Berkshire Army Cadet Force and the Royal Air Force Cadets of 2211 Squadron—semper paratus. Both units show us how we must recognise the science, technology, engineering and maths opportunities that cadet engagement provides to our young people, helping to improve confidence and employability and reducing their risks of becoming NEET.
The Government remain committed to growing the cadet forces. On 5 October, I opened the first National Cadets Week, which celebrated the skills of our cadets and recognised the contribution of the volunteers who are central to providing the experience. We are strengthening links between defence and industry to expand our cadet opportunities to more young people.
I know how proud my hon. Friend is of his Sea Cadets and Royal Marine Cadets, the 297 Squadron Royal Air Force Cadets and the tam o’ shanter-wearing Lothian and Borders Army Cadet Force, who highlight how important our cadets are to strengthening our communities and preserving our national music and totems. I look forward to hearing how he enjoys himself at the 70th anniversary event. I hope that the SNP can see fit to allow the expansion of cadet forces into our schools, which they resist at present.