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 welcome the question. Wales has a proud history of serving our country, and that results in an extension of the armed forces covenant in our schools. There is something there that we need to recognise in supporting our veterans and their children in schools in the Welsh system, so I will take a look at it.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman spent some time with our Royal Air Force cadets, he would see the amazing cyber-programme that they are rolling out, which will be expanded across the Army Cadets and the Sea and Royal Marine Cadets as part of the cadets action plan.
Through Valour, we are improving access to and co-ordinating essential care and support for veterans. We have the new Valour centre in Telford, and in March we announced more than £13 million of Government funding to veteran support centres. Some 21 Valour-recognised centres are open, supporting veterans across the country, including in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Bids for the second round of funding are under consideration, and I will announce the successful organisations soon.
My hon. Friend has been a great champion for veterans and is very powerful in her support of the bid in Nuneaton. Through Valour, we are improving access to and co-ordinating the essential care and support available to veterans. The new Valour centre in Telford—the hub—is a collaboration between Telford & Wrekin Council and others, and this is just one example of our co-ordinated approach. Bids for the second round of funding are under consideration, and I will announce the successful organisations soon.
This Thursday, I will be in Northern Ireland with my very good friend, the Veterans’ Commissioner for Northern Ireland, where I will hear his representations on the issues affecting our veterans there. We have an incredible champion in our Veterans’ Commissioner for Scotland, who is doing an incredible job. A few months ago, I enjoyed breakfast in Wales with our Veterans’ Commissioner for Wales. All our commissioners play a valuable part and contribute to my understanding of the veterans landscape across the country, and they know that I have their back.
We are rapidly improving defence housing; we have already upgraded 1,250 homes, with a further 1,000 brought back into use this year. We have introduced customer commitments for service families, including clear pledges on housing standards, customer service and listening to families’ experiences. I will find the time to meet those people who live in service housing in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
There are two aspects in answering this question. The first is the provision that we provide to our veterans; we are pleased to be rolling out the Valour network, with announcements for further centres soon. The second is the roll-out of the armed forces covenant and making sure that all local service providers play their part in delivering for our service families and their communities.
As a proud east Londoner, I learned as a child about the Woolwich Canaries, and the difficult conditions to which they were exposed in support of our war effort and to keep our armed forces equipped. The contribution of the Canary Girls, along with that of all civilian and military women, is recognised on the “Women of World War II” memorial in Whitehall. Because the responsibility for matters involving civilian wartime workers sits outside the Ministry of Defence, I direct my hon. Friend to the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, but as an east London MP who knows very well of the great sacrifices of the Canaries, I would like to meet her and support her campaign.
My hon. Friend is making a passionate case about a very complex and tragic issue. I agree to meet him, and I hope that we can find an equitable outcome for his constituent.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) on securing this debate and thank him for his kind words. I am very pleased to respond on behalf of the Government. Indeed, the strong showing of Scottish MPs tonight is remarkable, given the time of night. I think that reflects the strength of feeling on the topic in this Chamber—although I do wish a colleague from the SNP had been able to join us as well. My hon. Friend has rightly paid tribute to Glasgow School of Art and to the generations of students, artists, designers and architects who have studied there and gone on to make their mark, at home and around the world. His speech was characteristic of his oracy in this place in its warmth, passion and strength of advocacy for causes that matter to our part of the world. The Charles Rennie Mackintosh building, known as the Mack, is much more than a historic building. It is a core part of the Glasgow School of Art, which is a world-renowned institution, a source of pride for Glasgow and Scotland, and an important part of the United Kingdom’s creative and cultural life. We heard that very clearly from my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith). Having grown up in Helensburgh, the site of the Hill House, I learned to admire the art of Charles Rennie Mackintosh from an early age. Indeed, one of the great joys of my job as Minister for Scotland, and even in the first three months, has been seeing so many examples of Scotland’s extraordinary arts and culture scene, from the Wemyss Ware cat trail in Kirkcaldy, in my own constituency, to the Edinburgh festival and fringe, to the Pier Arts Centre in Orkney. I also remember visiting the Mack as a student and marvelling at it. I want to share my heartfelt appreciation to everyone who has worked tirelessly to protect and restore its architectural heritage following the devastating fires of 2014 and 2018. The school’s commitment to faithful restoration of the building is inspiring, and the expertise and determination of those involved deserve our recognition. I know how deeply the fires and the damage to the Mack affected people across Scotland. The loss resonated far beyond Glasgow, striking at the heart of the UK’s cultural heritage. The impact was felt most acutely by the local community and nearby businesses whose lives and livelihoods were disrupted. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), in whose constituency the building stands, rightly talked about the need for us to learn lessons, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) spoke about his constituency’s connection with the Mack. I know that many constituencies, including mine, have connections with the Glasgow School of Art as well. As would be expected, these issues have been debated a number of times in the Scottish Parliament. Today we consider not only the future of a remarkable historic building, but the future of an institution that continues to contribute to our cultural identity and international standing. Along with the Secretary of State for Scotland, I recently met members of the Glasgow School of Art’s leadership. They informed us that their work to assess the building’s future had reached an important stage. In July this year, the school published an updated assessment of the options for the Mackintosh building, following the settlement of its long-running insurance claim. The school envisions the reinstatement of the building as part of a heritage-led economic regeneration project, building on the existing creative and cultural assets in Glasgow. That would strengthen the creative eco-system and would further position the city as one of the UK’s leading creative centres. The school has confirmed its intention to pursue an enabling project, funded through the insurance settlement, with work expected to begin in 2027. Its governors have also made it clear that the school cannot undertake a faithful reinstatement of the building on its own, and that partnership will be essential if that ambition is to be realised. These developments underline both the scale of the challenge and the importance of considering what role Scotland’s two Governments and other partners might play. Current work has focused on a temporary solution, which could be weather-proof and lay the groundwork for a complete restoration at a point when further funding and partnerships are secured. The question of Government support must, of course, be considered carefully: public money has to be used responsibly, and any proposal must be assessed against clear evidence of need, affordability, deliverability, and public benefit. We must be clear about the financial realities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar said, the cost of a full, faithful reconstruction, paired with wider district regeneration, is estimated to reach about £265 million. However, we should also recognise the potential long-term value of protecting a building of such exceptional significance, and the opportunities that its future could create for Glasgow and for Scotland as a whole. The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), gave an example of that. Following the 2014 fire, the UK Government committed £10 million in funding to support the Glasgow School of Art. This was provided to the Scottish Government for the Mackintosh appeal, and, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), an additional £5 million was provided in 2015-16. Of course, culture and heritage are devolved matters, and the Scottish Government have responsibility for this policy and funding in Scotland. We respect that settlement and the principles of devolution, as the Prime Minister made so clear in Motherwell last week. Although I was encouraged to hear that the Glasgow School of Art was included in the Scottish Government’s programme for government, I understand that the school is waiting to meet with the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Culture and Gaelic following its publication. We hope that the commitments made will be matched with tangible action and concrete plans. We will continue to work constructively with the Scottish Government, Glasgow city council, the Glasgow School of Art and other relevant heritage organisations. The UK Government continue to deliver transformational investment across the wider Glasgow area, including over £870 million of funding injected into the region through the Glasgow city region deal, alongside Pride in Place funding and more than £60 million of new local growth funding. My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar rightly referred to the Prime Minister’s message to the Scottish Government last week, and to the need for us to work together. The Glasgow city region is an excellent example of that, as it has benefited from £500 million each from the UK and Scottish Governments. Through our joint financial backing, we are empowering local leaders from the Glasgow city region to make spending decisions based on opportunities for local economic growth and prosperity. As the Glasgow School of Art leadership seeks to build a case for investment that links culture to economic benefit for the people of the region, the city region is an important partner. I particularly encourage the school and those advocating on its behalf to maintain discussions with the National Lottery Heritage Fund, which has previously provided it with almost £5 million of support. Its heritage places initiative is supporting Glasgow more widely, and its national heritage memorial fund is important too. These funds cannot meet the full cost of restoration, but they may be able to support key phases and how it benefits wider communities. We must also ensure that the benefits of culture and creativity are not confined to those who already have the greatest opportunities. I am reminded of the enormous contribution of Jennie Lee, who grew up in Cowdenbeath, in my constituency, and who was the first ever Minister for the Arts. She argued for the centrality of arts and culture in daily life, alongside the functional necessities—or, as some in the Labour tradition of those on my side of the House have put it, “bread and roses”. This debate is an important opportunity to recognise the Glasgow School of Art’s contribution to our national life, and to consider how best to secure a brighter future for the Mack. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar for bringing these issues before the House and to all who have contributed, including my hon. Friends the Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) and for North Northumberland. I will ensure that the points raised in this debate, including the case for new support and the other proposals to which my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar has referred, are conveyed to relevant ministerial colleagues. I cannot make a commitment to new funding today, but I can reaffirm our willingness to listen, to engage with all partners, as he suggested, and to explore practical and realistic ways forward, including new suggestions that may come along. I hope, too, that the Scottish Government will act, and that they will hear our willingness to act with them. The Mack inspired generations of artists and designers, helped to define Glasgow’s artistic identity, and earned a place on the world stage. We owe it to those who built that legacy, to the communities who cherish it and to the generations yet to come to give serious consideration as to how it can continue. Question put and agreed to.
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector and Social Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I will speak to both sets of regulations, and note that the draft hazards in social housing regulations are commonly referred to as phase 2 of Awaab’s law. Alongside our commitment to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, the Government are driving a lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing. Both regulations are integral to that effort, and once brought into force they will play an important role in keeping social tenants safe by ensuring that social landlords are clear as to their responsibilities and respond to complaints in a timely manner. I will take each of the regulations in turn, starting with the second phase of Awaab’s law. As hon. Members know, Awaab’s law is named in memory of Awaab Ishak. Awaab was just two years old when he died in December 2020 as a result of a severe respiratory condition caused by prolonged exposure to mould in the social home that his family rented from Rochdale Boroughwide Housing. His parents repeatedly expressed concerns about the conditions that the family were living in, but their landlord failed to act. Confronted with the grief of a loss so overwhelming, Awaab’s parents determined that they would secure justice for not only their son but all renters. We remain deeply grateful to them for the dignity and tenacity that they have shown in fighting for change and bringing us to this point. Awaab’s law is vital legislation that empowers social tenants to hold their social landlords to account, using the full force of the law if landlords fail to investigate and fix hazards in tenants’ homes within set timeframes. When it comes to those hazards, I want to be clear that social landlords had legal obligations to keep homes fit for human habitation, free from HHSRS—housing health and safety rating system—category 1 hazards, and to remedy disrepair before the first phase of Awaab’s law commenced in October last year. Awaab’s law does not introduce new obligations in respect of new hazards; it is designed to compel and expedite the meeting of existing obligations by introducing clear time-bound requirements and a robust route to enforcement. As I mentioned, phase 1 of Awaab’s law, covering significant damp, mould and emergency hazards, came into force in October last year, and it is helping to drive up standards in the social housing sector. The draft hazards in social housing regulations extend the requirements of Awaab’s law to the following significant hazards: excess cold and excess heat, falls, structural collapse and falling elements, fire and explosions, electrical safety and hygiene. In addition to expanding the range of hazards that are within scope of Awaab’s law, we are drawing on feedback and lessons learned from the roll-out of phase 1 to make two groups of changes, with a view to ensuring that policy works as effectively as possible. First, we have clarified thresholds for the types of hazards covered by Awaab’s law and updated the definitions of “emergency” and “significant” in respect of the hazards that fall within the scope of it. That will help landlords to make more effective assessments, will provide tenants with greater clarity as to when landlords must act and will support a more consistent application of the requirements across the sector. Secondly, we have made changes to avoid duplication with existing fire safety rules. Where fire risks relate to parts of buildings that are already covered by existing fire safety legislation, such as communal areas, we have clarified that those are to be managed under those rules, rather than also being subject to the requirements of Awaab’s law. The changes are reflected in updated guidance that we have published covering all phase 1 and 2 hazards, with a view to helping tenants and landlords determine precisely what is and is not within scope of the requirements. Once the draft hazards regulations are in force, Awaab’s law will operate as follows: potential significant hazards must be investigated within 10 working days; following the conclusion of an investigation, landlords must send written summaries to tenants within three working days, and they must take action within five working days; and potential emergency hazards must be investigated and made safe within 24 hours. If the landlord cannot make the home in question safe within the relevant timescales, they are required to secure suitable alternative accommodation. Additional works to prevent the hazard from recurring must begin as quickly as possible, but no later than 12 weeks from the time of the investigation, and they must be completed within a reasonable time period. Once the draft hazards regulations are in force, all social landlords will have to comply with the requirements of Awaab’s law in respect of the wider range of hazards covered. If they do not, tenants can take legal action through the courts for a breach of contract or seek redress through the Housing Ombudsman. I should point out that Awaab’s law provides for a statutory defence in instances where a landlord can prove they have used all reasonable endeavours to comply with the requirements but have been unable to do so. In other words, if failure is due to circumstances completely beyond the control of the landlord, they will not be liable for a breach of the regulations. As per the commitments we have made, next year we will expand the requirements of Awaab’s law to apply to the remaining hazards, as defined by the HHSRS, excluding overcrowding. In doing so, we will continue with the “test and learn” approach we took to phase 1, so that any beneficial lessons arising from the implementation of phase 2 can be addressed. To return to a point I made earlier, the phased approach we are taking does not mean that social landlords have leeway when it comes to meeting their existing duties to provide safe and decent homes for their tenants. It is important that tenants are aware of the protections they are entitled to and that landlords are clear on their responsibilities. The Make Things Right social housing information campaign will launch in January to raise awareness of the new protections among social housing tenants and residents. Ahead of the regulations coming into force in November, I will write to all social landlords in England, setting out clearly what the regulations require and the standards landlords must meet. I will now turn to the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector and Social Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. As hon. Members may recall, last year we brought social housing into scope of the electrical safety requirements that private landlords have had to meet since 2020. As a result, all landlords must now check the electrical installations in their properties at least every five years. The regulations are required to ensure that those existing requirements align with the latest version of the relevant British standard, namely BS 7671. As a result of the changes required, the existing references to “further investigative work” are no longer relevant and have been removed. We are also clarifying that a pre-tenancy inspection and test is not required if the previous inspection and test took place within the last 5 years and the report is still current. These changes will make sure there is clarity and consistency on the standards that are expected of landlords in both rented sectors. With that, I commend both sets of draft regulations to the Committee.
I thank hon. Members for those contributions. I am pleased that there is general support for both sets of draft regulations and their intentions in respect of improving the safety and quality of social housing. A series of questions have been put to me, and I will endeavour to respond to each in turn. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, put to me two questions on who enforces the electrical safety requirements and what the implications are of that enforcement duty in respect of local government reorganisation. Local councils enforce the regulations, as the shadow Minister made clear. If a local council has reasonable grounds to believe that a landlord is in breach of one or more of the duties in the regulations, they must serve a remedial notice on the landlord requiring remedial action. Should a landlord not comply with the notice or should urgent remedial action be required, the local council may arrange itself for remedial action to be taken. I note the point the shadow Minister made about the burden that that places on local councils. I do not immediately make the link between local government reorganisation generally and that point. He is more than welcome to write to me with further details, or if he has evidence of particular local authorities that think they will have problems enforcing these quite simple and straightforward regulations, because I would be interested to know about that. The shadow Minster then asked what if the hazards in question are caused by the tenant—they are the tenant’s fault? First, it is important to say that the Government are completely clear that it is unacceptable for social landlords to assume that a hazard such as damp, mould or pests are based on a tenant’s lifestyle. In fact, Awaab’s family had that allegation put to them. The Housing Ombudsman has been incredibly clear on that point. It is rightly the responsibility of landlords to identify and address underlying causes, where they exist, such as structural issues, repairs or inadequate ventilation. The same goes for other hazards such as pests. However, landlords should, of course, continue working with tenants to make small, reasonable adjustments to their behaviour if that is required and appropriate to reduce those risks. The shadow Minister then put to me a series of points about the cost to the sector. We have taken a approach to regulation generally that ensures that it is proportionate and that timescales, in particular, are sufficient for social landlords to enact those regulations in a proportionate way. We have done that with minimum energy efficiency standards and the modernised decent homes standard, and we are doing it with Awaab’s law by rolling out the requirements in phases to give landlords time to adjust and to embed the necessary processes and so that, through that approach, as I referenced in my opening remarks, we can test and learn what works and what needs clarifying. In terms of the cost, we have published a final stage impact assessment for phase 1 of Awaab’s law. Having updated the policy in the light of consultation feedback from both the sector and tenants, we have assessed that costs have been kept to a reasonable level while delivering the necessary impact for tenants. Social landlords that will incur the greatest costs are those not currently meeting their obligations regarding hazards and decency. I come back to the point I made in my opening remarks: these are existing obligations that we are trying to ensure are better enforced. Alongside laying phase 2 regulations, we are publishing an impact assessment. Our estimate is that the total cost to the sector of the proposals will be £146.3 million over the 10-year appraisal period for phase 1 and £190.2 million over a 10-year appraisal period for phase 2. However, as I said, the duty to make repairs is not a new burden on landlords, and the costs associated with the investigation and repair timescales are likely to be the result of additional staffing, familiarisation costs and the preparation and postage of written summaries. To the point from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire, I have Shelter’s letter here. I was not going to detain the Committee by responding to the two main points that it has made, but he has challenged me to do so, so I think it is important to just put them on the record. In respect of the definition of “significant hazard”, we heard very clearly from tenants and landlords in our phase 1 “test and learn” that it was difficult to distinguish between an emergency hazard and a significant hazard. We have therefore changed the definitions of both emergency and significant hazards to remove the ambiguity around the previous language, which asked landlords to assess whether they would “take steps to” address the hazard and “as a matter of urgency”. We have instead made it clear that landlords must make an assessment of whether a reasonable landlord would make the hazard safe within 24 hours for an emergency hazard, or within 15 working days for a significant hazard, to determine whether the hazard falls within the scope of Awaab’s law. For a significant hazard, the 15 working day period has been used to align with the existing timescale of 10 working days to investigate and then five working days to make safe upon the conclusion of the investigation. There is an objective test of what a notional reasonable landlord would do, and landlords should not factor in their own considerations, such as budget or staff availability. To determine what a reasonable landlord would do, we would expect landlords to take into account the risk to the tenant, information about their health circumstances and how feasibly the hazard can be made safe within three weeks. Landlords should also consider whether a reasonable landlord would use temporary measures to make hazards safe, where that is a necessary as a first step. Shelter also raised concerns about fire hazards in communal areas not being covered. I can see the Committee urging me to bring my remarks to a conclusion, but my hon. Friend can be assured that we will respond to Shelter in full on both points. I am more than happy to share that response with colleagues if they are interested. Lastly, on the point from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, about why we have excluded overcrowding, Awaab’s law is intended to address hazards that result from defects, disrepair or a lack of maintenance for which landlords are responsible. We came to the conclusion that overcrowding is a complex issue that is not usually the result of disrepair or something that can be fixed via repairs or maintenance. We therefore took the decision to remove overcrowding from the scope of Awaab’s law, to ensure that these regulations are focused on repairs issues. Social landlords will obviously still be expected to take overcrowding issues seriously, and the sector must continue to address those through transfer and allocation policies. Tenants concerned about overcrowding will be able to seek redress through the Housing Ombudsman Service, and tenants in housing association properties can obviously report overcrowding issues to their local councils. Beyond that, as the hon. Member knows—I know he shares my ambition in this area—we need to boost the supply of new social and affordable homes to ensure that more families who are overcrowded or severely overcrowded can be moved into appropriate accommodation. To conclude, it is imperative that we continue to work to improve the safety and quality of social housing. These regulations will enable us to do so. They will play a vital role in ensuring that social landlords are clear as to their responsibilities and respond to complaints in a timely manner. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
I support this Bill for victims and veterans. I support this Bill for truth, justice and the rule of law. I support this Bill for Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom and peace. I welcome the amendments from the Government. I know they have come about following deep and constructive engagement with many people in the House and outside it, and I think they strengthen what we have before us. The Good Friday agreement is rightly one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government. It changed the course of history. While praise is understandably lavished on the politicians who negotiated its terms, they would be the first to tell us that its success is not theirs to own, but that it is owned by the people of Northern Ireland, who, day in and day out, make that progress possible. They do so without fanfare and they embrace it. It is not that they have forgotten the pain and suffering—how could they?—but they chose a different future, and in so doing they wrote a different story for Northern Ireland. What a story the people are writing! The economy is exciting, and the creative industries, the defence sector and technology are booming. They have the lowest unemployment in the whole of the UK and the highest growth. Excellent schools are helping to equip the next generation—a generation not growing up knowing the sound of a bomb, and not growing up to fear a Protestant or a Catholic. Brilliant charities and community groups are helping a generation to see that they have more in common with one another. I believe that, if we are to protect that progress, we need a legacy process that commands confidence, and I think that is helped by these amendments. None of that, of course, is to pretend that there are not problems in modern day Northern Ireland. Recent weeks have shown us that the peace we have is not a replacement for the pain, and it has not changed what happened in the past—that can never be changed, and we should never ignore it. Let us be clear: that pain will also be known by those who served in Northern Ireland, whether in the Army or the police, and by their families. The amendments that I support, including stopping repeat investigations, matter a great deal to them, and I will always be in admiration of those who stood in harm’s way to keep people safe. They lost far too much; the way they were tested in their service of our country, I would wish on no person. Whenever the issue has been debated before in this House, there has been a contingent of veterans in the Public Gallery. Each time, I have learnt so much by going to speak to them. I have learnt about the horrors they encountered. I have learnt how rightly proud they are of their service, and how frustrated they are about the injustices that they, their friends and their comrades faced. Our conversations often turned to whether they would want immunity for that period; they do not. They told me that they fought to defend the rule of law, not to be above it. They simply want equality before it. Surely, we in this House agree that it is all those people—those who have helped to make Northern Ireland what it is today and to make peace possible—who we should put first. If the Bill helps a father in his late 80s end the torture of not knowing what happened to his daughter in her final moments, can we say that he is not worth our support? Should we tell him how glad we are that he never allowed his grief and devastation to stop his commitment to a peaceful Northern Ireland, but we cannot pass those provisions for him? If the Bill helps a widow of a veteran murdered by a terrorist group get the justice that she has been denied for decades, can we say that that is not worth our support? Should we tell her that her pain and anguish—her children having to grow up without knowing their father—is really awful, and we are sorry, but we cannot do this for her? It is clearly not right that those brave veterans who helped contain the worst of the violence should be forced into the dock to relive the worst day of their life, when they have already been cleared by an investigation that looked into all of the evidence. They were asked by our state to act; they do not deserve to be tried again and again until a different result is found. That is precisely why the protection from repeat investigations is so important. It is why I welcome the amendment set out by the Secretary of State that strengthens that very protection. That is how we honour the sacrifice of people who went out to defend the rule of law, without cruelly and needlessly making them relive the very worst moment of their lives. I do not think this Bill will be as totemic as the Good Friday agreement. It will not go down in the history books in quite the same way. But it can deliver with fairness for all those who I mentioned at the start of my speech. This Bill might bring answers—maybe even justice—to people who have lived with very deep pain for many, many years and put their country first. They put peace first. Those are the people who make progress possible, each and every day. I am proud to support them, and I am proud to support the Bill.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate. I also thank Paris Shears, who is in the Public Gallery, for bringing forward the petition, and everyone in my constituency and up and down the country who has supported it. When I was a police officer, I worked in CID and child protection. I know how much we ask of people who report domestic and other types of abuse. Victims and survivors have to talk about deeply personal experiences, provide evidence and answer difficult questions, often all while worrying about what will happen when the person they have reported finds out. That is always a big concern among victims and survivors, and in cases of controlling and coercive behaviour it can be particularly difficult. A person may have spent years being told by their abuser that nobody will believe them, that everything is their fault and that no one takes on board what they say. Their abuser might try to bring their children into it and say that they will lose them if they go through the court system. The control affects almost every part of the victim’s daily life, including who they see, how they spend their money, where they go and whether they feel able to make decisions, even for themselves. We should bear that in mind when considering what happens after victims and survivors come forward to the police. It takes an average of about seven years—or it used to when I was policing—for someone even to report something, and as we all know, reporting does not necessarily mean that a person feels safe. They may still feel frightened of the perpetrator. They may face pressure from the perpetrator or other members of society to withdraw their statement. They may spend months, or sometimes even longer, waiting for a trial and worrying about giving their evidence. By the time the trial date arrives, they have already been through a great deal. That is why I understand fully the concern behind the petition. Currently, a defendant can maintain a not guilty plea throughout that period, then change their plea on the morning of the trial and still receive a reduction in their sentence. For the victim or survivor, that can be very difficult to accept. It can be difficult for police officers to accept as well. Victims and survivors will have prepared themselves to give evidence. They may have arranged time off work or childcare. They might have needed support from family or professional agencies, and they may even be at court when it happens. A late guilty plea can bring relief in some cases, because they do not have to go through court, but it does not undo what they have been through to get to that stage. Under the current guidelines, a guilty plea at the first stage of proceedings generally attracts a one-third reduction. That reduction will fall as the case progresses, ordinarily reaching a maximum of one tenth on the first day of trial, and that is subject to exceptions. I understand fully the reasons for that approach. An early guilty plea can spare victims and witnesses from giving evidence, reduce delays and free up court time. It is important to remember that even a late plea can spare someone a distressing cross-examination. That matters, and we should listen to victims and survivors who want to avoid that experience, but we also need to listen to those who feel that the process has allowed the person who abused them to keep them frightened and uncertain until the last possible moment in the courtroom. We cannot assume that every late plea is an attempt to continue abuse. Defendants have the right to contest allegations, and there may be legitimate reasons why a plea changes at the last minute, but equally we should be prepared to recognise when perpetrators are using proceedings to exert even more pressure. Our understanding of coercive control must extend to what happens after a report is made, including during the court process. There is also an important distinction between pleading guilty and showing remorse. The guidelines recognise that, but I am not sure it is always clear that the person sitting in court and listening to the sentence is aware of the implications. Accepting a guilty plea does not necessarily mean that an offender understands the damage they have done or that their behaviour has changed, which is also important. Victims and survivors deserve a clear explanation of what the court has taken into account. I would like the Minister to address three points. First, will the Government look specifically at how late guilty plea reductions operate in controlling or coercive behaviour cases? That should include proper consideration of Paris’s proposals to remove the reduction when a defendant initially pleads not guilty and later changes their plea. Victims and survivors, domestic abuse organisations, prosecutors and the judiciary should all be involved in that work, and any change needs to be carefully considered. We need to understand whether it would encourage earlier admissions and whether more cases would proceed to trial, and what that would mean for the people giving evidence. Those are questions to investigate rather than reasons to dismiss the petition. Secondly, how will the Government ensure that attempts to continue abuse during criminal proceedings are identified and dealt with swiftly? When someone is being intimidated, contacted in breach of restrictions or pressured to withdraw, they need a prompt response and practical protections. Lastly, will the Minister look at the information and support that victims and survivors receive when a sentence is passed? They should understand why a reduction has been given, how it was calculated and what protections will be in place afterwards. They deserve the opportunity to ask questions and to get answers that they can understand. This Government have committed to tackling violence against women and girls. Getting the response to coercive control right is an important part of that work. We should also recognise that anyone in this room, including males, can be victims. People who experience this abuse must be able to come forward and receive the protections and support that they need. Paris has asked us to consider whether the current rules are fair to people who have already endured prolonged abuse. I therefore hope that the Minister will agree to meet her and take this work forward. All we ask is that victims and survivors put their trust in the justice system. We need to show them that their experience matters when we decide how the system should work.
Does my hon. Friend agree that any future plans for the Mack need to be based on learning lessons from its recent tragic past?
From what my hon. Friend is saying, I think he agrees with me that, although we must look at all the options for delivering the restoration, we must remain focused on achieving the endpoint, which is the restoration.
It is a pleasure to be here and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for the way in which she introduced the e-petition and, of course, to Paris and her MP, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), who is here to represent her, for the work that they have done to draw this issue to the attention of the House. I am also grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the petition calling for the removal of sentence reductions for guilty pleas in controlling and coercive behaviour cases. This petition, on what is known by many supporters as Paris’s law, reflects a growing concern that our justice system must do more to recognise the unique nature of coercive control and its ongoing impact on victims; it is not something that comes and goes. Before I address the petition, I want to pay particular tribute to Hayley Staunton. Hayley was my constituent until her untimely death, by suicide, in August 2025. She was a domestic abuse victim, a survivor. Her death is a tragedy that has profoundly affected her family, as one might imagine, and her friends and the wider community. Although nothing can undo that loss, it is important to recognise the courage and determination that Hayley demonstrated in holding her perpetrator to account. She did make complaints, and he was charged and eventually imprisoned. I also pay tribute to Hayley’s mother Ruth Yates, who has campaigned tirelessly since Hayley’s untimely death for answers, accountability and change. She has worked relentlessly so that Hayley’s story could be heard, and to ensure that changes are made so that nobody else has to go through what Hayley did. She has shown immense dignity and resilience in the face of her unimaginable loss and heartbreak. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who recently met Ruth and me to discuss the circumstances of Hayley’s case and committed to a number of actions to ensure that lessons are learned from it. At its heart, today’s debate is about people like Hayley and families like hers. When Parliament created the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour, which was a breakthrough in itself—it had not been recognised in law before—it recognised an important truth: domestic abuse is not always physical. It can be psychological, emotional and deeply insidious. It is often characterised by a pattern of domination, intimidation and manipulation, creating a fear that gradually strips victims and those who experience it of their independence, confidence, sense of self and sense that they can have an impact on what is happening in their own lives. The petition argues that defendants charged with controlling or coercive behaviour should not receive a sentencing reduction when they initially plead not guilty and only admit their guilt later in the process. That speaks to the concern set out by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), which my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) also spoke about from his experiences as a police officer: victims can spend months or years preparing themselves for trial, gathering evidence, reliving traumatic experiences, anticipating having to give evidence in court and to face the perpetrator again, and feeling like they are still being controlled by that person in a continuation of the offence that they have been charged with. Sometimes, that causes even more pain and trauma, only for the defendant to change their plea at the end and be given some kind of credit for it. The reduced sentence, even if it is only reduced by 10%, gives the perpetrator credit for effectively stringing along the person they have victimised. For many victims, that can feel like an extension of the very behaviour that they have sometimes endured for years and for which the justice system is seeking to hold that person to account. The uncertainty, delay and emotional toll can all compound the harm caused by the abuse. In Hayley’s case, she was subject to a violent attack by her then partner, during which he strangled her, rendering her unconscious and causing other serious injuries. Her perpetrator was charged with non-fatal strangulation, assault and actual bodily harm. He originally pleaded not guilty, only to later change his plea. His sentence was 36 months for the non-fatal strangulation, four months for a separate assault offence and a further 18 months for actual bodily harm. However, the 18-month sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the strangulation sentence, while the four-month sentence was added consecutively. I do not think that many of our constituents understand the way the justice system decides how to run sentences concurrently or consecutively. As a lawyer, I often find it quite difficult to explain this to my constituents: what seems natural to somebody who has been in the law for many years appears completely at odds with common sense to those having to deal with the justice system perhaps for the first time in the most difficult circumstances. Although concurrent sentencing is of course part of the existing sentencing framework, when someone has committed multiple acts of serious violence against the same victim it is right that we question whether the sentence that runs concurrently adequately reflects the full extent of that violence and the harm it has caused. There is a fine line between non-fatal strangulation that renders somebody unconscious and death. The trauma faced by people who survive such an experience is long-lasting and often impacts all areas of their lives. Of course, I recognise, as do many colleagues who have spoken in the debate, that the reasoning behind the sentence reduction for early guilty pleas—a principle that is a long-established part of our justice system—is that it saves courts time, reduces costs and can spare victims some of the trauma of having to give evidence, which can be an ordeal. Those are important objectives, particularly given the significant pressures on the courts and the court backlogs that have been going on for a number of years, leaving victims waiting longer and longer to actually face the ordeal of giving their evidence. In those circumstances, one can see the public policy importance of giving some kind of credit to encourage and incentivise guilty pleas where somebody is guilty. However, the cases that we are discussing today represent unique challenges. This offence is built around patterns of manipulation and control. It is therefore reasonable to ask whether the current sentencing framework sufficiently reflects the additional harm that can be caused when a victim is led to believe they will have to endure a full trial, only for a guilty plea to be entered at the door of the court. Is that not just another instance of that person controlling the life of the witness or victim? Many survivors have told us that justice is not solely about the final sentence; it is also about the process and feeling heard, believed and respected. It is about ensuring that the criminal justice system does not inadvertently recreate dynamics that perpetrators have already used to exert control over their victims. The control the victim feels does not necessarily end when the perpetrator is arrested, imprisoned or no longer in direct contact with them; it certainly did not for Hayley. The fear and trauma can continue to dictate how they lead their lives, the decisions they make and whether they ever feel safe again. Although the debate specifically concerns guilty plea reductions in controlling and coercive behaviour cases, whereas Hayley’s attacker was convicted of non-fatal strangulation and assault, through that judicial process she continued to experience fear and a sense of being controlled by her perpetrator, even while he was on remand in prison before he was found guilty. I want the Minister to consider three specific issues in his reply. Will the Government commit to undertake a review of whether the current framework properly reflects the distinctive nature of coercive control and the prolonged psychological harm that can result from delayed admissions of guilt? Will the Government review the sentencing guideline for non-fatal strangulation, given the specific nature of that offence and the long-lasting repercussions of it for victims? Will the Government give consideration in the victims code and their violence against women strategy to the fact that many victims of coercive and controlling behaviour continue to feel controlled even when their perpetrator is in prison, and make adequate provision to ensure emotional support and safeguarding is available for those people? The strength of feeling behind the petition demonstrates that many people believe the balance is currently wrong. As we consider the issue today, we should remember that behind every statistic is a person, a family and a story. We should listen carefully to survivors who are telling us that the experience of seeking justice matters just as much as the outcome. I hope today’s debate will move us closer to a system that better understands coercive control. It is good that that offence is on the statute book—it has not always been—but we need to better support victims and ensure that justice is both done and seen to be done.
The north-east plays a vital role in supporting the UK’s defence sector. I am delighted that our increased defence spending means that in the north-east spending rose from £187 million in 2024-25 to £198 million in 2025-26, supporting around 2,000 jobs, and 49% of our spending goes to the region’s small and medium-sized enterprises.
I may be a south-west MP, but I am a north-east MP when it comes to increasing defence spending, just as my hon. Friend is. I want to see more spending in the north-east. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how Steel Benders UK can access more of that increased defence spending. I would like to promote the work of the Defence Office of Small Business Growth in providing a single door for small businesses to access more defence contracts, helping to create more jobs, growth and opportunities in every part of the UK, including the north-east.
Thanks to our growing defence budget, last year we spent £1.8 billion in the west midlands, benefiting not just west midlands businesses but those in my hon. Friend’s constituency. That is an increase of 3% on last year. I am keen to visit Dudley to see some of the businesses that I know she has been championing so consistently in Defence questions, but also in between in our many frequent conversations. I know that we are looking to spend more with UK businesses, and that includes ones in her constituency.
I thank my hon. Friend for that work. She will know that we have stood up the Defence Office for Small Business Growth, which is a dedicated front door for small businesses to access and navigate the defence procurement process and speed up security clearances and cyber essentials. She will also know that many companies that could benefit from it may not classify themselves as defence businesses; they may be a provider of a service or component that could make a big difference to defence as well. I look forward to making the case to her businesses that there is an easier way now to contract with defence which I hope will create more opportunities for those in the west midlands.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. I am sure there will be no shortage of parliamentary questions from him—indeed, this relates to a question he asked about Boxer to which I have already replied. We look at the criteria for what we need to buy for our armed forces, and that includes looking at the Boxer programme. The Boxer programme is incredibly successful for KNDS and RBSL. We are looking at the variants required to ensure it is appropriate for the modern fight and armed forces, and we are prioritising spend against those capabilities as recommended by the Army. I am more than happy to have a further conversation with the hon. Gentleman and Members with Boxer-producing constituencies. Boxer is a real success story, and I want to continue delivering more Boxer capabilities.
This Government have ended the underfunding and hollowing out of our armed forces that we inherited from the last Government. We are getting ready for warfighting readiness by 2030. That is why we are directing more of a growing defence budget at British companies, retiring old equipment, and giving our brilliant men and women in the armed forces the latest kit. Defence spending is up, morale is up and recruitment is up.
We inherited defence spending of roughly 2.3% of GDP. That figure will be 2.7%-ish next year, and—as the hon. Gentleman will know, having read page 11 of the defence investment plan—at the spending review next year, the Chancellor will set out the spending profile that takes us to 3% and 3.5%. We are not only spending more on defence, but ensuring that we have the right equipment and capabilities. That is one of the reasons why we are retiring so much old equipment that no longer delivers for our armed forces and investing in new equipment, be that the hybrid Navy, autonomous drones or the latest capabilities for our people.
Project Safari is a superb example of how, when we have asked industry to step up, it has responded. Steve Wadey, the chief executive of QinetiQ, is pioneering a new set of requirements for test and evaluation, with more access to our ranges for small businesses, a greater focus on more collaboration, and more utility for us to test new capabilities. Project Safari was delivered from start to finish in three months—it is a model for how I expect other companies to react to our move to warfighting readiness.
I was hugely impressed by what I saw when I visited Dorset Innovation Park. Awarding Yeovil college status as one of the five defence technical excellence colleges was good news not only for Yeovil and Leonardo and its helicopter business, but for the wider region. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how we can operate more of the hub-and-spoke models that the DTECs deliver up and down the country.
I thank my hon. Friend for the work he does in raising defence business opportunities in his patch. This is an ongoing procurement, and no final decisions have been made. Both the UK-based bidders are subject to full evaluation of their proposals and must offer satellites that are assembled, integrated and tested in the UK. We hope to make an announcement shortly.
I think I was the only Plymouth MP not at REPMUS, given that the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) attended. I support the work that the hon. Member for South West Devon is doing. We have a huge opportunity in marine autonomy to create more jobs and increase the lethality and deterrence of our Royal Navy. I am very happy to pick up the points that she raised.
I thank the hon. Member for his continuing support for defence. There are a variety of methods for increasing support for defence. I am grateful for the work he is doing, and I am always happy to have a conversation with him. In the meantime, the Government will continue to increase defence spending for our armed forces.
I thank my hon. Friend for her interest in championing space. As a space nerd myself, the subject is close to my heart. In fact, I have had two brilliant small ministerial group meetings on space in the last week alone. I direct the House’s attention to the new UK space strategy, which was published only a few weeks ago. It sets out how we will grow the space sector, creating more jobs and providing more testing, more launch capability and more resilience for our space assets.
Last year, the UK agreed a security and defence partnership with the EU as part of the Government’s commitment to strengthening European security, supporting economic growth and reinforcing NATO. Will the Minister set out what dialogue has happened since then to implement the partnership?
At a time when Europe faces the most dangerous security environment since the cold war, defence co-operation is key. The UK-EU security and defence partnership agreed in May last year is delivering on that. Together, we are co-ordinating support for Ukraine, tackling hybrid threats, strengthening sanctions on Russia and enabling systematic UK-EU co-operation on global crises.
As the hon. Lady will be aware, we co-operate across a number of measures via the EU, through NATO, and through bilateral agreements such as Lunna House with Norway and Trinity House with Germany. As well as that, we have the security and defence partnership, and we will continue to work through that on the opportunities that she described.
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend how vital it is that we stand with Ukraine; Ukrainian security is our security. As part of that, he will be aware of the many wide programmes that we have with Ukraine—whether Operation Interflex or our equipment and industry partnerships—which we will continue. We look every day to see whether we can do anything more to support our allies and ensure that Ukraine can stand up against Russian aggression.
I will not intrude in relations among those on the Opposition Benches, but I understand that the Liberal Democrats have heard the hon. Member’s point. As he knows, we are big believers in NATO first, not NATO only; I take his point.
It is important to note that the defence industry in the UK can still participate under standard third-country terms. Since then, we have continued to work with our EU partner nations on a variety of different mechanisms, whether through NATO or through our bilateral arrangements.
Low flying plays an indispensable role in achieving and maintaining our warfighting capability. I understand it can be disruptive, but it is spread throughout the whole of the UK to minimise that disturbance. The amount of low-flying training conducted is limited to the operational requirement, and night flying is only conducted when necessary.
Absolutely, we will certainly meet the hon. Member at the earliest opportunity. Otherwise, I invite her to write to me in the meantime with the specifics of the case. There is a mechanism, so I will be happy to help her with it.
The UK is stepping up its defence of the High North. This year, our carrier strike group operated in the region, alongside 19 NATO allies, and 1,500 of our Royal Marines have trained in Arctic conditions. We are also doubling our military presence in Norway, investing in key anti-submarine warfare and undersea surveillance capabilities, and our carrier strike group will be returning shortly to NATO’s northern flank.