Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)
I point out, with respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Secretary of State told the House much about his amendments in his speech.
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)
I remain to be convinced that the Bill, even after 156 amendments, can deliver on its essential function, and I am concerned that we cannot properly scrutinise the proposed wording to see if it will. For those reasons, the Liberal Democrats will continue to oppose the motion.
- Hansard source
Household Energy Bills Support
Cornwall Insight forecasts that the energy price cap will increase by a further 16% in January. The Secretary of State has spoken about taking VAT off electricity bills, but that amounts to £45 for an average household. In reality, that is like trying to fill a swimming pool with a thimble—it is not going to work. How will she help to protect families who are already struggling, and will she consider an essential energy guarantee so that all the energy that we need can be affordable for every household?
- Hansard source
Wildfires: UK-Welsh Government Co-operation
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee will soon be publishing a report. When it comes to who will be in the room come that wildfire summit, will the hon. Member give me an undertaking that it will not only be the organisations, but the private individuals, the gamekeepers, land managers, farmers and shepherds, who are very often the first line of response? Can she ensure that their voices will be heard at the same time as all the organisations?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
I welcome the announcement today about the Government’s intention to regulate the market in heating oil. For communities like mine that are completely off the gas grid, with the highest levels of fuel poverty in the country, this could be a significant moment. What my constituents would like to know, however, is when they might see this proposal become an implemented reality.
- Hansard source
Police Funding: North-east England
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I commend the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for securing this debate. I begin by putting on the record my party’s thanks and admiration for our police services up and down the country, and for the vital role that officers play in keeping our communities safe. The tragic A66 collision that claimed the lives of two police officers, Matthew Blades and Tom Clough, horrified us all. The disorder that followed in the days after that tragedy disturbed people far beyond the north-east, and we must hope it has brought renewed focus on the area’s safety. I commend all the MPs from the region who have spoken so powerfully with one voice in this debate today. This summer’s disorder underlines the importance of having a police service that is properly resourced, that is visible and that is trusted by the communities it serves. We have long called for a return to genuine community policing, focused on preventing crime through policing that builds relationships with local communities. Just a few days ago, I was in the north-east, in Peterlee, to appear on a televised political panel debate. It was clear that crime is a real concern for residents in that area. Indeed, it was raised by the audience member who asked the first question. The audience spoke about the impact on their communities and the underlying causes, including the fact that many communities have been hollowed out economically over the last few decades. What came across was a deep frustration and, very sadly, a sense of helplessness from those in the room. Police presence must be part of the focus to address the concerns of residents across the north-east. Under the Conservatives, Cleveland police lost hundreds of officers—I think around 400—and after the disorder this summer, 200 officers had to be drafted in to deal with what unfolded. This is not an acceptable state of affairs. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s pledge to recruit 13,000 additional police officers, but police numbers have sadly not matched the Government’s ambition. If the Government are serious about restoring neighbourhood policing, they must get more officers back on to our streets, and they will need to recruit many more. We cannot expect overstretched officers to do more with less, as other Members have said, and too many crimes go unsolved. We hear about these issues regularly in relation to the north-east and elsewhere; they are common to so many places across the country. The Government will tell us that they have increased national police funding, but with reference to the north-east, Cleveland’s funding increase is the lowest in the country, worth £1.65 million a year less than if it had received the 4.5% average increase. On top of that, Cleveland police is being asked to find £3.88 million of savings to balance its budget. Regardless of the regional issue, it is clear that policing must refocus on finding more resources and making the best of the resources it has. There is also the issue that a huge amount of police time is taken up by online crime, principally fraud but also including child sexual exploitation and violence against women and girls. Unfortunately, the companies that facilitate this behaviour have not acted strongly enough to prevent it from happening. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a new police agency to tackle serious online crime, funded by a levy on big tech and AI companies. Will the Minister commit to taking steps to ensure that the companies that facilitate online crime are called to account and asked to pay for some of the problems that they create, on a “polluter pays” basis? That would help to redirect police resourcing to the frontline, to build and maintain the physical policing presence that our communities rightly expect. It would help to restore a police counter in every community, giving people accessible, convenient places to share information and engage with the police within their communities. The Government talk about their neighbourhood policing guarantee, but we now need to see change in our communities. We believe that our proposals can help. One other concern lies in police force reorganisation. If merging forces means that officers become more distant from the communities they serve or are less able to respond to local crime—or, indeed, if three underfunded forces become one massive underfunded force—the reforms will have failed. Will the Minister ensure that police reform does not lead to resources being directed away from smaller communities, which are often in rural areas, to larger urban centres? That is particularly important for the rural communities we have heard about today, where crime has become increasingly organised, serious and persistent. We are calling for a countryside copper guarantee, with properly resourced, dedicated rural crime teams or specialists in every police force. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that forces serving rural areas have the resources they need? Finally, transferring police and crime commissioners’ powers to mayors without sufficient democratic scrutiny risks replacing one flawed model with another. Local crime and police boards made up of local residents and representatives of the community can provide meaningful local accountability and oversight of policing. Is that being considered by Ministers in their police reforms? That is vital, because only by empowering communities to work with local police will we reduce crime across the country, including in the north-east.
- Hansard source
Gas and Electricity Prices
1. What recent progress she has made in decoupling the price of gas and electricity.
- Hansard source
Gas and Electricity Prices
I raised the decoupling of gas and electricity prices with the former Energy Secretary in March, so I welcome the Government’s continued commitment. However, eight months into the illegal war in Iran, rising gas prices have pushed the price cap up by 4% this month, wiping out VAT savings on energy bills, while Trump’s lifting of sanctions on Russian diesel leaves fuel prices once again at the mercy of Putin. In my constituency of Eastleigh, more than a quarter of households are in fuel poverty, and I have spoken with many businesses that are struggling with spiralling bills. Will the Secretary of State therefore go further and faster on decoupling gas and electricity prices, including by investing more in home-grown renewable energy?
- Hansard source
UK Coach Industry
I am going to talk about coaches. The hon. Lady mentions local businesses, which include Eastbourne Coaches and Lynns Travel Eastbourne. Does she agree that there is a role for those businesses, and also for big business such as National Express to bring their coaches to Eastbourne, especially in the light of the terrible railways we are experiencing in our patch?
- Hansard source
Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support
On 27 September, it was five years since my constituent Jess’s son Mason died by suicide. His death was one of several examined in a local safeguarding review, but it took three years of Jess chasing and pressure from my office just to see its recommendations. She has still not seen the full report. Does the hon. Member agree that we should install a national oversight mechanism so that families can see whether lessons are acted on without feeling that they have to fight the system that is supposed to support them?
- Hansard source
Prisoner Early Release Scheme
The prison capacity crisis that the Conservatives left behind is unforgiveable, but the situation we find ourselves in two years later is a national emergency waiting to happen. The entire criminal justice system is in freefall. Victims have been left looking over their shoulders for their released perpetrators; more than a third of the places that were freed up by the last wave of releases were filled again within a week; and the very probation officers who are overseeing these releases will decide in the coming weeks whether to take strike action. The Government have never had a grip on this issue. Everyone who comes into contact with the criminal justice system is being failed, and tinkering around the edges will not fix the problem. Will the Minister commit to tagging prisoners immediately upon release—at the gates—as called for by the Victims’ Commissioner, ensuring that perpetrators are not allowed to evade being tagged or left unmonitored for days? Will he also commit to a royal commission on the entirety of the criminal justice system, so that we can finally get to grips with the deep-rooted issues caused by successive Governments’ complacency and mismanagement?
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
The entire criminal justice system is on the brink of collapse. We can all agree today that the current backlog in our Crown courts is unacceptable, untenable and unsustainable. The situation we face—a backlog sitting at over 80,000 cases and victims of rape waiting on average 424 days for their case to complete—is the direct result of the historic and monumental failings of successive Governments. Whether it is a lack of prison places, soaring reoffending rates or the horrendous backlog in the Crown courts with a growing backlog in the magistrates, it is a national emergency waiting to happen. But the Government’s plans to address this situation have been equally dangerous. Under Keir Starmer, this Government led us down a path—
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Under Keir Starmer, this Government led us down a path towards curtailing jury trials, presenting it as the only way to deal with the backlog. That was despite widespread opposition from the legal profession and Parliament, including from their own Benches, and despite the absence of any coherent modelling or trialling to demonstrate the impact of the proposed Crown court bench division. Political capital was wasted pursuing a solution that was never feasible. What we are presented with today is still fundamentally a flawed plan. We remain deeply concerned about the pressure that these changes will place on magistrates courts. The plans for those charged with either-way offences to lose their right to elect trial by jury, alongside the increases in sentencing powers and the removal of the right to appeal, will place immense and dangerous pressure on magistrates courts, while simultaneously removing vital safeguards. The Government now predict that an additional 25,000 cases will be added to magistrates court caseloads each year, and the current rate of increase in the backlog of open cases is expected to be 9%—it is exceeding that of the Crown court backlog. Increased complexity also raises questions regarding the suitability of summary justice to deal with these cases—a point that has been raised by the Bar Council and others. I also have profound concerns about the experiences of victims in summary justice; it is not just the Crown court where victims are so often failed. The Minister spoke very powerfully about Morwenna. I remember Morwenna’s powerful testimony. I am thinking today about Georgia, whose case in the magistrates court was postponed four times in a row. She spent months and months of building herself up for that moment before being totally failed because she did not get her day in court. The Government have done little to address those concerns, which is why amendment 11, tabled in my name, remains on the amendment paper. It would prevent magistrates’ sentencing powers from being increased beyond 12 months. The Liberal Democrats also fundamentally oppose the removal of the automatic right to appeal decisions made by magistrates. This is a vital safeguard for summary justice, where lay magistrates are expected to make decisions with significant and real consequences. On the whole, we all agree that they make these decisions very well, with fewer than 1% of cases being appealed. But of those cases, the latest figures show that 56% were successful. We are now expecting magistrates courts to hear more complex cases carrying higher sentences at the same time as the Government are bluntly removing this protection against those miscarriages of justice. The Government want to speed up the process within a system, but changing the appeals process at this point is unnecessary and frankly dangerous. The reasoning, as per their own response, is: “If we do not reform the appeals process, we expect absolute volumes of appeals to the Crown Court to increase given the impact of other reforms will be to retain more cases in magistrates’ courts.” Let us reflect on that for a moment. Over half of current appeals are currently successful, and because the Government believe this number may increase, they are satisfied to remove that safeguard. How can the Minister defend a position that removes that vital safeguard in summary justice, while also accepting that it would be more needed than ever? There is also scant provision in this Bill for, or consideration of, the implications for legal representation in magistrates court. Currently, there are differing income thresholds for legal aid between the Crown and magistrates courts. Shifting cases from the Crown courts will mean that many more defendants who may be accused of crimes carrying sentences of up to 24 months will be ineligible for legal aid, leaving them unrepresented. Baron Leveson reflected in his review that the differing thresholds for legal aid could be creating a “perverse incentive” for a defendant to choose the Crown court, but the Government rejected Baron Leveson’s recommendation in their response yesterday. This not only has a profound effect on fairness in our justice system; it also affects the Government’s assumptions about how quickly the backlogs can be cleared. A lack of legal aid impedes efficiency and will slow down cases, leaving victims and defendants waiting once again. That is why we have tabled amendment 18, which links legal aid to the severity of the sentence, rather than the venue of the trial, and we have written to every Member of the House asking them to support it. New clause 20, tabled in my name, requires all new contracts for court-related services to include performance penalties, to put an end to these sham contracts that are currently failing to deliver prisoners on time. The Liberal Democrats also believe that opportunities have been missed to maximise the use of time within the existing court structures. There is scope to increase the number of trials heard in selected courtrooms across England and Wales from one to two a day. That approach was trialled during covid, and it resulted in 3.5 trials per week being cleared, compared with fewer than 0.9 trials in courtrooms operating under standard hours. New clause 4 calls for a review of the feasibility of hearing two trials a day in selected courtrooms, split between morning and afternoon sessions, with each trial sitting for four hours. Solutions such as this—which have not been explored by this Government, as confirmed in Committee—would supercharge the Crown court process, with a specific focus on clearing the backlog.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Absolutely. The right hon. and learned Member makes a really important point about the prisoner escort and custody services contract and ensuring that defendants are delivered to court on time, but not all defendants going into a Crown court are being held on remand. There are also defendants on bail who can get themselves to court, and it would be up to the listing officers to ensure that those cases are heard in the morning, which would take off the pressure that the PECS contracts clearly have in delivering people to start at a 10 am slot; instead, those defendants might be arriving for a 2 pm slot. He raises an important point and gives me a lovely opportunity to explain why I have thought about that and how we would overcome it. New clause 2 supports the implementation of fast-track courts for rape and serious sexual offences. We have heard powerful testimony across the House during the passage of the Bill about the need for rape and serious sexual offence courts, which we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have called for. It was therefore welcome when the Government announced their plans to implement them, but it is puzzling that they have not included those provisions in the Bill, because there is no point in waiting—these courts should be implemented urgently, to bring an end to the disgraceful waits that these victims are facing. The Government also announced when they agreed to roll out these RASSO courts that all judges presiding over them will undergo specialist trauma-informed training. Given the Government’s decision not to include domestic abuse cases in these RASSO courts, that would surely strengthen the case for having universal specialist trauma-informed training for all of the judiciary, which we have called for throughout the passage of the Bill. New clause 11 would give victims the right to receive transcripts of all judicial summings-up and bail decisions relevant to their case. Amendment 15 is particularly relevant given the direction of the Bill, as it would ensure that magistrates court transcripts are free for victims and accessible within 14 days. On the issue of transcripts, the Government have made real progress, which I welcome. Many victims choose not to attend the entirety of their hearing or trial, and even when they do attend, being able to process the events of a court case afterwards provides a valuable opportunity to better understand why those decisions were made. Transcripts being freely accessible aids in moving forward with one’s life, and at every turn, the Liberal Democrats will continue to push the Government to go further. Finally, I turn to new clause 17, tabled in my name. The Courts Act 2003 introduced Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Court Administration, which was established in 2005 but then closed in 2010. A 2022 Justice Committee report found that the argument for closing the inspectorate had not stood the test of time and called for the re-establishment of an inspectorate body. In his review, Baron Leveson also recommended a mechanism to inspect His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, which was rejected by the Government. This is a particularly important time to introduce the additional oversight that a courts inspectorate would provide—a position that was also supported by the Victims’ Commissioner. In conclusion, the Government have approached this issue in the wrong way, pushing unworkable measures, opposed by those working in the legal sector who have to deliver the reforms, and eroding the safeguards that protect those who come into contact with the criminal justice system, be it defendants or victims. The Bill before us today makes dangerous changes that will have little effect on the backlog. That is why the Liberal Democrats will be unable to support the Bill, which is unfortunate especially given the good clauses at the end of the Bill that deal with the serious issues around presumption.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
As the hon. Lady has just turned a page, I am confident that she will go on to the fact that, at the same time, the Government are proposing to remove the automatic right of appeal. If somebody has no legal background and cannot navigate a system that is totally alien to them, they will not know how to follow the process or what legal backing they could have if they had grounds for appeal.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I thank the hon. Member for her bravery in sharing her powerful story and for highlighting how special measures do not work if people do not know that they available to them. During the Bill Committee, I argued that special measures should be there as standard, with people having the ability to choose to remove them to face their perpetrator in court. Does she agree that we could easily roll that out across all our courts so that every victim would be protected from the moment they arrived?
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that many in the legal profession are sounding the alarm about the perceived bias of juries. Will he please state which legal organisations have expressed that view to him?
- Hansard source
Electricity Grid Connections
Bute Energy is planning to build a big wind farm in mid-Wales, and it is going to connect that wind farm over 47 km of pylons into a substation in North Shropshire that does not yet exist. I found out on the National Energy System Operator’s website that that substation is likely to be a 24 bay, 400 kV substation in a place with no substantial roads and a good amount of useful farmland. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the appropriateness of the site? I think it could go elsewhere, which would require a shorter run of pylons for Bute Energy. There are more appropriate places to build it than Lower Frankton.
- Hansard source
UK Coach Industry
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for securing this important and timely debate. Coaches are often primarily viewed as being used only for holidays and leisure, but that is just a small part of the important services that operators provide. In fact, coaches account for 450 million passenger journeys a year in Great Britain and support 81,000 jobs, generating £6.4 billion of economic value for the economy. Coach passengers are estimated to spend £8.3 billion annually in local economies—and perhaps service stations, to which the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard alluded—through tourism, retail and leisure. Coach companies such as Edward Thomas & Son, which operates in my constituency, provide essential services. They transport children safely to and from school every day, support educational trips and are available for private hire and transport for local groups, organisations and communities. Coach journeys present an important and often more affordable alternative for travel across the UK, particularly with the current high rail and fuel prices. Without a healthy network of independent coach operators, services will become more expensive to provide and more difficult to access. The coach industry is struggling and we must do more to support it. High fuel prices are a massive concern. Coaches are high-mileage vehicles, and fuel represents one of their largest operating costs, so any significant increase or volatility in diesel prices immediately impacts operators, particularly where fuel contracts have been agreed well in advance at a fixed price. It is really difficult for coach operators to absorb substantial cost increases of this nature without ultimately affecting the costs or availability of their services. But it is not just about fuel: the general costs of operating a coach company have increased significantly, whether that is the price of coaches, insurance, maintenance, parts, tyres, wages or regulatory compliance. Modern coaches are a huge capital investment and can cost upwards of £250,000—that is massive. To make those investments, coach operators need certainty and support to justify continued investment in their fleets. The Government’s anti-business tax regime, with increased business rates and employer national insurance contributions, has hugely impacted the industry’s bottom line. That is threatening the future commercial viability of the coach industry. The availability of drivers is also a major challenge, as has been alluded to. The current driver vacancy rate is 14%. Recruiting and retaining suitable professional passenger-carrying vehicle drivers continues to be difficult. Coach driving is a skilled and responsible occupation, but the industry has an ageing workforce, with around 25% of drivers aged 60 or above. Attracting enough new drivers remains challenging, not least because of the Government-led barriers to training new and young drivers, with regulatory restrictions on drivers aged 18 to 20 limiting the journeys they can take. That makes coach driving an unattractive early-career option, which compounds recruitment difficulties as the workforce ages out. It restricts the amount of work operators are physically able to undertake, even when high customer demand is there. The coach industry continues to be overlooked in Government planning and infrastructure. That has caused the sector to suffer, like so many other industries, from the pressures that the last decade has placed on businesses. It has been left to deal with blows from uncontrollable shocks such as the pandemic, Brexit red tape and the push for net zero, with limited support. If a coach operator wants to commit to zero-emission coaches, it needs to secure, at high cost, vehicles with sufficient range, and ensure that there is reliable charging infrastructure across its routes. Coaches travel longer-than-average journeys, and there are currently limited charging provisions on motorways and A roads. Operators need greater certainty before committing to the significant investment required to reach net zero. However, unlike cars and vans, coaches are not currently covered by the zero-emission vehicle mandate, and no equivalent statutory trajectory or long-term road map exists for the sector. We must do more to support the coach industry. We must engage meaningfully with the sector to fix those fundamental issues. If we fail to do so, we will lose this industry and the vital services it supports. I therefore urge the Minister to reflect on all the contributions and calls made by me and other colleagues today.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for throwing the kitchen sink at the problem, including court repairs. We wish to see those repairs make progress at Taunton Crown court. The Minister was good enough to write to me at the beginning of the summer to explain that the court, which has been closed since 2023, will be closed for longer. Will she contact me to give us an update on when Taunton Crown court will finally be reopened?
- Hansard source
Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support
On the impact of short-term funding, there is a very human cost. More often than not it is the young people involved who pay the price. I have had casework about people losing probably their only outlet for therapy when funding for their point of contact—someone they had built up a relationship with—has gone, and that has thrown them back into a crisis. Does the hon. Member agree that short-term funding has real-world impacts on young people?
- Hansard source
Iran: Threats to British Interests
The incident at RAF Fairford proved yet again a point that we have long known, which is that Iran is an exporter of terrorism and violence around the world—not just in the UK, but, crucially, in the region. We have seen the support for Hezbollah undermining security in Lebanon, and we have seen the attacks on our ally Saudi Arabia. What are the Government planning to do to increase the support that we provide to our allies in the region to counter the Iranian threat?
- Hansard source
Falkland Islands
I welcome the Minister to her place. I also welcome her restating Britain’s commitment to the fact that the Falkland Islands are British as long as the people of the Falklands wish to remain so. The Minister has said that Argentina has threatened to seek provisional measures through the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. President Trump, an ally of the Argentinian President, has spoken in support of Argentina’s claim and has recently sanctioned the International Criminal Court. What are the Government doing to ensure that no pressure is brought to bear on international tribunals and that the rule of law is protected?
- Hansard source
Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for giving such an eloquent speech at the beginning of this difficult debate. When I became an MP two years ago, there were half a million children on waiting lists for mental health services—about two months ago, that number has risen to a million. That is a million children needing help and a million families who are probably stressed beyond belief, worrying about the impacts of being on a long-term waiting list. The Darzi report showed that mental health accounts for 20% of the NHS caseload, yet at the time, in 2024, it was receiving only 10% of funding. We are really disappointed that the Government removed the mental health investment standard, which ensured that the proportion of money spent on mental health increased in line with the money spent on physical health. As a result of the standard being broken, NHS mental health services now receive 8% of funding. The proportion is dropping while we have record waiting lists. The cuts to mental health services are not limited to NHS services. Last year, the Government cut the VCSE grant—a vital fund that contributes to many charities and organisations, such as Samaritans, men’s sheds, young farmers’ groups and youth groups. One such organisation was Papyrus, which many Members have spoken about. It offered support for children and young people experiencing suicidal thoughts, and its loss is devastating. Organisations like Papyrus and the amazing Winchester Youth Counselling in my constituency are vital because they give children support before they need clinical NHS services. That support is early, targeted and often self-referred. They offer counselling and talking therapies, which not only helps children to maintain their mental health but saves the NHS money, because young people are less likely to end up in extreme cases that lead them to A&E, which is probably the worst place for them.
- Hansard source
Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support
I totally agree with the hon. Lady. Those organisations are so important. Some politicians from some parties have been using mental health and children’s mental health as a bit of a political football, such as by calling young people struggling with mental health “snowflakes”. That is absolutely shameful, and those comments affect families who have lost children, and children who have lost brothers and sisters. When there is one less child in the school football team, when there is one empty chair at the dining table and when there is one fewer pair of shoes at the front door, the loss affects families for the rest of their lives—forever. I pay tribute my constituent Martyn Pond in Alresford, who lost his son Archie at only 19 years old. Martyn got a bench put in, made by an amazing organisation called Legends on the Bench. The bench is solar-powered and has a light on at night time. There is a QR code, through which people can read a memorial to Archie. There is also support and signposting to organisations such as Samaritans, so that anyone who comes across the bench at a time of crisis, feeling alone, can get support. It is an amazing tribute to an amazing young man. I want to finish by urging the Government to restore the mental health investment standard. Politicians overuse the word “crisis”, but it is really hard to think of another word to describe the state of children’s mental health and mental health services at the moment.
- Hansard source
Falkland Islands
I welcome the Government’s commitment to Falkland Islands sovereignty and the islanders’ right to self-determination. In the light of President Milei’s escalating campaign, I think a little history may be in order. The Falkland Islands were first sighted by English navigators in 1592, claimed by Britain in 1765 and continuously settled since 1833, and some Falkland Islands families can trace their roots back nine or even 10 generations. Of course, there is a particular irony in Argentina’s claims of colonial injustice. Of the two countries in this dispute, it was only Argentina that systematically dispossessed indigenous peoples of their homes and homelands. Argentina’s sovereignty claim rests substantially on its asserted inheritance of the Spanish empire, whose imperial ambitions were sanctioned by a 15th-century Pope and the treaty of Tordesillas. The colonial history is rather more complicated than the Government of Argentina perhaps like to acknowledge or remember, which is precisely why self-determination matters so much. In 2013, I was in Stanley to witness the referendum in which 99.8% of islanders voted to remain British. They spoke for themselves as a self-governing, self-determining, distinct and identifiable people, yet President Milei now seeks to use UNCLOS arbitration to deny the islanders of economic sovereignty and the right to shape their own future. That is neo-colonialism dressed up as anti-colonialism. I have three questions for the Minister. Will Britain challenge any attempt to use UNCLOS to determine territorial sovereignty? If she is not willing to give an express account of the CPTPP negotiations, can she at least acknowledge that the Auckland principles that underpin the CPTPP are inconsistent with Argentina’s desire to undermine the islanders’ right to develop their own economy? Finally, what concrete measures will this Government take to ensure that Argentina’s threats do not deter investment in the islands?
- Hansard source
UK Coach Industry
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for securing this debate, and I commend her on her informative speech. Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of visiting AE Gough & Sons coaches in Llandrindod Wells, where I heard at first hand some of the challenges facing the industry. I am also fortunate to have other excellent coach operators in my constituency, including Herdman Coaches and Williams Coaches. These family-run businesses are the hidden workhorses of our economy, but right now they are absorbing a lot of pain. The coach industry is particularly important to the Welsh economy and plays a vital role in connecting rural communities and destinations that cannot always be reached by rail. That is particularly important in my constituency, which contains major attractions and sites such as the Brecon Beacons, Hay-on-Wye and Waterfall Country. However, the coach industry faces significant challenges, particularly when it comes to rising operating costs and recruiting the next generation of drivers. On fuel costs, the Government must continue the freeze on fuel duty to protect operators and passengers from further inflationary pressures. The Liberal Democrats believe that a lot more must be done to help. Donald Trump’s reckless war with Iran, cheered on originally by the Conservatives and Reform, has pushed up prices at the pump, while the Treasury stands to receive an additional £2 billion in tax revenues as a result of soaring prices. The Liberal Democrats believe that money should be returned to motorists and businesses through a 10p cut in fuel duty that would reduce pump prices by around 12p per litre. For the coach operators that we have been talking about, who rely on fuel every single day, that would provide some much-needed relief. We must also see work being done to address the industry’s growing workforce crisis. That point has been made several times, which makes it apparent how pressing that really is. The bus and coach sector faces an estimated shortage of between 5,000 and 10,000 drivers, with almost a quarter of existing drivers thought to be over 60. At a time when so many young people are struggling to find employment, particularly in areas such as rural Wales, it is extraordinary that an industry that is crying out for skilled workers is facing such significant barriers to recruitment. That is why we need to see funded category D licence training and reform of the driver apprenticeship system. That was one of the issues raised with me by AE Gough & Sons, which highlighted the difficulties that operators face by taking on apprentices directly, rather than having to rely on college-led arrangements. Ultimately, if we want a thriving tourism economy, better rural connectivity and more opportunities for young people, we must give our coach industry the support that it needs. I hope the Minister will take those concerns seriously and work with the industry to secure its long-term future.
- Hansard source
Prisoner Early Release Scheme
Kaylan Hippsley, who grew up in Ystradgynlais, was just 13 years old when he was tragically killed by a driver under the influence of drugs and alcohol in February 2024. The Court of Appeal increased his killer’s sentence to nine years, with at least six years to be served in custody before he would be considered for early release. However, Kaylan’s family have now been informed that his killer has been transferred to an open prison after serving barely two years and will soon be out on day release. Can the Minister explain how this has been allowed to happen? What assurances can be given to Kaylan’s family that the sentences imposed by the courts for such offences will actually be upheld?
- Hansard source
Warm Homes Plan: Implementation
Many of my constituents are off gas and rely on heating oil. They are once again writing to me about rising costs. With no price cap to protect them, the best way to cut their bills is to move to low-carbon forms of heating. Will the Minister confirm that the uplift in grants for off-grid properties will not be a victim of budget cuts?
- Hansard source
Iran: Threats to British Interests
The Iranian regime is a threat to global security, to the UK’s interests and to its own citizens. The question is how best to respond to that threat, while protecting people at home. The unilateral US and Israeli attack on Iran and the conflict that has followed have driven up prices for British families, while emboldening the Iranian regime. I visited Oman last week, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. At the maritime security centre, we were told that shipping rates are less than half what they were prior to the conflict, with a mere 35 to 50 vessels passing through Omani waters in the strait of Hormuz each night—every one of them at risk of attack from Iranian drones or missiles. What steps are the Government taking, with other maritime nations, to protect shipping and secure safe passage through the straits of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab, to keep food on our shelves and fuel in our tanks at prices that British consumers can afford?
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)
I beg to move amendment 64, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 1 to 5 and insert— “(5) In the exercise of its functions, the IIAA must— (a) be accessible, fair and independent, (b) handle its cases quickly and efficiently.” This amendment would remove the requirement for the IIAA to “aim to” operate fairly and independently and handle cases quickly and efficiently, so that the IIAA instead has a duty to so act. It would also remove the requirement for the IIAA to have regard to the public interest.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I am moving amendment 64, to make fairness and efficiency duties of the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority. I should add that in this group I also support amendments 48 and 49, tabled by my Lib Dem colleagues, I oppose amendment 87 tabled by my Conservative colleagues and I support the Lib Dems’ new clause 12. My amendment would impose on the IIAA a duty to operate fairly and independently and to handle cases quickly and efficiently. The Bill only imposes an obligation on the IIAA to aim to do those things. The amendment also removes the requirement for the IIAA to operate as part of the immigration system. The Independent Immigration Appeals Authority will be a body that is independent in name; the reality, however, will be much murkier and more ambiguous. The Home Secretary will personally appoint senior figures in the IIAA, including its chair, and a Home Secretary appointee will be responsible for appointing adjudicators who make appeals decisions. The effect of the Bill is to make asylum decision making less independent, less fair and less expert. It brings asylum appeals under greater political control, putting at risk people’s basic human right not to be persecuted for who they are. The major driver of the appeals backlog is the poor quality of Home Office asylum decisions, not tribunal judges. The Refugee Council has shown that about two thirds of Home Office asylum decisions that are challenged are overturned, either by the tribunals or by the Home Office itself. My preference, therefore, is for the Government to scrap all of part 1 of the Bill and get back to the day job of making good asylum decisions. If part 1 does go ahead, however—I will debate later whether that should happen—it should contain safeguards for basic standards of independence and fairness. The amendment deals with two ways in which the Bill tries unfairly to align the IIAA with the Home Office’s policy priorities, rather than the requirements of justice and fairness. First, clause 1(5) states only that “the IIAA must…aim to be accessible, fair and independent”— not that it must be independent, fair and accessible in practice, but merely that it must aim to be so. By contrast, under existing rules for tribunals, there is a duty, an overriding objective on tribunals, to deal with cases fairly and justly. That is not an aim, but a requirement. As such, subsection (5) is a watering down, a weakening and an undermining of the independence of asylum appeals. My amendment would make it a legal duty for the IIAA to be independent, fair and accessible, as it is for tribunals, and not merely an aim. Secondly, the attempt to draw asylum appeals into the Home Office’s sphere of influence is seen even more clearly in the fact that subsection (5) requires the IIAA to prioritise “in particular…the fact that the IIAA operates as a key part of the immigration…system.” That, I think, is an unambiguous push to align the IIAA not with the requirements of justice and fairness, but with Home Office policy priorities. My amendment would therefore remove any risk that the IIAA will be pressured into aligning with the Home Office’s immigration policy priorities, and let the IIAA be what it is meant to be: a quasi-judicial body for deciding appeals fairly and independently. Ultimately, without my amendment, the IIAA will be a body with a conflict of interest at its heart: a requirement to aim to be independent and fair, but also a priority to view itself as part of immigration control. If the Government are sincere about creating a body that can deal with cases independently and fairly, without interference from the Home Office, the IIAA’s duty to operate independently and fairly should be more than an aim; it should be a requirement, just as it is for tribunals. Moreover, there should be no pressure on the IIAA to align with the Home Office’s political vision of immigration control, whoever is in charge of the Home Office. The amendment would create that safety against the priorities of future Governments, as well as this one, being able to put political pressure on the IIAA. The amendment would put all that beyond doubt. It gives the IIAA the best chance of being truly independent and fair. I will seek a Division on this amendment.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)
I am not convinced by anything I have heard from the Minister. She talked about my amendments not allowing flexibility, but let us be clear what she has said: she is asking for flexibility in fairness, but not flexibility in the political definition of public interest. The risk to human rights here is huge. Let us not forget that these are life and death decisions for people who are among the most vulnerable in the world. It is clear from the data that the backlog is being driven by the fact the Home Office is deciding to refuse more cases, and the risk that those decisions are bad ones is also pretty clear; we see the frequency with which they are overturned, or the Home Office’s objections are withdrawn, when they go to the current tribunal. We know that bad decisions can be driven by a target-based culture. We saw that in the Windrush lessons learned review, which said that there was a target-dominated work environment and low-quality decision making. Those things go hand in hand, and we will create a hugely dangerous risk by putting the IIAA together with these objectives right at the heart of what it does. We risk doing Windrush again; we risk huge injustice; we risk huge costs for the Government in compensating people who have been subject to enormous detriment. This would be a really simple thing to fix at this stage. I will not withdraw my amendment, but will press it to a Division. Question proposed, That the amendment be made.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)
I beg to move amendment 65, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 11 to 14. This amendment would remove the provision which prevents individuals from being able to initiate judicial review proceedings against decisions made by the IIAA.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)
Amendment 65 to clause 1 would allow judicial review of decisions. It would remove the provision in the Bill that excludes all judicial review of IIAA appeal decisions. Clause 1(8) is a so-called ouster clause, as the explanatory notes confirm. It is designed to immunise the IIAA’s appeal decisions from judicial review in the High Court. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the Government’s attempt to undermine the rule of law. There will be two ways to challenge an IIAA appeal decision in the Bill as it stands. The first is that the IIAA can review its own decisions, under clause 6, and the second is that the upper tribunal can hear an appeal based only on a point of law, under clause 7. I hope we can agree that judicial review is a mechanism of fundamental constitutional importance and therefore should be restricted in only very limited circumstances. The Ministry of Justice has referred to judicial review as “the rule of law in action”. It ensures that public bodies act only in accordance with their legal powers and with respect for our human rights. The Home Office’s wish for faster and cheaper appeals does not come above the rule of law. Ousting judicial review is unnecessary and disproportionate. Where there is a suitable alternative remedy, such as an appeal to the upper tribunal like the one for which the Bill provides, the High Court will normally refuse permission for a judicial review anyway. That is because the High Court considers that the alternative remedy will protect the rule of law. If the High Court considers that the upper tribunal appeal in clause 7 is sufficient, there will rarely be judicial review cases. Retaining the claimant’s ability to apply for judicial review would simply mean that the High Court could grant permission in residual cases where it believed that an upper tribunal appeal would not be an effective alternative remedy. Clause 1(8) attempts to remove that residual right entirely. It is a rare absolute ouster clause, which does not permit judicial review of an IIAA appeal’s decision in any circumstances. Even the previous Conservative Government, when creating an ouster clause in section 1 of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, retained access to judicial review in some circumstances. Clause 1 of this Bill is constitutionally exceptional, and I would like the Minister to explain why this absolute exclusion from justice is deemed to be okay for those seeking asylum, when even the previous Government would not apply it to unnaturalised citizens.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)
I appreciate that, and I have laid out the possible alternative remedies, but judicial review is an essential backstop. I do not see why the Government are trying to remove it. This is constitutionally exceptional and I want the Minister to explain why it is okay. This measure will not only undermine the rule of law; it will inevitably provoke litigation in the courts about how this ouster clause should be interpreted and effected. It is concerning that the Government want the IIAA, which is a novel—experimental, even—non-expert body institutionally close to the Home Office, making life or death appeal decisions, to be made completely immune from judicial review at the outset. It demonstrates the Government’s continuing and concerning prioritisation of speed over the rule of law and justice, which we have seen in other Bills. In those circumstances, my amendment is completely necessary. It would ensure that judicial review remained available in those cases where the High Court believed it was necessary. I hope that all Members will support it.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)
I appreciate the hon. Member’s laying out the process, but can he honestly say that, if he were subjected to any area of justice, he would accept those arguments and the process for taking away his right to appeal twice, which the amendment would effect? Does he believe that that genuinely represents justice without fear or favour?
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)
On a point of clarification, is it not correct that under clause 7 the upper tribunal can hear an appeal only based on a point of law? Will the Minister comment on the way that challenging the processes or the administration of someone’s claim could therefore not be taken to the upper tribunal? Is she removing that safeguard? I remain concerned that the complexity of the law and the lack, often, of legal representation, as well as the difficulties that we all see in our casework of people claiming asylum, dealing with the Home Office’s processes and making their way through all this, mean that quite often there are process problems that ought to be challenged, and that this has been denied to people at the upper tribunal.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)
I will speak to why clause 1 and schedule 1 should not form part of the Bill. Although I will not speak to every clause, all these reasons equally apply to the rest of part 1, which deals with the creation and implementation of the IIAA. It is a real shame that this policy has not yet become another U-turn from this Administration. I compare this Bill with the Courts and Tribunals Bill, particularly how adjustments were made following feedback from the legal profession and human rights experts on the establishment of truncated legal process and rights, which was one of the Bill’s most misconceived parts. After the Government pressed on with those plans during the Bill Committee, on which I also sat, today it is being debated on Report without several of the clauses that would have put jury trials out of reach for far too many offences. Although they were quite rightly not selected, I tabled amendments to this Bill that would have removed part 1, which creates the independent immigration appeals authority and all its workings, and I look forward to seeing such proposals also being removed before its Report stage. The Government said that clause 1 and the rest of part 1 are needed to clear a backlog of more than 150,000 appeals, which currently take an average of over 60 weeks to decide. That backlog is real, and it is important that actions are taken to clear it, but part 1 misconceives the issues. Evidence shows that delays are driven by poor initial Home Office decisions and a severe shortage of legal aid, but part 1 addresses neither. Instead, the Bill would replace a working, independent judicial tribunal with a costly body that risks being ineffective and lacks independence and fairness. Above all, creating unfair processes and further adding to a hostile environment for asylum will not help stop the boats. In its written evidence, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees called for “a comprehensive strategy addressing the drivers of irregular movement, expanding safe, regular pathways, strengthening international responsibility-sharing, and enhancing practical cooperation with European and other partner States.” In oral evidence, the Government’s own National Crime Agency had no analysis or explanation about the real drivers of small boat crossings, being concerned only with the Government’s approach of layering an even harsher deterrence and enforcement regime on to the real causes. It is those real causes that need attention. I want the Government to listen on this issue, and that depends on Ministers hearing the arguments—that is what this Committee is for. I will be here throughout the Committee to highlight the points made by experts on the needs and real lives of those seeking asylum. They are talking about the difficulties they face in gaining a hearing for their case or in dealing with Home Office processes. In particular—this is something we all know as MPs, because we try to help constituents navigate this system in our casework—they talk about how poor the decision making in the Home Office is, and how the Bill does nothing to improve it. I want to bring some evidence from Brighton, given by one of a large number of charities that are providing direct support to refugees, as befits a city of sanctuary. The organisation One Church, which does a lot of work in this area, told me: “The impact of UK immigration policies for the past 15 years has at times crippled our ability to do business and operate a charity focussed (ironically) on marginalised people across Sussex. The escalating cost of filing for visas, the precarity and punitive nature of asylum claims and other proceedings, and the emotional devastation when facing all-too-common Home Office errors have all contributed to outcomes including business costs we can’t afford, charitable work that we’ve had to stop or rein in, and full-on mental health breakdowns that rupture communities and cost incalculably more in long-term complications.” One Church gave me several examples, but here is one: “An asylum seeker from Zimbabwe…was unable to earn income or work a job for more than eight years—even as he also was barred from public funds—while his own appeals went through the Home Office system, requiring the community to house him for free and support his basic living needs for many years. He ultimately won his case as well, including a public apology from a judge, but struggled to cope with the effects of such a long stint in a precarious and dependent position. This entire cascade of events was due to an unclear Home Office deadline that meant his paperwork was alleged to have been filed less than 24 hours late.”
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)
I disagree. I think that the Government are focusing on the wrong part of the system here. As MPs, we are all aware of the processes involved in the initial decision making of the Home Office. The number of similar messes that my caseworkers have had to try to clear up—we often succeed—is absolutely huge, so not to focus on getting that initial decision making right the first time, and instead for the Bill simply to take away people’s rights of appeal, is absolutely the wrong approach. With all such problems, the people who need asylum also need real knowledge of their rights and real access to people who can support their claims, but all that is really hard to get. Late claims and appeals with new information, when people finally get the right support and legal guidance about the grounds on which they should be making their claim, are all necessary to protect asylum rights. Therefore, judicial processes should not be downgraded and truncated, and people who are not legally qualified should not be hearing those cases.