Police Funding: North-east England
Order. We have to move on to the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, Max Wilkinson.
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
Order. We have to move on to the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, Max Wilkinson.
Bradley Thomas will move the motion and I will call the Minster to respond. I remind hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Order. I remind hon. Members that we have only an hour and there will be a strict time limit. Interventions will have to be limited and hon. Members will have to be patient.
Order. We have about 20 hon. Members waiting to speak with about 10 to 15 minutes available. Is the hon. Lady about to conclude her remarks?
As we can see, there is exceptional demand for this short debate. We will have to confine ourselves to a one-minute time limit because the Front-Bench speeches have to start at 5.08 pm. We would have started with Tim Farron, but he has just left. We will start with Dr Neil Hudson.
Given that not everyone who was down to speak bobbed, we are back to two minutes. I remind Dr Hudson that he did get his two minutes.
Order. I am going to have to reduce the time limit to a minute and a half to try to get everybody in.
We can get two more speakers in if they take a minute each.
Order. I call Sureena Brackenridge.
Apologies to those colleagues who could not speak in the debate. We shall move to the Lib Dem spokesperson, Danny Chambers.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We had a council by-election in my constituency and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) over the course of the break. I was very surprised to see a picture tweeted by the Secretary of State for Scotland of him standing in front of a street sign in my constituency, with the road very clearly written on it, despite the fact that he had not given me any notice that he intended to be in my constituency. How can I raise with the Secretary of State for Scotland the importance of notifying Members if he intends to be in their constituency to campaign?
I entirely agree with the comments made about business costs. That also applies across the public sector; local authorities and NHS trusts and boards all pay substantial amounts for their energy, particularly leisure trusts, which have swimming pools and ice rinks and provide a great deal of community wellbeing. Will the Minister commit to addressing these issues for public authorities as well as businesses?
What assessment have the Government made of the threats we face from the IRGC or its proxies, and of the impact of February’s US-Israeli attack? Did that attack strengthen or weaken the regime in Tehran, internally and externally? Do those assessments show whether the UK has become more or less exposed, since February, to events such as those we witnessed recently?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. Coaches are an essential part of Britain’s transport infrastructure, and they deserve proper recognition in Government transport policy. Their role goes far beyond holidays: they take children to school, workers to their jobs and patients to appointments, and they provide transport for our armed forces and community groups. They keep communities connected. For older people without a car, coach services can be a lifeline, helping them stay independent and preventing isolation. Coaches also support local jobs and businesses, bringing visitors into our towns, and they help to reduce the number of cars on our roads. But operators are under serious financial pressure. Rising diesel costs are particularly difficult for companies tied into school and other contracts agreed months ago. Those extra costs cannot simply be passed on. The Government must treat the industry fairly. Bus operators in England have received additional fuel support through the bus service operators grant—I think it is 15p a litre, although it may have gone up, but I am not 100% sure. Hauliers have been given a temporary vehicle tax break. Coaches deserve proper consideration too—they get nothing. In my constituency of Runcorn and Helsby, local coach companies such as Anthony’s Travel, which I am delighted to welcome to the Public Gallery today, face an additional burden: bridge tolls. Charges on the Mersey Gateway and Silver Jubilee bridges add to the cost of journeys across the river. A large coach can face a charge of £19.20 for a return crossing, before discounts. For operators making repeated journeys, those charges quickly mount up. That bridge tax puts further pressure on already stretched businesses—valuable businesses that we do not want to lose and which, like Anthony’s Travel, contribute so much to the local community. At the moment, the cost must either be absorbed by the operator or reflected in what customers pay. I would like Ministers to consider meaningful toll relief for coaches providing essential services, alongside fair treatment in future transport funding and support. National Coach Week is an opportunity to recognise the people who keep this industry moving: the drivers, staff and operators delivering services that our communities depend on. The message to Government is simple: recognise coaches, listen to operators and give them a fair deal.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. While we in Reform welcome the Minister’s commitment to allowing the Falkland Islanders to determine their own governance, can she confirm that as a nation we would be in a position militarily to defend the Falkland Islands if ever called on to do so by the Falkland Islanders, when we could not even get a single warship to the strait of Hormuz?
I make my contribution as someone who served as a magistrate for 20 years. I am deeply concerned about increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers to two years of custody. That must be accompanied by rigorous training, because in reality we get good and bad, and experienced and inexperienced, magistrates on magistrates’ benches. For a lay person, removing the liberty of another is one of the biggest decisions that they can make. I am also concerned about the presumption of suspension of all custodial sentences of up to 12 months. That is what is in the guidelines, but in training, magistrates are being told that there is a presumption of suspension of sentences of up to 18 months. Punishment should not be dumbed down because of insufficient prison places. Furthermore, the Government are leaving the supervision of the requirements of community orders in the hands of the Probation Service. How can those in the Probation Service be qualified to do that, when they are not trained to do that, unlike magistrates? Even more troubling is the fact those in the Probation Service are being given the power to cancel community orders, if they feel that the offender has been sufficiently rehabilitated. This comes at a time when the Probation Service has never been so overwhelmed and underfunded. The policy of the presumptive suspension of sentences, and the removal of magistrates’ powers to decide on community orders, betray justice for victims.
Last week, the Secretary of State signed off a massive solar farm in my constituency called the Steeple. It comes on the back of another massive solar farm called One Earth, which was approved by her predecessor earlier in the summer, and a third application sits on her desk today, for a project called Great North Road. In aggregate, if she signs off the latest one, 10% of the entire landmass of my constituency will be solar farms, and my constituents will see no benefit from this in their own energy bills. I wrote to her earlier in the summer to congratulate her on her new position and ask whether she would like to come to my constituency, meet my local residents and make the case for these giant solar farms to my constituents, if she really believes they are in their best interests.
The sad truth is that dangerous sexual predators are being released early under this scheme. The sister of a friend of mine was told by police just a few weeks ago that her heinous assailant was being released in a few months’ time and there was nothing they could do. She resigned from her job and has fled the country in terror. That is where things have got to. There are some 4,000 empty cells that require maintenance and refurbishment, and 10,000 cells are occupied by overseas nationals. Will the Government use those places to stop dangerous offenders from being released early?
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Wishart. I commend the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for securing this important debate. I start by expressing my deepest sympathies to all the families, friends and communities affected by suicide. Today, I will focus on two charities that serve my constituency and beyond. The DPJ Foundation was set up in July 2016, following the death of Daniel Picton-Jones. His widow, Emma, established the foundation to support the mental health of those in the farming sector. Ten years on, the foundation continues to provide invaluable support for farming communities across Wales by providing specialist support tailored specifically to those in agriculture, which means that our young farmers receive support in our rural communities. Papyrus has already been mentioned. The other charity that I will focus on today is 3 Dads Walking. I am privileged that one of the three dads, Mike, is my constituent, and I was able to join them last June in their walk around my constituency of Ynys Môn. On that walk, I had those conversations with family members and friends who have been deeply affected by suicide about the importance of prevention, the importance of having a support network and the importance of 24-hour support. That is why 3 Dads Walking raised so much money for HopeLine 24/7. The closure of HopeLine 24/7 in September came despite it having just had its two busiest months in nearly 30 years, which shows that the service is needed more than ever. The decision to close HopeLine 24/7 will mean the loss of lives, so I urge the Government to do all they can to support the valuable work of charities such as Papyrus and the DPJ Foundation so that young people continue to have access to essential support in their communities, wherever they live.
Diolch, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. This Government have said more than once that pensioners who rely on the state pension as their only source of income will not have to pay tax on it during this Parliament. However, the proposed reforms to the triple lock would take effect in the next Parliament. Will the Secretary of State confirm that pensioners reliant on the state pension alone will not have to pay tax when the reforms come into place?
The right hon. Member is very kind in giving way. Military assistance to the civil authorities was not available for the wildfires on the Rhinogydd, which burned for two weeks and were so substantial that they could be seen from space. Does the right hon. Member agree that it is welcome that the Prime Minister has indicated an interest in commissioning a UK-wide aerial firefighting capability, which would be accessible to devolved Governments? Would that be a good result from today’s debate?
My understanding is that North Wales fire and rescue service commissioned the provision of military aid to the civil authorities, and the Welsh Government backed it up. We need clarity, but the fundamental point is that it appears that across the United Kingdom, we have a real shortage of trained pilots and the equipment they need to bring water to fire situations in remote places. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that point.
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my role as the chair of the justice unions all-party parliamentary group. This second tranche of early releases is coming so soon after the first that probation staff are just in despair at their workloads. There was a workload measurement tool that was used to help balance workloads, but it was switched off on 25 September this year. Workload pressures and insufficient pay are why the probation union Napo is holding a formal ballot on industrial action next Monday. Does the Minister therefore recognise that the probation system is on the brink of collapse?
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her fantastic speech and on emphasising the importance of coach operators across the country. Does she agree that, in making the case to the Treasury, the Minister should point out that in many rural areas local coach operators serve as the backbone of the school transport system? Quite frankly, the school transport system would collapse without them.
Ministers have repeatedly stated their intention to establish local trading to unleash the full potential of community energy, but details are still not forthcoming. Will the Minister set out a timeline to give community energy projects the clarity that they have so long been waiting for?
Last week I held my regular roundtable for local domestic abuse organisations in Bath. There was fear—real fear—among the organisations that represent survivors and victims about the number of early releases. Representatives of Avon and Somerset police, who were present, tried to reassure the group that they had the capacity and could manage the situation, but how will the Government ensure, through assessment and review, that the Avon and Somerset force does indeed have the capacity to support victims and survivors? How will that be assessed and when will there be a review?
Several constituents who have been in touch with me are victims of domestic abuse and desperately need to move. Emotional support and safety planning are cold comfort when offenders are cutting off their tags, when they are making threats to kill, and when the victims’ addresses are being disclosed to them, but these vulnerable families are still coming 12th, 15th or 18th on the list for being moved to new social housing. What is the Ministry of Justice doing with local authorities to ensure that these people are properly prioritised?
The Minister mentions other scrutiny measures, but the Bill in its entirety relies heavily on Henry VIII powers. Additionally, the impact assessment repeatedly admits uncertainty, and we do not know the deterrent impact. How does she make the case that there will be better scrutiny and accountability? Does she not agree that having a full understanding of the implementation of the Bill up front would be a good thing?
One of my concerns is that the public interest is quite subjective; we are, in effect, giving a statutory steer on what any Government at any given point decide is in the public interest. Does the Minister not have concerns about how that could be applied by future Governments?
I want to press the point that I made to the Minister a moment ago about how one defines public interest. It concerns me that the appeals body that will be deciding on these cases of law will end up with a challenge when different Ministers of the day provide a different steer as to what is in the public interest. Stemming from that, how does Parliament hold the relevant Ministers to account when we are introducing subjective terms and concepts around public interest? For that reason, we will be pressing amendments 48 and 49. Amendment 48 would make the provision about the IIAA’s exercise of its functions affirmative: as amended, the clause would say that the IIAA must be accessible, fair and independent, not just “aim” to be. What really concerns me and my colleagues is that the element of flexibility, as the Minister calls it, might lead to unfair application and due process throughout the entirety of the process. I would like to know more about what is meant by “aim to”, as opposed to it being actually accessible, fair and independent. I will oppose amendment 87, because the IIAA should be independent. The amendment would require the authority to give effect to prompt removals and turn an independent adjudicator into an arm of enforcement, and I am concerned that the public and courts would have no confidence in its decisions. I welcome the fact that the impact assessments have been updated, but there are lingering questions about the scale and timing of the benefits, and the costs are unclear. We are being asked in effect to abolish a working tribunal jurisdiction without a price tag at this point. I would appreciate clarity on those issues as we move forward.
The Government have already increased the first-tier tribunal sitting days by 19% and set a 24-week target. Is there a reason why the Minister does not want to see those measures work before dismantling the judge-led system? Could she elaborate on that?
I appreciate the Minister being generous with her time. Is she able to rule out this model becoming something that other tribunals, such as benefits or property, might end up seeing, with Departments gaining greater statutory powers over the tribunal hearing appeals against them?
The Committee has heard from several stakeholders, including UNHCR, which stated: “Lowering professional requirements in response to capacity pressures risks undermining the quality of decision-making and may ultimately prove counterproductive.” Will the Minister address that point?
I want to press the Minister a little further. While our magistrates do incredible work, they often hear cases concerning relatively low-level crimes. Does she think that is comparable to understanding immigration and asylum claims, which might be really complex, from people fleeing political violence overseas?
I support amendment 68. My concern, which I am sure many people outside this place share, is that in effect it means people marking their own homework. Is there not a basic principle of fairness involved here? If we wish to see a genuine review in which all the information can be summed up and weighed, there might be issues of internal bias if the person who has already made the initial decision is reviewing it.
May I press the Minister a little further on that point? What really concerns me is that a lot of this will be done using the negative procedure, as she has referred to. Our ability to influence and to resolve the issue down the line if the board does get it wrong, which I hope it does not, will be further constrained and our hands will be tied. Does the Minister share that concern?
Twenty-five per cent of the properties in my constituency were built before 1900. They are very hard to retrofit; they are solid-wall properties. It is therefore important that there should be a bespoke scheme to ensure that homes that are hard to retrofit, particularly in rural communities such as mine, can be made cooler or warmer in these times of more extreme temperatures.
Two weeks ago, the Liberal Democrats were clear that if Iran or the IRGC were confirmed to be behind the plot at the RAF base at Fairford, every Iranian diplomat who assisted in acts of terror should be expelled, up to and including the ambassador. That has now been confirmed. What does the Foreign Secretary intend to do, and when?
When Torness closes in 2030, Scotland will be left without a nuclear power station for the first time since the 1950s. That steady, low-carbon power will still have to come from somewhere, but the SNP Government still refuse to back nuclear. What discussions has the Minister had with the Scottish Government about keeping Scotland’s lights on once Torness closes?
I thank the Secretary of State for sharing his statement in advance. The Liberal Democrats have a proud history around the old age pension. In fact, it was Asquith and Lloyd George who introduced it in 1908. Then in came Margaret Thatcher in 1980 and broke the link with earnings, and that sadly remained for 30 years. Sadly, the Brown and Blair Governments did not ride to the rescue during that period of time with regard to the link with earnings. It took the Liberal Democrats introducing the triple lock when they returned to government in 2010 to start tackling pensioner poverty and drawing it to a conclusion. The triple lock has been a powerful tool for tackling pensioner poverty. It has almost drawn together the gap between males and females in respect of the state pension. It has helped some of the most vulnerable people receiving pensions. Looking to the future, it ensures that there is a solid foundation that people can build on when considering their future pension savings. That does not detract from the fact that there continues to be a cost of living crisis and that there are many people who are not saving enough towards their pensions. There is an assumption within the system for lots of our society that people should be saving towards their pensions. We have some serious questions to put to the Secretary of State. We would welcome the Secretary of State sharing any impact assessment on pensioner poverty that the Government have undertaken. In respect of social care, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has identified that the savings from within these proposals do not cover the finances that the Government have suggested. Is the IFS lying?