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
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
When we think of rough sleeping and homelessness, bricks and mortar is only part of it. In effect, what we are talking about is a journey of recovery. That was the Housing First philosophy that was discussed earlier. It is about giving people a firm base, and then giving them the support to move forward. Every person in my view is capable of recovery. We just need to give them the circumstances in which it can happen.
The climate commitments in our manifesto are not at risk. I have made clear today that we need to plan for a carbon-neutral future. I am not one of those who will pander to those going in a different direction. I was convinced as Mayor of Greater Manchester that our future lay in adopting renewables, and I am of the same view as Prime Minister. Where I differ from the Green party is on its ideological, rather than pragmatic, approach to getting there. That, I am afraid, might delay the transition that the hon. Member seeks.
This is a very serious matter indeed, and I believe that news has broken about it as we have been gathering a statement from the German Government about the incident at Leipzig. I want to leave the House in no doubt that the UK stands in full solidarity with Germany in the face of these egregious and unacceptable attacks. Russia’s attempts to undermine our united resolve and our willingness to support Ukraine are futile and doomed to fail, and we will be steadfast in the face of them. I am in touch with Chancellor Merz, and we are working closely with our allies to defend any threats to NATO and our allies, and to NATO territory. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this matter; it is a very serious development, and it requires the most intense European co-operation in response.
I happen to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know that there have been moves to improve the regulation of bailiffs, but I would encourage the 10 councils in Greater Manchester to take a different approach to debt, because many people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine fear the sound of the letterbox opening or a knock at the door. Personal debt can be completely destructive of people’s mental health, and I think that there is a different and better way, which the hon. Gentleman has described.
I think that the evidence is undeniable when it comes to growth. I have mentioned Greater Manchester, and the Liverpool city region is now growing at a faster rate than the UK average, which, for most of our lives, was simply was not the case. It is not in managed decline; it is actually flourishing, and my hon. Friend’s area is, as well. However, it can go even further. The model of devolution in England is working, and I want it to be available to all areas. If my hon. Friend wishes to lead a delegation to No. 10 North, I will ensure that he receives the warmest possible welcome.
I am aware of that change. Obviously, the Greater London Authority was created by statute, and there are other voices in the mix, including those of London Members of Parliament. I will always respond to a change when it is brought to me with a clear consensus and cross-party support. I am not aware that that exists fully across London, but if such a proposal were brought to me, I would always look at it carefully.
I understand that there is a possibility of sustainable aviation fuel production at Grangemouth. I find that very interesting, and I keep coming back to it. Perhaps my hon. Friend wishes me to persuade No. 10 North to support him in the development of that proposal; I know that there is a financial commitment, but if we do reindustrialise, the money that we put forward to support that process can pay us back over many years to come, through a bigger and flourishing economy in all parts of the UK.
I do not know whether the hon. Lady is right about the full backing. I believe that an independent review of the Parades Commission and the process that it undertook has been announced. The Northern Ireland Secretary has already taken some steps, and the review of the process will go further. We will work hard to ensure that the trust of all communities—but particularly the communities that the hon. Lady represents—in the commission is restored.
I think there is a need for a resolution on what will happen from Handsacre to Manchester via Crewe, and a solution for the communities in between. This cannot be left where it is indefinitely. I understand the points that my hon. Friend has made, but given my past role, I hope he will be assured that this is something that I know a lot about.
I will ask the Education Secretary to look at precisely the issue that the hon. Lady has raised.
I have always said that we will not have a health and care system that is fit for the 21st century until it supports people with dementia as well as it treats people with cancer. We are some way from that, but it is the goal we should be working towards.
I am aware of the concern, and it is similar to the issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). All I can say is that I give the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) a commitment that I will familiarise myself with all the details of the planning application. I will happily report back from this Dispatch Box when I have done that.
That was put very well, and this is exactly the agenda that I have been talking about from the Dispatch Box today. All parts of the UK need to have control over basic services, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to support what he is saying.
I remember well visiting Musgrove Park in my days as a Health Minister. I did some work shadowing at the hospital, so I know how much it is in need of renovation. I will look into the issue. Across the NHS this summer, staff have been working in unbearable conditions, and it is the same for patients. I know that this is high on the Health Secretary’s agenda, and I will come back to the hon. Gentleman when I have had a chance to look at the latest status of that issue.
My hon. Friend’s constituency sounds a lot like mine, which is underserved in many ways by financial institutions. The recent takeover by Nationwide of Virgin Money means that, in a constituency like mine, Nationwide’s high street network will soon be able to offer support to small businesses and innovators in the postcodes covering Peterborough. Does he agree that that highlights the vital role the mutual sector, credit unions and member-owned banks play in extending financial services to every postcode of the city, widening prosperity in our country?
Is the Minister aware that staff at the Daresbury laboratory, not too far away from Jodrell Bank, have been asked to mothball CLARA—the compact linear accelerator for research applications—which is a 250-mega-electronvolt electron accelerator, alongside the biology lab that sits above it? Incidentally, that lab has never been used, as it has only just been put in. Is the Minister prepared to meet me and other Cheshire colleagues, because I am really concerned about what is happening to science in the north Cheshire corridor? It looks to me like the STFC is circling the wagons around facilities in the south of England at the expense of those in the north, so I would be interested in meeting my hon. Friend or the relevant Minister to look at how we can reverse some of the damaging cuts.
It was a pleasure to welcome the Prime Minister to Portsmouth this summer when he visited His Majesty’s naval base. It was especially good to welcome a fellow north MP to Portsmouth North! He saw at first hand the dedication of our armed forces, so does he agree that supporting personnel and their families remains a priority? Like the police, they should offer proper paternity leave for every serving father and ensure that our self-employed fathers are no longer left behind.
I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s statement and the changes he is making. I know that victims have been at the forefront of his and the Prime Minister’s minds. Families such as those of Chloe Holland and Skye Nicholls have seen the devastating consequences of domestic abuse. How will these and future changes better protect victims and ensure that the psychological harm caused by domestic abuse, particularly coercive control, is properly recognised?
There are lots of similarities between Coalville and Totnes, including a monastery just a few minutes away. The biggest issue is that banking hubs, although incredibly important, do not provide the excellent business banking services that businesses need. Does the hon. Member agree that the issue is about business support as well as cash access, and that we need to expand the theme of banking hubs?
In the summer, I went to Glenfield hospital to talk to staff about the amazing genetic testing done there. Something that strikes me through all the conversations I have had as the former chair of the APPG is how much work could be done in A&E to strengthen that pathway. What can the Minister tell us about looking at ECGs after people have been tested in A&E, which could go back to cardiologists?
6. What steps his Department is taking with international partners to help protect freedom of navigation through the strait of Hormuz.
My constituents in Paisley and Renfrewshire North are feeling the impact of higher energy and petrol prices, and they will appreciate the efforts that my hon. Friend’s Department is making. Would he agree that military action by the world’s superpowers is risking a return to pricing instability, and that all efforts must be made to cease military activities?
I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of science facilities and laboratories. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. Few debates can boast such an out-of-this-world subject as the search for dark matter; it is up there with the incredible physics of the Higgs boson, black holes and the big bang, and it is a field in which the UK has traditionally led the world. My own interest in particle physics was sparked when I came up with the idea for a children’s science fiction television show called “The Sparticle Mystery”, which follows a group of children after an experiment at a cut-price British version of the large hadron collider goes wrong, sending everyone aged 15 and over into a parallel dimension—a kind of “Home Alone” planet Earth. During the development of the series, I immersed myself in physics, spending lots of time researching at laboratories and science facilities, including visiting the ATLAS—A Toroidal LHC Apparatus—project at CERN in Switzerland and filming a series finale inside the ISIS science facility near Didcot. Little did I know that my adventures would continue when I became the Member of Parliament for Scarborough and Whitby; the incredible Boulby underground laboratory is located just on the edge of my patch—and just on the edge of making discoveries that will change our understanding of the universe.
I thank the hon. Member; he is right that those areas of academic expertise must continue to be a hotbed for physics talent. Boulby underground laboratory, nestled between Saltburn and Whitby on the north-east coast of England, is the UK’s only deep underground science facility. Located 1.1 km beneath the Earth’s surface, in a working polyhalite and rock-salt mine, it is the deepest laboratory in the UK and one of only a dozen such facilities worldwide. I will never forget visiting the lab for the first time and descending for what seemed like an hour—it was actually about eight minutes—in a tiny lift towards the centre of the Earth, before walking out towards a pristine laboratory sitting in the dusty, science-fiction-like moonscape. Inside, Boulby lab is home to an extraordinary range of research, from environmental science and biology to quantum physics. The lab’s greatest advantage lies in its depth: a quiet place in the universe, where studies can be carried out almost entirely free from interference from natural background radiation, including the search for dark matter.
I thank the hon. Member for making that important point. We lead the way in physics in the UK, and we want to continue that and continue to inspire young minds.
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. I will come to Jodrell Bank later in my speech; I completely agree that it needs to be saved. Dark matter is thought to make up most of the matter in the universe. It has played a major role in shaping the cosmos, but despite decades of effort it is yet to be detected. Discovering what dark matter is made of will be one of the biggest discoveries of our time. The Boulby lab has been a frontrunner in the race since the 1980s. It is the birthplace of the ZEPLIN technology that is now used in the world’s leading dark matter experiments. I want to welcome some of the incredible scientists working at the Boulby underground laboratory to the Public Gallery today, and thank them for making the journey down to Westminster. In recent years, Boulby has been preparing to host a massive international experiment seeking to detect dark matter. This is not the stuff of films and TV—it is really happening. It is called the XLZD, and it is a $1 billion international science project that would build upon the legacy of ZEPLIN to create the most sensitive dark matter detector ever constructed. Only a small number of underground laboratories worldwide are considered capable of hosting such an experiment, and Boulby is one of them.
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. I am sure the Minister is aware that many hon. Members here are fighting for fantastic facilities and laboratories in their constituencies. Preparations for the experiment have been under way since 2020. Boulby has attracted millions of pounds in investment, but hosting the experiment in the UK is still not guaranteed. Boulby is competing against underground labs across the world. In that context, the lab’s worst fears were realised in July this year, as the Science and Technology Facilities Council prioritisation review proposed cutting Boulby’s operating budget by a massive 40%, creating a perception of uncertainty about continued support for XLZD. Boulby has substantial fixed operating costs, so the bulk of required savings might have to be found from cuts to the staffing budget, potentially leading to redundancies at the lab as well as limiting opportunities for future expansion. The cuts are so drastic that they pose an existential threat to Boulby’s future—and, as hon. Members are aware, the issue goes far beyond Boulby. STFC’s prioritisation review has proposed sweeping cuts across the board for fundamental physics, nuclear physics and astronomy.
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Certainty of funding is so important. We risk cutting off everything at the knees and, with our plan for growth, that is not something that the Labour Government can afford to do. The cuts are £162 million in cumulative savings by 2030. Brian Cox, TV scientist and professor at the University of Manchester, has likened the impact of these cuts to the “destruction of the future”. His concerns have been echoed by academics across the field, who fear that physics departments at universities will close. Professor Jeff Forshaw, also at Manchester, has said that these cuts are “annihilating” a field of research that inspired young people into physics. Multiple physics facilities carrying out world-leading research now face serious funding challenges or the threat of closure. Diamond Light Source and the ISIS Neutron and Muon Source are facing cuts of 15% apiece. The Jodrell Bank observatory, home to the UK’s largest radio telescope for nearly 70 years, faces closure as early as 2028.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—it would be catastrophic. I completely agree with her. Other hon. Members have also mentioned Jodrell Bank. These cuts are threatening some of the UK’s most important scientific assets and arguably the entire discipline of UK physics.
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right in that important intervention. The constituency he represents has some of the most deprived communities in the UK and would benefit most from the expansion of the Boulby lab. Involvement in LHCb, the large hadron collider beauty experiment—one of the major experiments at CERN’s large hadron collider—is also in doubt. STFC has cancelled UK participation in the next upgrade programme because of cost pressures, despite the UK being a major contributor. It is not clear to scientists working on the project exactly why it has been deprioritised. Cancelling projects and closing facilities will lead to the loss of talent and reduce UK competitiveness in high-precision science and international collaborations. There is also the negative impact it will have on the success of Labour’s industrial strategy. The proposed expansion at Boulby and the construction of the XLZD will generate substantial economic benefits for the north-east, North Yorkshire and the UK.
I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. This is about looking forward and investing in the future. Independent analysis by Arup shows that the proposed expansion of the Boulby site and the construction of XLZD would bring approximately £587 million to the UK economy through the creation of skilled jobs, by increasing supply chains in advanced manufacturing and by attracting scientific investment into the region. There are also plans for a visitor centre to showcase the north-east’s remarkable contribution to our understanding of the universe, which could attract hundreds of thousands of visitors annually. Although the Government are increasing spending on research and development, I would be grateful if the Minister could answer a couple of questions. First, why does the facility in the north-east face more than double the cuts faced by facilities in the south? Will she set out how the Department, UK Research and Innovation and the STFC assessed the relative value of investment in fundamental physics compared with other areas of research and development? Will she publish the evidence that underpins the decisions? Has the Minister looked at the cumulative impact of the cuts on physics as a discipline in the United Kingdom? On Boulby specifically, will the Minister please explain how the Government have assessed the laboratory’s unique strategic position? What weight has been given to the projected economic impact of the expansion of the Boulby lab? Finally, will the Minister explicitly restate the Government’s interest in and support for the XLZD project? It is a project of such international stature that it could deliver the discovery of dark matter, which would be worthy of a Nobel prize. I appreciate that I have asked my hon. Friend the Minister a lot of questions, but I assure her that they pale in comparison with the number of questions physicists ask themselves every day. Science facilities such as Boulby are places where discoveries are made, young people are inspired, international partnerships are forged and the foundations of future industries are laid. With XLZD at Boulby, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the UK to make one of the biggest discoveries of our age in the search for dark matter. It offers transformational economic opportunity for the north-east, and would strengthen our industrial strategy, skills base and reputation on the world stage. I therefore urge the Minister to recognise the exceptional national value of Boulby underground laboratory and other UK science facilities and laboratories, and to ensure that Britain remains at the forefront of scientific discovery for decades to come.
I thank the Minister for being generous in giving way—I am aware of the time. Given the Government’s stated commitment to place-based growth, regional rebalancing and the growth mission, how can a reduction in support for Boulby laboratory be reconciled with their objectives?
I beg to move, That this House notes the critical threat that Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) pose to press freedom, public interest research, and the right of citizens and campaigners to speak out on matters of public concern; recognises that SLAPPs predominately target individuals, including private citizens, utilising novel legal tactics, with the weaponisation of libel law and data protection claims and the aggressive use of injunctions, which often come hand in hand with other forms of harassment including smear campaigns and surveillance; further recognises that the anti-SLAPP provisions within the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 are ineffective due to their complexity and insufficient due to their narrow focus on economic crime; further notes the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) view that the ‘main way to address the problem of SLAPPs is through a robust legislative solution that gives the courts more powers’, and that SRA regulation will inevitably be severely limited absent a new law; highlights concerns over the suppression of public interest information and acts of public participation in the absence of a universally applicable anti-SLAPP law; and also recognises the urgent need for the Government to find a legislative vehicle for simple, comprehensive anti-SLAPP provisions that filter out abusive lawsuits swiftly and fairly. I rise to speak on this motion on the impact of strategic lawsuits against public participation, also known as SLAPPs. It is the custom to thank the Backbench Business Committee. This is our second attempt to have this debate. Last time, I agreed to pull it, so there could be a longer debate on settlement goods. However, I thank the Committee for giving us 90 minutes of protected time; otherwise, we would have had only 44 minutes for this debate. That is really why I am thanking it this evening. A SLAPP is litigation, or commonly the threat of litigation, designed primarily to silence criticism, rather than vindicate a legitimate legal right. The objective is often not to win in court, but to make speaking out so expensive, stressful and risky that journalists, campaigners, academics, whistleblowers and ordinary citizens decide that remaining silent is the safer option. On the surface, SLAPPs may appear to be a niche media law issue. However, as we will no doubt hear in examples from Members today, by suppressing information that is in the public interest, SLAPPs undermine our democracy, our public watchdogs and the integrity of our justice system. Back in June, during Justice questions, the then Secretary of State recognised the profound financial and psychological impact of SLAPPs, and the threat they represent to democracy and free speech. He also highlighted that SLAPPs extend beyond journalism and issues of free speech, and are used to silence sexual abuse survivors and tenants who have complained to landlords. That is one of five reasons why this debate is particularly important and timely. Many think SLAPPs are confined to journalists being threatened by Russian oligarchs. In fact, the threat is more diverse than ever. The expanding scope of this abuse across all types of public interest is deeply concerning. There has been a significant spike in cases reported to the UK Anti-SLAPP coalition over the last 18 months, a large proportion of which are from private citizens who have spoken out about concerns in their local area, or services they have received. No doubt, we all have constituents affected by SLAPPs. Secondly, the tactics are evolving. While defamation remains a common legal basis for use, SLAPPs are now being brought through claims such as harassment, data protection, privacy and trespass, demonstrating that any effective response must establish universal protections, irrespective of the cause of action. Thirdly, the UK appears to be an attractive jurisdiction for this kind of legal abuse. Our expensive litigation and claimant-friendly reputation have made London a popular destination, while the European Union has moved ahead with an anti-SLAPP directive and 22 EU countries have taken action to progress anti-SLAPP legislation at a national level. In the UK, broad protection is still absent, and we risk becoming an outlier. Fourthly, in recent months, the limit of the regulatory framework has been brought into sharp focus. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has faced challenges in progressing SLAPP complaints, particularly those that have reached the tribunal stage, and recent Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal judgments have failed to address the fundamental issue of SLAPPs as an abusive tactic. Despite over 70 cases being opened since 2022, only three have so far progressed to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Moreover, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has not publicly released any data regarding the state of its SLAPP-related investigations since 2024. While new legislation is urgently required, it must be accompanied by strong regulatory guidance and enforcement action. Finally, Parliament now has an opportunity to act. Before the summer recess, two new private Members’ Bills were introduced: one by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale)—I am sure that we will hear more from him on that—and one in the other place by Baroness Stowell. The Bills aim to create broader anti-SLAPP protection. The issue before us is no longer whether the problem exists; it is whether we are prepared to legislate with the urgency the problem demands. Many of Britain’s biggest national scandals only came to light because determined journalists, courageous whistleblowers and persistent campaigners refused to be intimidated, but SLAPPs have often been present. SLAPPs delayed reporting on the Horizon Post Office scandal, maternity scandals in teaching hospitals—such as those in Oxford and in my constituency in Leeds—and the Grenfell tower tragedy. Think about the scandals we have never discovered because someone successfully silenced those asking the questions. That is why the issue is about far more than protecting journalists; it is about protecting the public’s right to know. I acknowledge that the previous Government recognised the problem. Following the Ministry of Justice’s 2022 consultation, reforms were introduced through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, creating protections against SLAPPs connected to economic crime, including an early dismissal mechanism and greater protections on legal costs. Those were welcome reforms, but they are also flawed and limited; they only protect investigations into economic crime and depend on a complex and time-intensive process to determine the intentions or mindset of the claimant. Those limitations matter. Public interest speech is not confined to speech about corruption, fraud and money laundering. It also concerns patient safety, environmental harm, housing conditions, human rights abuses, sexual violence, animal welfare and failures of public administration, among other things. People should not lose protections simply because the wrongdoing they expose does not fit within a narrow statutory category. That is why I am calling on the Government to use the opportunity of the two private Members’ Bills to introduce universal anti-SLAPP legislation. I will keep my remarks short because we are short on time, and I want to ensure that all Members who have come to this debate get to speak. I take the opportunity to thank all those who have been working on this issue for the last five years, supporting the cases that we will hear about, including the Foreign Policy Centre, the Index on Censorship, Global Climate Legal Defence, the News Media Association, the Bureau of Investigative Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, Spotlight on Corruption, Transparency International, and all the members of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, as well as the Media Lawyers Association and the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, which supports this work. I also thank the targets of SLAPPs who have bravely spoken out about the legal threats they have faced. SLAPPs encourage silence to avoid increasing liability, but we only know about the scale of the issue because brave people across the country have spoken out. We are indebted to them.
I think that tonight’s debate has shone a light on the practice of SLAPPs, and that the whole House now understands the urgency with which we need to move forward, and we have two opportunities to do so through private Members’ Bills. All the contributions to the debate, but particularly the Minister’s winding-up speech, have made clear the determination throughout the House and across parties to ensure once and for all that those who speak up about these vital public interest issues can be heard, and are not crushed by those with the money and power to use our legal system to ensure that their voices are not heard, so that we can end this terrible practice for good. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House notes the critical threat that Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) pose to press freedom, public interest research, and the right of citizens and campaigners to speak out on matters of public concern; recognises that SLAPPs predominately target individuals, including private citizens, utilising novel legal tactics, with the weaponisation of libel law and data protection claims and the aggressive use of injunctions, which often come hand in hand with other forms of harassment including smear campaigns and surveillance; further recognises that the anti-SLAPP provisions within the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 are ineffective due to their complexity and insufficient due to their narrow focus on economic crime; further notes the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) view that the ‘main way to address the problem of SLAPPs is through a robust legislative solution that gives the courts more powers’, and that SRA regulation will inevitably be severely limited absent a new law; highlights concerns over the suppression of public interest information and acts of public participation in the absence of a universally applicable anti-SLAPP law; and also recognises the urgent need for the Government to find a legislative vehicle for simple, comprehensive anti-SLAPP provisions that filter out abusive lawsuits swiftly and fairly.
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the implementation of the Sentencing Act 2026. When this Labour Government took office, we inherited a crisis in our prisons. They were regularly at 99% capacity, with fewer than 100 places available at one stage. We were one bad day away from running out of space, which would have meant the courts being forced to suspend trials, the police being unable to make arrests, and there would be nowhere to put dangerous criminals—a total breakdown of law and order, with victims bearing the brunt. My predecessors acted swiftly to stabilise our prisons by committing to the most ambitious prison-building programme since the Victorians and pledging 14,000 new prison places by 2031, with 3,200 already delivered. Compare that with the record of the Conservative party, which added just 500 net places in 14 years. We have also deported nearly 12,000 foreign national offenders, but we had to ensure that we never return to the shambolic emergency releases carried out, with little scrutiny or warning, by the previous Government. We passed the Sentencing Act, which introduced the earned progression model, whereby offenders on standard determinate sentences spend at least a third of their sentence behind bars, and longer if they behave badly. More serious offences require people to serve at least half of their sentence, with no upper limit for time spent inside for bad behaviour. But release from prison is not the end of the story. We have overseen the largest ever expansion of tagging and, working closely with the police, we are giving the Probation Service access to the largest and toughest range of measures to manage offenders. Every single offender leaving prison can now be tagged, and strict licence conditions can include curfews and bans from pubs, clubs and even football matches. There will be exclusion zones where criminals cannot go. For the most serious sexual and violent offenders, we are introducing world-first “restriction zones” that confine them to specific areas, which are sometimes a few miles wide, curtailing their liberty in order to give victims more freedom. If conditions are breached, offenders can be recalled to prison. This clearly asks more of our brilliant Probation Service, so we are also investing £700 million more in probation and community services by 2028-29, and we are hiring a further 1,300 trainee probation officers, on top of the 2,300 recruited in the past two years. Let me be clear about who the model applies to. The most dangerous offenders, who have been locked up for serious violent and sexual offences, and those on life sentences were never eligible, but the Prime Minister and I were determined to look again. We moved quickly to exclude rape and many serious child sex and grooming offences, and we have gone further still by excluding all unlawful killing offences—including death by dangerous or drink-driving, causing or allowing the death of a child, and manslaughter—as well as indecent assault, which has been used to prosecute historical child sex abuse. This means hundreds more dangerous criminals staying behind bars for longer, including those who killed PC Andrew Harper in the line of duty. It is the right thing to do, and I pay tribute to his wife Lissie and his mother Debbie, who campaigned for this. We would like to have gone further, but we were unable to do so due to the lack of investment by the previous Government over 14 years. I want to reassure the House that victims in the victim contact scheme are being kept informed by dedicated victim liaison officers. We are rightly giving victims the opportunity to have their say on licence conditions for offenders in their case, and I have instructed my officials to attempt to trace all affected victims for whom we do not have the details. On top of that, we are boosting victim support with a £18.9 million funding package, including a dedicated free helpline offering emotional support for anyone affected, and specialist support for victims of violence against women and girls. I have asked the Prisons Minister to work with victims groups to shape our response, because victims must come first. The Prime Minister and I have pushed the system to its limits. At the same time, my duty is to ensure that we always have the space to lock up offenders. Today I can announce a fast-tracked plan to create more headroom in our prison system by bringing forward more than £110 million of funding. We have identified where we can accelerate the delivery of more places, including by converting space within prisons into cells, and we are pushing to deliver current building plans more quickly. We will also invest in new land for prisons and build a credible pipeline of new sites to enable more prison building, because my top priority is to build a long-term, sustainable future for our prison estate. We are also freeing up space in the shorter term. There are thousands of foreign national offenders in our prisons, at vast expense to taxpayers. We have increased removals by 41% compared with the last two years of the previous Tory Government, and we have changed the law to expand the early removal scheme. Now we will go further. Next year we will begin removing foreign national offenders serving determinate sentences immediately after sentencing, but I want to reassure the House that the most dangerous offenders, such as those already excluded from the Sentencing Act changes, will still be required to serve prison time before being deported. I want to be clear that all removed offenders will be barred from returning to the UK for life, because deportation is the anchor of that punishment. If you break our laws and abuse Britain’s hospitality, we will permanently remove you. We will also act on a long-standing injustice. More than 2,000 people are still trapped by indeterminate imprisonment for public protection, or IPP, sentences. They were rightly abolished a decade ago, but offenders are still locked up for far longer than envisaged, often for crimes that, if committed today, would see them spend much less time in jail. Of those who have never been released, 99% are beyond the tariff imposed by the court, and 80% have served 10 years or more beyond it. Tragically, with no end of their sentence in sight, some IPP prisoners have taken their own lives. Concerns about IPPs have been raised across the political spectrum, including by the former Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk, who called them “a stain” on our justice system. The number of IPP offenders has been reducing, but the Prime Minister and I want to go further. We will soon bring forward legislation to end the sentence, once and for all, by the end of this Parliament. These are complex cases, and some of these offenders have committed serious crimes. Public safety will always be my top priority, but we must balance that with fairness on sentences. It will take time to get this right, but the work will begin immediately, and I offer Members of all parties and none in this place the opportunity to work together on a cross-party basis. I will listen to experts inside and outside this House, including the former Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland, and the former Home Secretary, David Blunkett. They are committed advocates of IPP reform, whom I thank for agreeing to work with me. In the meantime, we will do everything within the existing framework to support those in prison to move towards a safe and sustainable release. I also intend to look at how we can improve outcomes for offenders with complex needs. Women in prison often have high levels of trauma, abuse, mental ill-health and addiction. Many are mothers and their children can be affected profoundly by them being in prison, so I want to reduce the number of women in custody where it is safe to do so, alongside a cross-Government agenda to address the drivers of women’s offending. For youth offenders, I am announcing £4.5 million of investment for robust community alternatives to locking children up in expensive, ineffective and unsuitable prisons. To help solve the crisis in adult prisons, I have decided to temporarily hold some 18-year-olds in our youth estate for longer. My job is to balance the sustainability of our prisons with public protection, the rights of victims and public confidence in the justice system. The decisions that the Prime Minister and I have had to take are difficult ones. We would like to have gone further, but the Government inherited a system on the brink of failure. I am clear that there must always be space for dangerous offenders, because protecting the public means fixing prisons for good. Otherwise, it is victims who are let down. We will never let that happen. This Government will run towards problems, including the tough decisions needed to build a justice system that is firm, fair and that protects the public. Those aims will guide me as I tackle its challenges, reform it for a sustainable future and ensure it commands the confidence of the British public. I commend this statement to the House.
I am grateful for the shadow Secretary of State’s kind words of welcome. I do not know him well, but I know that he, like me, shares a love for this country and that everything he does is seen through that prism. My commitment to him is to work with him. There will be times, perhaps even including today, when we will need to disagree in the best traditions of this place, but I know there will be a lot that brings us together over the months and hopefully years to come. On plans and changed plans, I make no apology—certainly not to the Opposition—for being able to grab hold of a system that, when we left here in July, was not going to exclude rape offences, child sex offences and those who have taken lives. We have now done that, which is good. I recognise that it has created uncertainty and I apologise to victims, but I hope they understand that it was done with noble purpose. We must now use the time available to make sure that victims get the right support, particularly when it comes to shaping restrictions on offenders if they do come out. The hon. Gentleman mentions plans. The reality is that if we followed his plan, we would have a prison system that would be bust before Christmas. What would that mean for justice in this country? How could that be right? He jumps on the phrase “business as usual”. The point I am trying to make is that this Parliament has changed legislation. The Sentencing Act is the basis on which standard determinate sentences will be governed, and that will be the case for the foreseeable future. Linked to that, he talks about how the changes will come into force. That will be done via varying the commencement order. He talks about home detention. I can say that I have no intention of going any further. The work we have put in as a result of the Sentencing Act is our way of managing the pressure in the system. On capacity, the hon. Gentleman asks for clarity. Well, I can provide a little bit of clarity: we should be clear that we have added 374 places in the adult male estate since the general election. Now, that is nowhere near where we want to get to as the end state—that is why our building programme has 14,000 places in it—but I would hope that wanting to do more is a point of shared interest. Of course, things do come in and out of the estate, including because of fire damage; I would not underestimate the importance of contamination either. Nevertheless, there will of course be significant places added in this Parliament and in our programme to 2031. The hon. Gentleman also asks about the chance to scrutinise the data. He will know that, under the Sentencing Act, we are committed to publishing an annual report. That is what we will do, and I am sure that he and I will get into it at that point. On foreign national offenders, if the hon. Gentleman has doubts, I will state my record to him and to the House. We have increased by 41% the removal of foreign offenders in this country. I gently say that that was my role in the Home Office, so he should not doubt my vigour. He mentions changes to article 3. He will know about the important work done on that at the Council of Europe. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), has done a lot of important work in that space. Similarly, our work on article 8 is important and I hope the hon. Gentleman will support that when it comes before Parliament. He should not doubt our vigour; as I say, we are already doing well better than his predecessors—they are sat next to him, so he can talk to them about that—and we will go further. Let me finish on the IPP point, because I am really interested to see how it does and does not hold. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a champion of individual liberty and a sceptic of what he thinks is uneven justice. If I am able to make this acknowledgment, I hope he will at least reflect on it: there is a real dissatisfaction, as a result of the changes we have had to make, that some people will leave prison earlier than their sentence dictated, and that in many cases there will be people who are still there 10 years after. There is no easy solution to that. All I ask of him is to engage in a process to bring that to its resolution.
I agree wholeheartedly with the value my right hon. Friend places on the important work of our prison officers and our probation officers. She is exactly right that what surely binds all of us is that we want to reduce reoffending. What I have presented to Parliament today is a measure to get us through a crisis, but we know that we have to build a new criminal justice system. That can be done from this Dispatch Box, but it also has to be done much more widely, including through work with our prison officers, our Probation Service, the police and our communities in order to reduce reoffending, which is what we all want.
I am grateful for the Liberal Democrat spokesperson’s contribution. As I hope she heard me say, I do accept that the impact of our taking the summer to carve more offences out of this regime in a way that is safe and means we have a resilient prison estate has had an impact on victims and survivors and on their families, as they wait with uncertainty. I hope that is not unforgivable, in the sense that I hope it is understood that our aims were noble ones and have allowed us to go further—I think all Members would say that was a good thing. My mitigation and attempt to balance the situation is in what we do now. I am making a commitment from this Dispatch Box about the quality of engagement with victims and survivors. Everyone is being written to immediately to have a contact sent to them—trauma-informed engagement. This will introduce a conversation with a victim liaison officer specific to them and specific to the information about their offender’s release date and whether it is changing, and will help them to tailor the controls on their perpetrator so they can live the fullest possible life. On probation and capacity, I pay tribute to my predecessors as Lord Chancellor for the work that has been done to recruit more staff. That is not at its end state, but the £700 million investment is nevertheless starting to bear fruit. I think that gives us optimism for probation, but I am aware that there are still challenges. I have met staff and will continue to engage, and we of course want to avert strike action, as the hon. Member says. The hon. Member’s point on the national Criminal Justice Board speaks a little bit to the point I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott): I want to reinvigorate it as a place that takes real ownership of a reform of our criminal justice system. I think we would all accept that our criminal justice system is not delivering, and we are paying a lot for failure as well. I have not had very long in my role, as I hope the hon. Member would accept, but I certainly look forward to meeting the board. On convening Cobra, I have to say that it is not in my gift, but it is in the Prime Minister’s. However, the changes we have made are exactly to avert the scenario of getting to such a crisis. In the spirit of what the hon. Member says, I am conscious of the pressures we have put on over the summer—they have been for good aims—but now we need to build a much better system.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her very direct campaigning to me over the summer about her and her community’s expectations. I join her in what she said about PC Andrew Harper: he was the very best of us. I really respect both Lissie Harper and Debbie Adlam for never having asked for special treatment. However, I think it is reflected in the actions of this Parliament—we changed the law subsequently—that we do think it is different when our emergency service workers are killed in the line of duty. It is right that we did that did that, but it did create an inequity, and it is right that we have corrected it. Again, I have apologised to both of them about the time it took to do so, but I am glad that we have been able to do it. On my hon. Friend’s final point, what I want to do for our brave police up and down the country is to have a system that is not running as hot as this, so they are not having to chase around all those symptoms of failure. That is a long-term piece of work, but it is one that starts immediately, and my commitment to them is to have them in the room during the process.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. It is part of the conversations that victim liaison officers are having, so that every victim and survivor is able to shape the support around them to make sure that they are feeling safe and secure.