5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Members who have participated in the debate should be making their way back to the Chamber, because the Minister will be on her feet shortly. I expect those on the Front Benches will be communicating that message to their Back Benchers.
That was very brief indeed, when the hon. Member had such a huge amount of time. I call the Minister.
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 20, page 34, line 27, at end insert “or (iii) a retired holder of such a rank.” This amendment would add retired officers to those qualified for membership of the Court Martial.
I again place on record our thanks to you, Mr Efford, and to our excellent Clerks and the team who organised a very good visit down to Portsmouth, where I think we learned a lot about the operation of the service courts in practice—I certainly did. A number of issues were raised in that discussion, not least about the operation of juries in courts martial, and who serves on those jury panels, how they are selected and why. I will give two or three examples of the issues that came from that and then talk to the amendment. The current practice, when an officer is being tried for an offence, is that only officers may serve on a jury panel in a court martial. Some people raised questions with the briefers that day about why that should be, and it is an interesting issue. The book answer from the Department was that officers should be tried by a jury of their peers, and therefore it should be other officers who serve on that panel. There is an issue that follows from that about the rank of the officer being tried and the rank of the officers that then serve on the panel. We learned about a practical constraint, which is that if a relatively senior officer is being tried, let us say a colonel or above—to take an Army example—there is only a relatively small pool of people who could be trawled to sit on that panel to pass judgment on that officer. In the civilian world, we would not have a system where, if a professor were being tried, only graduates could sit on the panel. The civilian system is that people are chosen entirely at random from the electoral roll and are asked to do jury service, which they are mandated to do, with certain exceptions set out in statute. In the civilian world, people are not tried by people of—how can I put it?—an equivalent educational or social status. As the saying used to be, it is a jury of 12 good men and true; now it is, rightly, a jury of good men and women and true who assess someone’s guilt or innocence. In the military, we still carry out the process in this ranked, structured way. Let us say that we had a lance corporal who was being tried for being drunk and disorderly—perhaps he had got into a bar brawl after the end of an exercise; he had gone out at the weekend, had let off a bit of steam and this had led to him allegedly committing an offence. At present, as I understand it, only senior non-commissioned officers of the rank of the equivalent of colour sergeant or above could pass judgment on that lance corporal. That raises an interesting question: why should another corporal or lance corporal, who likes a night out on a Friday as well, not be allowed to serve on that panel? Why does it have to be a colour sergeant or equivalent? Forgive me, Mr Efford, I am using Army ranks because that is what I am most familiar with from my service, but the point holds good across all the services. Why should only a colour sergeant or above be allowed to pass verdict on a lance corporal or even a private soldier? A number of such issues cropped up from our visit. Also, as in the old saying that the Minister reminded me of, time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted. This was a good example of that practice. The amendment was drafted specifically to address one of those issues—the potential shortage of officers to serve on court martial panels, especially if a relatively senior officer is being tried, when by definition the pool of available serving officers to serve on a panel is limited. We have tried to come up with a practical suggestion, which is to use retired officers of equivalent rank. I am also interested to hear what other members of the Committee think of the wider issue, which is, does this have to be as hide-bound by rank as it is at the moment? I am interested in the Minister’s view as well, not least because he has been a commanding officer. If we are to keep the system in essence as we have it at the moment, however, would it not make sense to be able to draw on a pool of retired officers of the required rank, who might have a little more time on their hands? We would not be taking anyone away from ongoing operations, and we could take time from their lives in order for them to continue to serve in a military context in the important task of administering service justice. That, in essence, is the intention of the amendment, but we also tabled it to provoke, I hope, a wider debate—I am looking at one or two Labour Back Benchers in particular, because they were vocal about this when we were in Portsmouth, so now is their chance—about why we do things in the way that we do them, and whether there is some potential for change, but if not, why not? I hope that I have laid out the issue fairly clearly for the Committee.
In my experience, retired officers, particularly retired senior officers, are keenly aware of their pension entitlements. If we are paying them a pension through the armed forces pension scheme, we presumably know who they are and where they live. Via that database, it would not be particularly onerous to come up with a list of retired senior officers who could at least be invited. We are not suggesting that this should be mandatory, but we are suggesting that they may want the opportunity to serve. Via their pensions, we know where they are.
This is not a criticism of the Minister, because no doubt he had other important things to do, but he was not on that visit, as I recall. As Her late Majesty once said, recollections may vary, but this was a point raised with us by the people presenting to us on the operation of the system. We did not invent it. They made the point quite strongly that, for instance, if people had been on staff courses together—let us say that they had done the Royal College of Defence Studies course for a year together—that would sometimes rule them out. I must make the point to the Minister that we have not fabricated this; it is a problem that was raised with us by the experts who actually deal with the process day to day.
I do not think we need to have a debate on clause 20 stand part because we had a pretty thorough debate on the amendment, which covered most of the issues. I will seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment, but I would like to put down the marker that we have had an interesting debate and we might wish to return to this subject on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 21 Power to impose post-charge conditions on persons not in service detention Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
As the title of clause 30 is “Commissioner’s functions in relation to Royal Fleet Auxiliary”, I will ask the Minister something about the commissioner and then something about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. It would appear that, after some time, the Government have now announced someone to fill the position of commissioner. I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that. There are reports in the media that the appointment has been made, but I hope the Minister will put that firmly on the record and say a bit about the individual and how they came to be selected. What was the process by which they got that important job? Has the Defence Committee been involved in the appointment in any way?
Thank you, Mr Efford. I just wanted to know who got the job. Turning to the RFA, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth for what she has done to raise the profile of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The issue is clearly extremely close to her heart. I believe that she was trying to advance a private Member’s Bill, having done well in the ballot, but there has been a slight problem with that, because—almost exceptionally, other than during covid—the Government’s business managers have hardly provided any time at all in this Session for private Members’ Bills. All those Members who had Bills that were important to them never really got a chance to make their case, so it is good that she has had the opportunity to put something on the record today. The commissioner has important powers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East said, and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary has a very important role. From memory, it was created in 1905. The Minister, from his time as the chief of staff of the carrier group, knows how important it is. Technically, its personnel are not members of the armed forces, but members of the merchant navy. However, it is fair to say that the Royal Navy could not operate without them, as was well said by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth, who understands these matters. The RFA has a slightly unusual constitutional position, but is a vital part of Britain’s defence none the less. Indeed, a few days ago, a number of Russian shadow fleet tankers were shadowed through the English channel by the RFA Tidespring, because no escort was operationally available. That is pretty embarrassing for the Government, when the Prime Minister has talked so tough about boarding shadow fleet tankers but has boarded precisely none of them. We touched on that point in the Chamber yesterday. Perhaps the Minister can update us. Why we did not have a warship available to undertake the task, when the Russians had a warship to escort their own shadow fleet? The middle of the channel is international waters. Where are we on all this?
Yes, Mr Efford. I will conclude there. I just wanted to know why the RFA is doing a job that the Royal Navy is supposed to do. After our debate yesterday, perhaps the Minister will enlighten the Committee.
For the record, whatever we did or did not do in Government, we did not bring in the £2.6 billion of operational spending cuts in the financial year just gone. That is why our availability is so poor, and that was a purely Labour decision, was it not?
In rural areas, farmers are often blighted, and end up landed with the costs of significant, often industrial and criminal fly-tipping. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is deeply unfair, and that the Government should accept the amendments, which would help take the burden away from the victims of these crimes?
I thank the Minister for his statement and for providing an advance copy. We naturally welcome the progress reported today. The fact that 3,273 people have received offers totalling more than £2 billion is a significant milestone in a decades-long struggle for justice. I thank the Infected Blood Compensation Authority for its work to speed up the payments. As Baroness Finn said in the other place, “what we call the scandal was, in truth, the infliction, collectively, of grievous harm upon thousands of people by the state.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 2025; Vol. 849, c. 1821.] Nowhere was that more egregious or more shocking than in those cases where victims were infected as a result of deliberate experimentation in the name of science. We therefore commend the Minister for the specific increases to the unethical research awards, and in particular the uplift to £60,000 for the survivors of Treloar’s school and the expansion of the scheme to include those treated as adults. Those are necessary recognitions of a truly outrageous chapter of the scandal. However, while the Minister spoke of tangible, systemic change, many victims and their families will be looking at the fine print with a degree of trepidation. I therefore have a number of questions regarding the delivery and scope of these announcements. The Minister noted that further legislation will be required later this year to enact these substantial changes. Given that the infected blood inquiry’s additional report was published back in July last year, will he reassure the House that the legislative timetable will not lead to further agonising delays for those in declining health? Will the first quarterly feedback summaries, which he has promised will come in July, provide a hard deadline for when those new level 2B severity awards and backdated supply chain management payments will actually reach bank accounts? If not, does he have an expectation of when those payments will be made? I think the Minister mentioned increased core injury awards for bereaved parents whose children died before the age of 18. Can he provide greater clarity on the justification for excluding parents whose children were infected when they were young children but turned 18 before the time of their death? Regarding the 50% increase to the core autonomy award for those infected at age 18 or under, will he confirm that that will also apply to those infected through their mothers in utero? The Government rightly aim to minimise the administrative burden and the demand for evidence. We welcome the £60,000 lump sum for those with clear potential to earn but who lack evidence of earnings, but how will the Infected Blood Compensation Authority define “clear potential” without falling back into the lengthy, individualised assessments that the Minister says he wants to avoid? Finally on the compensation scheme, the Minister announced that for past financial loss, the Government will use whichever calculation is “most financially beneficial” for the recipient. We welcome that pragmatic step, but can he clarify whether the removal of the 25% deduction for past care will be applied automatically to all existing offers, or will those people who have already received offers need to reapply to have their awards adjusted? As the Minister said, the compensation scheme must “embody their stories”. Justice delayed is justice denied, and we must ensure that the new supplementary awards do not become a secondary bureaucratic hurdle for a community that has already given so much testimony and waited so long. Before I close, I turn to a matter that seems to be missing from the Minister’s statement: the inquiry. When he last updated the House before Christmas, I raised the need to “move from a period of review to one of rectification and delivery.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2025; Vol. 774, c. 516.] I also asked him how and when the inquiry might be drawn to a close so there could be a degree of policy certainty. I did not hear him refer to that in his statement, so will he confirm that, with the implementation of the key recommendations from the additional report and Sir Brian’s letters, the public inquiry has now drawn to a close? Once again, I thank Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their diligent and comprehensive work over the past eight years to help deliver some justice after decades of scandal and suffering. Most of all, I again pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of the many victims and their families who were infected or affected by the infected blood scandal. They have suffered for far too long in ways that we can barely begin to imagine, and no compensation scheme can ever reverse the horrific harms needlessly done to them. I hope, however, that the universal acceptance of the conclusion of the reports and the determination of us all to do what we can to make changes that will stop others suffering in future will bring them some comfort.
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Halving knife crime is a measure that every Member of this House would subscribe to. It is a devastating crime with devastating consequences. Only yesterday, this House discussed the tragic events in Southport and the impact they can have on a community. Those events are, unfortunately, representative of a much broader problem, whereby too many people view it as appropriate to carry and use a knife criminally. That is horrific and must be stopped. We owe it to the country, and particularly those in communities affected by knife crime, to take knives off our streets and prosecute those who believe that using weapons is acceptable. Unfortunately, since the election, knife-enabled crime recorded by the police has increased. In addition, we must acknowledge that, based on the data up to September 2025, 30% of all knife offences took place in London, despite London making up only 15% of the population. We need proposals that recognise the geographical nature of this crime, with so much of it occurring in particular areas. As such, it is welcome to see that the Government’s plan includes the knife crime concentrations fund, to support surges in policing where knife crime is most prevalent. However, I am afraid that the Labour Government’s proposals will not be sufficient without two critical foundations: powers for officers to stop and search individuals, and sufficient officer numbers to put this strategy into effect. The hotspot policing outlined by the Government must be used in conjunction with effective stop and search, which the Government’s strategy acknowledges is broadly supported by the public. That is why we have set out plans to triple the use of stop and search and to use section 60 suspicionless stop and search in high-crime areas. That should be supported by changes so that a single suspicion indicator is enough to merit a stop and search. That would be supported by 10,000 new officers. In contrast, the Government have presided over a decrease in officer numbers, with 1,300 fewer officers during their time in power, with particularly steep falls in the Metropolitan police, who cover the area where this crime is most prevalent. In the Government’s plan, they talk about the need for officers, but that is not reflected in the overall figures, as police forces across the country highlighted during discussions on police funding. If we want to see the police help achieve these reductions and the Government meet their targets, there cannot be fewer officers. In addition, under the Sentencing Act 2026, many of those convicted of knife crime will be eligible for release earlier than under previous rules. The strategy covers many important areas, but there are few references to sentencing perpetrators of knife crime for longer. It is pitiful that those convicted of knife crime offences who would previously have gone to prison could now avoid it. That is unsurprising, as it took extensive effort from Opposition Members and those in the other place to increase knife crime sentences in the Crime and Policing Bill. The Labour party repeatedly speaks strongly, but it fails to back this up with the necessary custodial sentences. The Government’s statement today and their strategy set out a number of important proposals and rightly recognise the importance of education and culture, building on work conducted by the previous Government on violence reduction units and the county lines programme. However, that must be supported by stronger enforcement, ensuring that those who commit these crimes are imprisoned with appropriate custodial sentences. Knife crime is truly horrific, and we owe it to everyone to give the police every power necessary to investigate and seize these weapons. I worry that without stronger enforcement, this plan will not be the significant moment the Government believe it will be.
I thank colleagues in the other place for the work that they have done on strengthening this Bill. The changes made there go some way towards what we should all be aiming for: safer communities, stronger laws and real protections for the public. In Committee, we saw the Government repeatedly reject important amendments from Opposition Members, on fly-tipping, pornography and increasing sentences for knife crime. The Bill could also have provided a real opportunity to tackle the scourge of off-road bikes, to support this country’s tradesmen with real action on tool theft, and to remove yet more knives from our streets by increasing stop and search. Although the Government failed to take up some of those opportunities, I am delighted to see that they have U-turned on some of the measures that Labour MPs previously voted against. That might be a familiar pattern, but it is still right to welcome the fact that they have recognised the value of some of those proposals. On fly-tipping, for example, giving courts the power to issue penalty points to offenders is a straightforward, common-sense step. If someone uses a vehicle to dump waste and blight our communities, it is entirely right that their ability to drive should be affected. Likewise, even though I would have liked the Government to accept the more significant penalty proposed in Lords amendment 15, it is a welcome step that they have recognised the seriousness of the crime when there is an additional element of intent to use unlawful violence, which rightly should have a greater penalty when compared with possession-only offences. It is right that these measures have progressed, even though a great deal of unfortunate wrangling and rejection occurred before they were incorporated into the Bill. On that note, I will turn to the proposals that the Government have chosen not to accept from our colleagues across the way. I ask Members of this House to give serious consideration to measures that enhance the powers of the police forces and improve their ability to keep our communities safe. For instance, as I have mentioned, Members do not need to be reminded of the scourge of fly-tipping, as we all recognise the adverse impact it can have on our neighbourhoods. On Sunday I saw an appalling incident in my constituency. A huge volume of waste had been dumped near Sadberge, with appalling consequences for our environment, for wildlife and for anybody who wants to enjoy the countryside. Amendment 6 would ensure that the guidance issued on the enforcement of offences under section 33 makes it clear that, when a person is convicted of a relevant offence, they will be liable for the costs incurred through loss or damage resulting from that offence. As the Government are already setting out guidance in the legislation, why would they not ensure that this guidance was unequivocal that when a person is convicted of fly-tipping, they—not the victims—are responsible for the costs incurred as a result of their offence? Furthermore, amendment 11 would further enable the police to seize vehicles.
I could not agree more. We see a selfish and mindless small minority of people who incur huge costs that fall on taxpayers across the country and do huge damage to our communities. It is right that the sanctions should match that. On an issue where there is universal acceptance of the need to do more, we should ensure that there are no unnecessary restrictions on our authorities in cracking down on these offences.
I share my right hon. Friend’s concerns—I think many people across the country share them—not only about the issue, however strongly people might feel about it, but about the way that it was added to this Bill after Committee stage, meaning that some of the scrutiny that might otherwise have happened did not, and no evidence on it was given at the evidence sessions. It was slipped into the Bill, and I do not think that there was adequate scrutiny of it. Lots of people across the country share that concern. Such a seismic change in the relationship between the state and individuals should have had more scrutiny in this place. On fly-tipping, I believe that removing the instrument of this crime is an effective tool, and it could extend beyond the legislative framework set out by the Government in the waste crime action plan. However, the measures brought forward in the other place are not limited merely to the issue of fly-tipping. There are important proposals relating to non-crime hate incidents. In Lords amendment 334, colleagues in the other place wisely took the step of ending the investigation and recording of non-crime hate incidents and ensuring that any future incident recording guidance has “due regard to the right to freedom of expression.” That is a sensible, necessary measure, as the Government’s proposal appears to be a rebranding of the existing scheme with a more restrictive triage system. Reports would still be logged, personal data would still be recorded and disclosure rules would remain unchanged. Officers and staff would still be tied up monitoring incidents that do not meet the criminal threshold at a cost of time and resources. As Lord Hogan-Howe told the Lords, “we need to move on from the recording of non-crime hate incidents by removing them altogether from police systems.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2026; Vol. 852, c. 173.] I am afraid that unless we agree to the amendment, we risk returning to this issue in the future. It is estimated that 660 hours of police time have been spent on non-crime hate incidents. We can change that and see that time invested back into policing our communities. On antisocial behaviour and illicit retailers, we hear repeatedly from businesses and local communities about rogue premises causing persistent problems on our high streets. If we are serious about supporting the police to do their job, we must ensure that they have the powers they need to tackle not just crime but the wider public nuisance and disorder that too often accompany it. A range of organisations, including the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, have been clear that stronger powers are needed to deal with rogue retailers. While the current legal framework does provide tools, in practice they are too often insufficient. The time limits attached to closure notices and orders simply do not go far enough. Instead, we see a revolving door: offenders wait out short closure periods, reopen under a different name and continue their activities, sometimes shifting location before enforcement agencies have the chance to complete proper investigations. That is the crux of the problem: the system does not enable action that sticks. In the meantime, the impact is clear. Our high streets suffer as legitimate businesses lose trade, confidence declines, and responsible retailers who follow the rules and invest in their communities are left competing against those who operate with impunity. There is also a wider impact on our communities, particularly on young people. Premises linked to that kind of activity can become focal points for antisocial behaviour, drawing in vulnerable individuals and exposing them to harm. If we want safer streets and stronger communities, we cannot allow that cycle to continue. Lords amendment 333 offers a practical solution: it would extend the timeframe for enforcement, giving agencies the ability to take action that is thorough, proportionate and, crucially, effective. It is about ensuring that when action is taken, it delivers real results, not just temporary disruption. To uphold public safety, we must update the law to reflect the current nature of the crimes our society faces. Lords amendment 311 reflects the worrying growth in the number of protest groups that engage in serious criminal activity to further their aims. However, being organisations, they are often shielded from the full force of the law, as was set out in the other House. The designation in the amendment is not terrorist proscription. It aims to restrict membership, promotion, fundraising, organising and material support, with proportionate penalties that are less significant than those that proscribed terrorist groups attract. Although I understand that the Government believe the proposal to be premature given their ongoing review, they have acted for understandable reasons on cumulative disruption. Why should that not be extended to this provision to ensure that there are restrictions on organisations whose purpose is to break the law? On extreme ideologies, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary have been clear that the Conservative party would work with the Government to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It is apparent to many Members across the House, and to our counterparts in the EU, that the threat posed by the IRGC is real. However, despite their comments in opposition, the Government have not introduced such measures.
The then Opposition told us that they had really strong views about it. They are now in government but are not doing anything about it. The hon. Gentleman need not worry about another day or another week; he has the opportunity today to set the process in motion by voting for Lords amendment 359. It is not enough that Iran is covered by the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme—we must go further. The IRGC is not a theoretical concern. As my colleagues have repeatedly stressed to the Government, it has threatened those in our country and supported armed groups that have killed British and allied troops. We welcome the Government’s adoption of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) to address the depiction of strangulation in pornography. I understand that, through discussions with Baroness Bertin on related subjects, the Government have undertaken to separately progress further measures to tackle pornography featuring 18-plus step-incest—in which one party is the family member of another—and the mimicking of children aged 16-plus, as well as on age verification in pornography. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified those matters further. I put on record my party’s opposition to Lords amendment 301, which unnecessarily expands the definition of “aggravated offences” to include certain characteristics, even though existing law already covers most of those factors at sentencing, and provides extensive hate crime protections. The change has been introduced late in the legislative process, with minimal scrutiny, raising concerns about transparency. The Law Commission has warned in expert advice that including sex as a protected characteristic in that setting could be ineffective and even counterproductive, as it may complicate prosecutions and create hierarchies of victims. Overall, the amendment appears more symbolic than practical, adding complexity without clear benefit to crime reduction. The Government have before them amendments that would strengthen our legal system and better protect the public and the police, but we cannot ignore the reality on the ground. Officer numbers have fallen while demand continues to rise, and the Bill will add to that pressure. That is why it matters that, when the police act, they can use the full weight of the law. Without the right powers, higher expectations mean little. Where disorder takes hold, it damages communities and undermines confidence, as we have seen in places like Clapham common. While parts of the Bill are welcome, there are still gaps. The Lords amendments to which I have spoken would strengthen enforcement and support officers. If we are serious about safer streets, removing them risks falling short of what the public expect.
Does the hon. Lady agree that any such consultation should include closure notices, as well as closure orders?
The Chartered Trading Standards Institute and many of the agencies responsible for dealing with this issue talk about the need to extend—or potentially extend, depending on how tonight goes—not only orders, but notices. That is the 48-hour window, or seven days if we go with this amendment, so that papers can be put in place and the dodgy shops, as the Minister put it, do not have the ability to reopen before the order can be put in place. This does not seem to appear in the amendment in lieu. Will she be looking at notices, as well as orders?
The alternative Lords amendment—the pushback from the Lords—relates to notices and orders. The reason there is a problem with the 72 hours for notices is that, because of court sittings and how that all falls, we end up not getting the order in place, and these shops, which the agencies have jumped through the hoops to close down, get to reopen. I do not think the Chartered Trading Standards Institute or many of the agencies dealing with that would agree with the 72 hours. I ask the Minister to go further still and to perhaps look at the seven days being put forward by the Lords.
Can the Minister tell me why the Government are opposing the Lords amendment that would allow police officers to seize the vehicles of the vile criminals who fly-tip in communities across the country?
Thank you, Sir Roger, for chairing the debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on bringing this incredibly important subject up for discussion. At the heart of the debate are individual people—people who have lost their businesses, their livelihoods and, in some cases, their health and, indeed, their lives. Let me be crystal clear: where there has been malpractice, those affected should and must be supported and compensated. Every stakeholder in this issue, from the banks to the business owners—certainly the business owners—should agree with that. I have a certain amount of experience of this. I was a member of the Treasury Committee from 2010 to 2016 and a member of the parliamentary commission on banking standards. We looked at the Financial Services Act 2012, which created the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to replace the previous regulator, the Financial Services Authority, which had been an abject failure. The FSA was created under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which started the tripartite regime that singularly failed our economy and resulted in the financial crisis in 2008. There is absolutely no question but that what we saw prior to the financial crisis, when we had that credit bubble, were some very bad practices. We looked into this again on the parliamentary commission on banking standards. The legislation that came out of that, the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, was originally started due to the LIBOR scandal. None the less, we looked into the fundamental malpractices going on in banks, and what we saw, absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt, was a mismatch in the balance of interests between shareholders, customers and staff that was massively in the favour of staff. That is what we found, and that fundamental malpractice by the financial services system is what those two Acts of Parliament were designed to resolve. What we are looking at today is three important areas: those who were sold interest rate hedging products, which most of this debate has been about; those who were placed into RBS’s global restructuring group; and those who were on fixed-rate loans in Northern Ireland. I want briefly to go through each. On the hedging products, it was common practice back in the 2000s for businesses to be sold variable rate loans, as well as interest rate hedging products, which were known as collars and caps. In principle, they are not inherently bad products in themselves, as they offered the borrower greater flexibility. If people are borrowing money at 6% and are capped at 8%, but the quid pro quo is that they are collared at 4%, that actually works for them, because it protects them from a spike in interest rates. Of course, the problem was that we did not see a spike in interest rates; rather, we saw a massive collapse of interest rates during the financial crisis. Interest rates dropped from 575 basis points in 2007 to just 50 basis points in 2009, and that is where borrowers were left out. Of course, we have also seen mismanagement of Government—I am the first to admit that, under Liz Truss’s Government, we saw interest rates spike at 15%. Collar and cap arrangements would have protected borrowers from that, so there is a benefit to them. However, I completely understand that we are looking here at where there has been malpractice behind these contracts. It is incredibly important, though, to look at the problem with the Financial Services Authority, the precursor of the Financial Conduct Authority, which identified that lenders failed to ascertain borrowers’ understanding of risk. That is why it was right that the nine banks involved compensated customers to the tune of £2.2 billion. I appreciate that we are talking about those who were not compensated, but there was a recognition that there was a problem. On the global restructuring group, the Financial Conduct Authority identified a number of clear failings in customer service and poor interactions. I understand that NatWest bank has accepted that the conduct fell far below the standards expected and has paid out something in the region of £100 million in compensation. In the grand scheme of things, that is not a huge amount of money; none the less, it has accepted that. However, it seems from the results of the regulatory reviews by the FCA, as well as the judicial proceedings, that it has not properly compensated people. I should also point out that banks did a great deal to support businesses around the time of the financial crisis. That might sound counterintuitive to hon. Members, but one of the great discussions we had on the Treasury Committee was about the surprisingly small number of businesses that had gone bust. There was an argument at the time that banks were artificially supporting businesses while they had bad cash flow and damaged balance sheets, and that forcing companies into liquidation would crystallise the deficit of the loan on to the banks’ balance sheets. There was an argument that they were doing the wrong thing by keeping alive what were then referred to as zombie businesses. This whole issue was incredibly complicated after the financial crisis, and there was an awful lot going on in various different parts of all this. I want finally to turn to the fixed-rate loans, which are mostly the ones used by Ulster Bank in Northern Ireland, which again is a subsidiary of NatWest. The allegation is that the banks took out their own interest rate swaps, booking them in customers’ names and adding a related credit bump. That is a serious allegation, suggesting that the bank staff recorded up-front profits for those swaps and earned personal commissions. The FCA was absolutely right to investigate it, but following its investigation, it said: “We have seen no evidence that would lead us to conclude that further supervisory work and/or intervention with Ulster Bank/NatWest was required.” I recognise that many will disagree with that conclusion, but even so, it cannot be argued that the FCA did not look into it. This comes down to what we want the FCA to achieve. The hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) said that the FCA is not accountable, but actually, it is accountable to Parliament through the Treasury Committee, and it is the job of Members on the Committee to ensure that the FCA does the job that we want it to. When we created the FCA in 2012, the idea was that there would be greater focus on consumer protection. The Financial Services Authority was set up to do the prudential regulation and the conduct regulation. The FCA was set up purely to do the financial conduct regulation, which is looking at how people are looked after. The Prudential Regulation Authority was then set up to do the nuts and bolts of the financial system—to make sure that we did not see a failing in the banking system rather like we had during the great financial crisis. I recognise that many colleagues will feel that process has not happened, particularly in the case we are talking about, but we have to accept that the FCA is an independent body. As I say, it is accountable to Parliament through the Treasury Committee, but it is an independent body. In a similar debate in 2018, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), when he was Economic Secretary to the Treasury, said: “We can set the law, but we then must be bound by it and respect the judgment and independence of the FCA.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 1127.] To the extent of the law we created, he is absolutely right. In the same way that we respect the judgment of the Supreme Court, even if we disagree with it, we should respect the judgments of the Financial Conduct Authority. It is up to the Minister to come up with a solution, but does she agree with that, or has the FCA got this fundamentally wrong? If so, what line will the Government take? Will they deliver the judge-led judicial review that people are looking for? I hope she will be able to answer that. In closing, I want to return to those who have been affected. SMEs make up 99% of all businesses in the UK, so it is not an exaggeration that they are the lifeblood of our economy. When they succeed, we all benefit. They need confidence that institutions and financial services are backing them and are there to serve them and to make their businesses work. This issue has damaged that trust, and many have experienced painful losses. We need to rebuild that trust. I am not sure whether a judge-led inquiry is the right step, but I am open to it. The decision on whether to undertake one, however, is ultimately for the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.
I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of alternatives to ground mounted solar panels. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I sensed the people coming into the Chamber in the last couple of minutes and I felt a quickening. It was like energy coming together, which is completely appropriate given what we are here to debate: alternatives to land-based solar panels. The context in which I wish to couch this debate is twofold. One aspect is local and one slightly more geostrategic. People say that in politics, where you sit defines where you stand. Hon. Members may or may not know that I am the proud Member of Parliament for Spelthorne. I sometimes feel the need to remind hon. Members that Spelthorne is not in Lincolnshire or Lancashire; it is, in fact, everything south of Heathrow airport until hon. Members get to the River Thames. When I was elected, at the last election, to be the Member for Spelthorne, I looked at a very big map of the constituency—hon. Members will be very surprised to learn that I used to be in the Army, and there used to be a very good saying in the Army: “If you don’t know what’s going on, get a bigger map”—and I identified four enormous blocks of blue. That was half of London’s drinking water in four raised reservoirs. Being a practical man, I thought to myself, “Well, there aren’t many votes in there.” I also thought to myself that we cannot really build many homes there. I did further research and it turns out that in 2016, on the Queen Elizabeth reservoir in a neighbouring constituency, a large technology demonstrator for floating solar was laid down, and ever since it has produced 6.3 MW of power—enough to power about 2,000 homes. That was at the time the largest one in Europe; back in 2016, we were leading. I looked into the situation further in order to see whether we were world-leading, but it turns out that we were not particularly, and that floating solar has been deployed to a greater extent in China, India, Vietnam and Israel. We will come in due course to the benefits of floating solar as an alternative to land-based systems. I want now to return to the more national context. Frequently, we are led to believe that alternative sources of energy can be something of a zero-sum game—when someone takes one step forward, someone else has to take one step backwards. As I am sure we will hear, in large parts of the United Kingdom there are proposed large, land-based solar farms, frequently on very good agricultural land, so the zero-sum game between food security and energy security needs unpicking.
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I hope other Members will come forward with their own preferred alternatives to land-based systems, because there are others.
As the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the shadow Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend is only too well placed to talk about that. As his Whip, I can only say that his jokes get better too.
And there we see the battle. Without wishing to get into other controversial areas, it is a little like proposals to build on green belt. If everything else were built on first and we protected the green belt, we would be a richer country.
The hon. Lady makes a really important point. One of the massive delays in deploying solar power is the requirement to achieve planning permission, and I am so pleased that she has brought that up. One of the beauties of floating solar is that if the owner of the reservoir or former quarry will use the electricity themselves, there is no requirement for planning permission. In terms of speed to deployment, return on investment and speed to profit, this is to a certain extent an answer to a maiden’s prayer. We have not yet added in the third element of this battle between food security and energy security: water security. I believe in climate change. I am more sceptical about carbon neutrality within a certain arbitrary timeline, but the fact is that evaporation is a massive issue as the world warms up. One of the stunning and much less vaunted benefits of floating solar is that it reduces evaporation by 70%. Australia is very expensively covering reservoirs in anti-evaporation covers, but those could be floating solar panels. I can sense the mood of the Chamber—hon. Members are very keen for me to list the other benefits, so I will do just that. The first, which we have talked about, is that floating solar comes with none of the opportunity costs of putting solar panels on grade A agricultural land, so we can move the debate on from whether we have to choose between energy security and food security. Secondly, because of the effect on evaporation, floating solar also moves the debate on from the need for water security and energy security. Another stunning benefit is that it is twice as efficient as land-based systems. We would need only half the amount of floating solar as we would need solar covering Lincolnshire or Suffolk agricultural land. Hon. Members who remember their O-level physics will know that the evaporative effect on the underside of the floating solar panel makes it self-cooling, whereas land-based and roof-based systems and those in railway sidings simply get hotter through the working day and become less efficient. “What about the water in these reservoirs? Surely, Lincoln, this can’t be as good as it sounds?” Well, it gets better, especially if the reservoir is to be used for drinking water further downstream. Denuded of heat and light, those things that grow in reservoirs that subsequently have to be filtered out, very expensively, by the water companies cannot grow. It is win-win-win all round. Let us leave 2016, when we were Europe’s leaders, and fast-forward to last year. If ever there was a way to motivate Members of the House of Commons, it is to suggest that the French are beating us at something. Bear in mind the 6.3 MW—enough to power 2,000 homes—on the Queen Elizabeth reservoir. Last year, a plant on a disused quarry in Perthes, France became fully operational. It generates 75 MW. I visited a former dock in Barrow-in-Furness where a 45 MW site is planned. It has to go through planning because BAE Systems will take the electricity. I would relax the permitted development right to include third-party use of the electricity, so that we can realise the benefits and improve the business case of floating solar to entertain the sort of investment it would need. I think there are 570 reservoirs in this country, and there is floating solar on one—the Queen Elizabeth. Ten further projects are planned. We also have innumerable former quarries and unused ports such as at Barrow. The opportunity is huge; we are talking terawatts. If it is realised, floating solar could generate 1% of UK baseload. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) mentioned space. Clearly, that would be phenomenal. Dare I say that it behoves the Government to look at this in a more strategic way than hitherto? They published their long-awaited solar road map. It has about 94 pages, and about half a page and a photo are dedicated to floating solar, which they describe as a “nascent” technology. I hope that I have shown that it is not nascent at all; it has been with us for quite some time. Last August I stood on top of the Golan heights, looking down towards Syria, and saw two enormous reservoirs that were almost completely covered with floating solar panels. We should look to hotter and more arid countries for our sense of where we should take our innovation and technology. My plea to the House and the Government is this: look again at the potential for floating solar. When it comes to energy security, food security and water security, it provides a non-ideological, highly practical solution—a NIHPS—without papering over the beautiful parts of England. By the way, all the reservoirs in my constituency are raised, so this solution comes with none of the visual vandalism of our country being carpeted in solar panels, to which people object so much. The tops of those reservoirs can be seen only by people taking off from or landing at Heathrow. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) is quite right: nothing is as simple or as perfect as it might first sound. I do not envy her having two grid plug-in points—she will be one of the most popular Members of Parliament going. But if we can, we must examine floating solar in greater detail, because it could, to a certain extent, produce a valuable alternative diversification of our energy supply in a world that is becoming ever more dangerous and insecure.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have made such powerful contributions. I love the image of the Minister under his bed clothes with a torch reading the Hansard report of my Adjournment debate. I can see the turning point where floating solar went from a nascent technology to one that the Minister wants to drive further and faster. He made a crucial point about how it is all very well to will the ends, but we need to will the ways and means, and not say, “Not in my back yard”. Floating solar is exactly my way of saying to the farmers in Lincolnshire and hon. Members from great agricultural land, “Yes, in my back yard. In fact, on half of London’s drinking water in the four raised reservoirs in Spelthorne, and in across other raised reservoirs across the country.” We can unpick this constant battle between food, water and energy security, and I am grateful to the House for giving me the opportunity to highlight that.
When postal voters are notified by their local authority that they are about to drop off the roll, does the Minister agree that they should not always be encouraged to do that online? Some people who have postal votes do not want to make online applications. Does she also agree that they should be sent a fresh application from the council, with a freepost envelope for its return, so that they can keep their postal votes?
The hon. Member is speaking about company donations. I am not saying I agree with this, but does she feel that the same logic should apply to trade union donations? If she feels that companies cannot donate, does she still feel that trade unions can?
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and I share her frustration. In my constituency, there is a large area of protected national landscape, the North Wessex downs national park, which is constantly under threat from these kinds of proposals. Does she share my frustration at the lack of imagination shown in the UK? The A303 and the A34 run through my constituency, and there are tens of miles of embankment that could be used for solar panels. That is the approach they take in Germany, the Netherlands and elsewhere, but we never seem to get over the imagination gap about where we could put these things—floating or whatever—that may not be quite so damaging and intrusive. She probably has parts of the M1 in her constituency, which has endless miles of embankment that could be used for solar panels that could power her constituency and mine without harming any visual amenity whatsoever.
I, too, want to recognise the Minister’s commitment to this cause, which has impacted on so many of us across the House. I have a number of technical questions. First, he says that he wants to bring legislation forward this year. As he knows, delay matters, and the estimate is that one affected person is dying every four days. Can he confirm that the legislation will happen this side of the summer? Secondly, if the legislation is required to change the claim amounts, from when will they be dated? Thirdly, can he confirm that if the small number of claims that have been concluded already were eligible for the increased awards, they could be reopened so that more money may flow to those victims?
T9. The changes that the Government made in January to prioritise British graduates for NHS training places were very welcome indeed, but the current system of random allocation demoralises and disincentivises our brightest graduates, and it causes profound uncertainty for people at the start of their career. Will the Secretary of State consider changing the process, so that those places are instead allocated on merit?
Will the Minister speak to Sadiq Khan and ask him to get a grip on the knife crime epidemic that is plaguing London? Can we increase the stop-and-search powers of the Met police so that they can actually do their job and provide the enforcement that people across London are asking for? My husband was attacked by someone with a knife while he was caring for his mother-in-law, and one of our wonderful members of staff in the Tea Room was attacked in Brixton by someone with a knife just last week. This is a problem across London. My residents want to feel safe. Will the Minister do something to stop the knife crime epidemic that is plaguing London?
Over the past 21 months, the Minister has worked tirelessly to try to build on the consensus across the House on the legislation that I put through on 21 May 2024 in order to make the scheme work, and I pay tribute to the work he has done. He has listened carefully to a whole range of inputs on an extremely complicated problem from a heterogeneous group of individuals, and he has done his level best to respond to the advice and best judgment of professionals, to attend to the range of needs and oversights, and to create pathways. I pay tribute to the work that he has done. He assured the House repeatedly that the money would get out as quickly as possible, and it did get out quickly and move swiftly after that initial process had been resolved. However, given that it cost over £150 million for the public inquiry, let alone the several billions of pounds for the compensation, will he ensure that the proper lessons are learned by the British state, so that not only can such a scandal never happen again but the conduct of public inquiries is as efficient as possible and we can reduce the delays that may have occurred in this situation?
If the situation the courts find themselves in is so obviously caused by the previous Government, why on earth is the hon. Member’s Government scrapping jury trials as a response?
This is an extraordinary exchange. I accept that the hon. Member for Amber Valley is not the official voice of the CPS or of the Labour Government, but her sense of “officialdom knows best” will give ordinary men and women in this country great concerns about these changes. Of course, there are some cases in which there is no victim. There are some cases in which the victim is a person who has been falsely accused. That is why we have a legal system in which the ordinary men and women of this country are judged by their peers. That is the principle that is up for debate here—not some wider official view from a prosecuting organisation, rather than the courts.
It seems that the Minister has perhaps momentarily forgotten that the entire legal system in this country is tilted in favour of the defendant. The defendant is innocent until the prosecution makes its case, and it cannot just make a good case, because the case has to be beyond reasonable doubt. The whole system is tilted in favour of the defendant, and rightly so. It is slightly strange to hear her use the argument that the defendant should not have freedom and liberty to elect when they are innocent people until convicted—and many of them are never convicted.
I am not sure to what extent it is relevant, but I should probably declare that I used to be a practising solicitor, regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered with the Law Society. The Committee dealt with similar issues on the implications for the right of election at some length during the debate on clause 1. Of course, proper time should be devoted to relevant issues in clause 2, but there is a significant overlap. If clause 1 is the constitutional sword that strikes down the right to choose a jury, clause 2 is the mechanism, or at least part of the mechanism, that replaces it. It is the mechanism, its operation in practice and its real-world consequences that I want to examine in some detail. Clause 2 establishes an allocation framework where there is a written indication of a guilty plea. Under it, courts—acting alone and without the defendant’s consent—decide on a venue. That is made obvious by the substitution of wording, with “objecting” replaced by “make representations”. I have some distinct arguments against clause 2. I will take them in order, and I make no apology for the time that may require. The Committee is being asked to make a decision of constitutional significance without, I will argue, adequate evidence, safeguards, honesty or straightforwardness about its consequences and the extent to which it has been properly examined. That deserves serious scrutiny. The gateway itself is poorly designed. Let me begin with the mechanism itself; before one can assess the consequences, it is necessary to understand the structure. Under the current law, albeit not yet implemented, the allocation works in two stages: there is a role for the court, a role for the prosecution and a role for the defendants. However, under clause 2, the role for defendants disappears, or perhaps it is more properly described as being watered down until it is no longer a right. The magistrate or the court decide, and that decision is final. The criteria applied may, and will, take into consideration any representations made by the defendant, but that is not the same as the defendant’s being able to object. The assessment is made on the papers available at the outset; while it is probably not fair to call it an educated guess about how a case will unfold or, in the case of clause 2, how a guilty plea may be pleaded, every experienced practitioner knows that the true seriousness of a case or sentencing becomes apparent as it develops. How a matter looks on the papers can become very different when oral representations are made. Indeed, the Criminal Bar Association has noted—particularly in reference to clause 1, but it applies to the combined effect of clauses 1 and 2—that the Government’s own impact assessment assumes that cases heard in the magistrates courts under extended sentencing powers will average just four hours, for cases where the likely sentences are approaching 18 months. That is not a serious assumption. Critically, there is also no right of appeal against the allocation decision. Of course, the Government have chosen not to provide one—unfairly, but in my view understandably—because an appeal route would undermine what they are trying to achieve. We are treating a symptom as though it were the disease itself. Before I turn to the specific failings of the approach in clause 2, I want to spend a moment on context. I think the Government have framed this debate—maybe not deliberately—in a way that obscures the actual problem. The Lord Chancellor has repeatedly said that the Crown court is in a state of emergency, and he is certainly right that it is under very significant pressure; the backlog stood at just under 80,000 cases at the end of September 2025. He has also repeatedly said that a jury trial is a major driver of that emergency. However, at the same time, he has said that, if the backlog is brought under control and reduced, he will not restore the right to elect a jury trial that is being abolished, and the same goes for the complementary provisions in clause 2. Plainly, whether he is right or wrong, he is inconsistent, and it makes no sense.