Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

   Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

   Social media is the biggest child protection issue of our time, whether it is sexual exploitation, grooming, bullying, radicalisation or, of course, mental health and the risk of addiction. Raising the social media age limit to 16 is the right thing to do. I welcome the Government making this decision and thank them for doing so. That is why this Chamber and that of the Lords exist: because no one can make the right policy in isolation; we come together as a House, particularly with the support of our country. No MP in this room has not been inundated by parents and children desperately asking them to make sure that this change is brought forward. It is good news, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) on her hard work pushing the Government on it. I also thank the Lords for their work. There is no question but that their vote this evening was absolutely decisive. Locally, I want to mention the Conversation Stamford, who are an incredible group, mainly of mothers who have come together to go around our schools and fight to have a good, honest and important conversation about what access young people should have not only to social media but to phones. They are working class by class to get parents to come together as a community, to make a decision where they all stand together on what access their children have, to protect them together. We will hold the Government to this promise; the shadow Secretary of State most certainly will, and parents will be watching. Most of all, we are doing this for parents; it is they who will hold the Government to account. This is a good day; it shows that the right thing happens when the House comes together and does what is in the national interest and the best interests of our children and our future.

   Hansard source
2. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

   Veterans Railcard and HM Forces Railcard

   This Government have legislated to protect railcard discounts for young people, the elderly and disabled passengers, yet shamefully in the same breath voted against doing the same for our veterans and armed forces. The Government told us that we should simply trust them not to remove these railcards in the future. That is not good enough and, frankly, is another black eye for our veterans and armed forces. I thank the 225 people who signed this petition with a wet signature, and the 1,623 people who signed my separate online petition on this issue. If the principle is sound enough to enshrine in law for others, it is sound enough to enshrine in law for those who serve their nation. The petition states: The petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Declares that Veterans and HM Forces rail travel discounts should be protected in law. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to introduce legislation to create a statutory duty for the continued provision of the Veterans Railcard and HM Forces Railcard schemes. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003192]

   Hansard source
3. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

   Dunmurry Police Station Attack

   I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on having secured this urgent question. I associate myself with her remarks and those of the Secretary of State, although I gently say that it would have been better if this had been a Government statement. I cannot help but feel that had that car bomb been placed outside a police station in Westminster or Birmingham, Government Ministers would have come to the House with a statement. It is, of course, profoundly depressing that we should be discussing this issue at all. However, it is an enormous relief that we are not today talking about casualties. As the hon. Member for Lagan Valley said, but for the grace of God, we would have been; but for the bravery of local people, we would have been. I pay very deep tribute to all those brave men and women in the Police Service of Northern Ireland who serve and keep our country safe. They were the target of this despicable operation, and it will be their hard work that brings its perpetrators to justice. The people who have attempted to break the peace in Northern Ireland have no mandate and no public support—they represent only themselves, and are seeking to serve only their macho egos. The silver lining is, of course, that we are watching people in Northern Ireland from all communities come together this morning, united against them. We have come an incredibly long way, but as the Secretary of State referenced, this does appear to be the start of a pattern of new and deeply concerning behaviour. That is reflected in what happened in Lurgan last month, but also in the marching of masked paramilitaries in Easter parades. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that the PSNI is going after those people who broke the laws that were laid down during the peace process, just as I know they will be going after those who tried to blow up the police station in Dunmurry? The attack on Sunday raises a number of questions to which I hope the Secretary of State can provide answers, because he has responsibility for national security in Northern Ireland. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the Chief Constable has the resources he needs? I say that because, notwithstanding his remarks about funding, the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is going to put a huge additional financial burden on the PSNI. Even if the Chief Constable believes he has the resources he needs today, he will not have them tomorrow.

   Hansard source
4. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

   Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update

   I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for taking this statement himself; it is good of him not to delegate. This was not his mess—that was the 2024 Budget—but I am afraid it is now his mess to clear up. I have to ask: where are the documents? The Humble Address was nearly 12 weeks ago. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that on that occasion the House asked for a huge range of things: the due diligence document that was passed to No. 10; the conflict of interest form; the material that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Cabinet Office provided to UK Security Vetting about Peter Mandelson; papers for and minutes of meetings relating to the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson; electronic communications; and so on. Where are they? Since February, the Government have asserted that they are working with urgency and that everything will be available very shortly, that they are working, in that least reassuring of Government phrases, “at pace”, and—today’s favourite—that the information will be available as soon as possible. That is, no doubt, as soon as possible after the local elections. In the documents that have been released, what we appear to see is either an enormous cover-up or a very significant breakdown in the expected process of government. We have seen nothing from the Prime Minister, nothing from his chief of staff and nothing from Peter Mandelson himself; we have seen no minutes of meetings, no billets-doux, no annotations and no box returns. The official civil service guidance on this matter says explicitly: “Keep submissions with ministers’ comments. If ministers write on a hard copy, keep the minister’s handwritten comments. Keep correspondence reporting ministers’ responses along with background provided to ministers in the medium in which they were created”. We have seen none of this. This is either a cover-up or a terrible return to the days of sofa government under Tony Blair. Simon Case told the Prime Minister that in order to complete due process, there had to be security clearance before he made the appointment, and a conflict of interest declaration had to be made by Peter Mandelson. To date, we have seen none of that information. I am pleased to hear the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister say that material associated with Mandelson’s vetting is now being handed to the ISC, but where is the conflict of interest form? I hope it is not the case that this is being disguised as personal information of the sort that the right hon. Gentleman said would not be disclosed, and I would be grateful if he could confirm that it is not. I would also like the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to confirm that that declaration of interest form exists. There is no good reason why he cannot tell us whether it does. Indeed, the former Attorney General wrote the other day in the papers that there is no legal reason why the Government cannot tell us which documents are being retained by the Metropolitan police. There should be a catalogue of all documents that exist; even if the House cannot look at them, we should be allowed to know what is out there and what will come to us in due course. The titles of documents will themselves not prejudice a trial. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has today talked about the non-disclosure of personal information. I ask him again to tell us about the conflict of interest form and whether Peter Mandelson’s personal information is considered to be in scope of that ruling. Will he set out the Government’s precise approach to redactions vis-à-vis the documents that will be given to this House, rather than the ISC? It will be useful to understand his thinking. On electronic communications, despite this being in the Humble Address on 4 February, I understand from the Cabinet Secretary, who wrote to me over the weekend, that there was no instruction to hand over non-corporate comms until 13 March—about five weeks after the Humble Address. Why this delay? Is the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister confident that no material was deleted in that five-week period? How can he be sure? I again ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm or deny whether the ISC release contains the information about Lord Mandelson’s interests. This is of specific concern to the House, given how Peter Mandelson may have behaved when he was ambassador in Washington and given the meetings that he may have taken the Prime Minister to. It is time the Government come clean—not on their own terms or to their own timetable, but on the terms set down by the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman finally tell us a hard deadline for when these documents will be handed over?

   Hansard source
5. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

   Points of Order

   On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On this afternoon’s carry-over motion on the Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, over the weekend, the Government briefed journalists that they would bring forward amendments to the Bill in order to give Members reassurance that adequate protection would be given to veterans. However, this morning, no Government amendments appeared on the amendment paper. Is there anything that His Majesty’s Opposition can do to require the Government to publish those amendments in advance of this afternoon’s debate?

   Hansard source
6. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

   Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

   At the outset, I pay tribute to the veterans who came to Parliament Square today, the veterans who have sent messages of support and are watching at home, and the veterans who are with us in the Gallery. I also pay tribute to the shadow Defence team, who have done so much to hold this Government to account for the mistake that they are making.

   Hansard source
7. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

   Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

   No. We are now entering the season finale of the tragedy that is this Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. It has been a long season. Despite taking office in July 2024, with a manifesto commitment to repeal and replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, they have taken 15 months to bring this Bill to the House. Despite a Second Reading in November, nearly six months ago, the legislation has gone nowhere. Despite bringing forward their remedial order to strike down parts of the legacy Act in January, the Government have since failed to bring it before the Lords, because they know that the Lords do not support it. The troubles Bill is stuck in a legislative purgatory, “Doomed for a certain term to walk the night” till its “foul crimes” are “burnt…away.” The reason for that is an open secret in Westminster. The truth is that the Bill is trapped between the Northern Ireland Office, the Ministry of Defence and No.10, with the Prime Minister and his team unable and unwilling to make a decision about what the outcome will be. We have read this script before. For its part, the Northern Ireland Office is simply carrying out the orders of the Prime Minister when he came to power—the instruction in the Labour manifesto—and the orders of Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, about whom, it must be said, some extremely serious allegations have been made in recent days: not least that he may have drafted or approved documents alleging serious crimes by soldiers without reasonably credible evidence, and that he continued pushing settlements after being told that his clients were lying. The Ministry of Defence is all too aware of the open hostility held towards this legislation by members of the armed forces, present and past. It is all too aware of the dangers the Bill presents to morale, retention and perhaps even recruitment, but its Ministers are not always prepared to say what needs to be said in order to get their way.

   Hansard source
8. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

   Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

   I will give way now.

   Hansard source
9. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

   Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

   I strongly encourage the hon. Gentleman to take time to read the Armed Forces Bill amendment paper. The two gentlemen sitting either side of me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), have tabled very many amendments. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to go out this evening and to try to find one veterans organisation that supports what his party is trying to do with this Bill.

   Hansard source
10. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

    I have read that letter. I have great respect for the WAVE trust; I did some work with it when I first came to the House. I respectfully disagree with what is in that letter, for reasons that I will set out in due course.

    Hansard source
11. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there will be ample opportunity for them to do so tonight. Tonight the Government and Labour Back Benchers have a choice, and the choice is simple: to reject this controversial and unloved legislation, which promises much but would do no good.

    Hansard source
12. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

    I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.

    Hansard source
13. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

    We will get to immunity in a moment, but the Labour party needs to look down within its soul and its history before it says such things. The Bill will reopen the door to vexatious litigation. It will drag old soldiers through the courts and subject split-second decisions taken under high stress decades ago to the post hoc algorithm of a legal framework that did not exist at that time. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) said that military forces were not given adequate protection at the time—what has happened subsequently is that the legal framework has changed beneath their feet and held them accountable in a way that could never have been intended at that time.

    Hansard source
14. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

    I am sad to say that I am not surprised by either of those things. I am not surprised that the Government are living on vague promises to table amendments—despite having had six months to do so. I am sorry to say that I am not surprised that certain Government Front-Bench Members have chosen to absent themselves while expecting Labour Back Benchers to turn up and go through the Lobby without them.

    Hansard source
15. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

    I fear that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. This morning, we saw that Sinn Féin have spoken out in opposition to the very idea of amendments, so we wonder how it will be possible for the Secretary of State to table amendments without the agreement of Dublin, without the agreement of Sinn Féin, and without the whole framework he has built collapsing beneath him. The Bill promises victims the earth. It raises their hopes, but I am afraid that in practice it will offer nothing in the way of conclusion or finality. That is because although there will be court cases, inquests, trials, reviews and challenges, as the Secretary of State himself has said, the prospect of conviction now is vanishingly small. The number of answers that victims will get will be minimal. All the while, veterans will be hauled before the courts, investigated for years and subjected to all the pain and ignominy that that will bring. The process has become the punishment. That is why none of the amendments that the Government are speculating to the press about tabling will do anything to solve the problem before us. The Opposition have long argued that a different approach is necessary: one that draws a line under the conflict, draws a line under the legal conflict that has subsequently followed and builds a new system that builds on the strengths of the peace process as it was defined in 1998. In 1998 it was understood that there could be immunity in return for information; it underpins the legislation brought forward to support the peace process. That is why we have legislation on the destruction of weapons; it enables forensic information to be destroyed. It is why we have legislation that enables people to come forward and reveal where bodies are buried without fear of prosecution; that is immunity. It is why we had letters of comfort and royal pardons of mercy. It was understood that immunity would be an essential part of the peace process, for everyone who was not a veteran.

    Hansard source
16. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

    I genuinely respect the hon. Lady and the work that her Committee does, and she will remember that I was at that Westminster Hall debate. I must respectfully say that my outrage is not faux; I feel this very deeply. I have spent a lot of time talking to the people who are affected by this. When the peace process was going through, when Labour was in power, it had no problem at all with creating immunity, and in 2005—as the Secretary of State will remember, because he was in the Cabinet at the time—Peter Hain, the then Secretary of State, brought forward a Bill that would have given immunity to terrorists, and terrorists alone. It was removed only when, under pressure from the Conservative party, the Government agreed to introduce immunity for veterans and Sinn Féin pulled its support, so the Government pulled the Bill. Immunity is one of the things on which the peace process was founded, yet now in government, the Labour party has forgotten all about this and said it cannot possibly apply to anyone again. The Labour party has said that it cannot support immunity, and yet it used to. Similarly, the Government have said that they cannot support our legislation on the grounds that there was no support for it in Northern Ireland, but I am afraid that by that criterion this legislation has also failed, because where is the support for it in Northern Ireland? It is not there among Northern Ireland Members, and it is not on the streets of Belfast. This is an unloved Bill. There are lots of people who appreciate that this is the wrong way of going about things.

    Hansard source
17. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

    My hon. Friend always speaks incredibly powerfully on this point. The Government have also argued that our Bill was found to be incompatible with human rights legislation, but that is only partly true. The truth is that the Government failed to challenge the findings in the courts, and those findings themselves were highly questionable. There are high-level, highly credible legal arguments that show that the legacy Act may well have not been incompatible, precisely because the same logic around immunity had been used in 1998. So unless we are prepared to say that the legislation passed during the peace process is itself potentially incompatible with human rights law, the argument on the legacy Act falls. This is what is being considered in the case of Dillon before the Supreme Court now. The Government cannot argue that that legislation was incompatible with human rights, because they failed to see the process to its conclusion. All of that has been made clearer and clearer over the lifetime of this law’s delay. In the time that it has taken the Bill only to get through its Second Reading, we have seen, starkly and painfully, regular real-life examples of the problems it will perpetuate. I will give a few small examples. In February, this House debated the terrible ruling in the Clonoe case. This was the case from February 1992, when four men—known terrorists armed with semi-automatic weapons and a Dushka machine gun capable of firing 600 rounds a minute at a range of 1,100 yards—attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station and were in transit to commit further crimes. They were confronted by members of the armed forces, who killed them. Those terrorists called themselves an army, carried weapons of war, sought to kill and operated entirely outside the bounds of any law, yet we were asked to believe that the use of lethal force against them was not justified. I am afraid that that case is now being challenged, and the men involved are being subject to unjust and unfair scrutiny of decisions they made in a split second, decades ago. Nothing in the amendments that the Secretary of State has discussed with the press will do anything about that. In November, we debated the findings in the case against Soldier F from Bloody Sunday. He was found not guilty after the longest and most intricate inquiry in British legal history. Indeed, Judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown Court that the evidence even then fell “well short” of the standard required. He said: “A 53-year-old statement cannot be cross-examined, nor can I assess the demeanour of a sheet of A4 paper”. The House must see again that it is becoming vanishingly difficult to get convictions, because the 1998 agreement was 27 years ago and the ceasefire began 31 years ago. Nothing in the Secretary of State’s proposed amendments or in this Bill will do anything to right that situation. Several times the case of Soldier B, a former SAS officer, has been raised in the Commons. In October, the case was thrown out by a court in Belfast, where the judge described it as “ludicrous” and said it should never have come to his court—but not before the man in question had been investigated for four years. A further challenge was then mounted despite the judge having said it was “ludicrous”, and only recently has the veteran in question been freed from the weight of that. I am afraid that if the Government’s Bill goes ahead, we will see a return to this repeat investigation of innocent men who will be dragged through the courts, and then at the end the legal cavalcade will move on, leaving them bearing the emotional burden of being investigated for having done nothing wrong. Nothing that has been speculated about in the press this weekend will do anything to right that wrong.

    Hansard source
18. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

    My hon. Friend is quite right. The process has become the punishment. The process is being used to continue the conflict by other means.

    Hansard source
19. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

    I must agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is clearly what vexatious litigation looks like. This is vexatious litigation moved against men who did nothing wrong but are now confronted with a legal framework that creates endless potential for challenge against them.

    Hansard source
20. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

    I have read the Saville inquiry, and the hon. Member will have just heard me say that even after one of the longest, most expensive and detailed public inquiries in British legal history, it was impossible to get a conviction. Yet we are asking victims in Northern Ireland to believe that there will be some magical moment where suddenly it would be possible to get convictions in other cases. That, the House must understand, is for the birds; it will not happen. Victims will have their hopes raised and dashed in front of this legislation.

    Hansard source
21. 27 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

    The hon. Gentleman raises a significant issue about the terrible events of Bloody Sunday, but I will not attempt to relitigate the whole of the Saville inquiry this evening—I understand the remarks that both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) have made. Similarly, over the past few months, very senior veterans, senior generals and former members of the special forces have come out decisively against the Bill. On Armistice Day, in an unprecedented intervention, nine four-star generals wrote to warn that highly trained members of the special forces are already leaving the service. In January, seven SAS commanders wrote of the acute dangers of how “a peacetime human rights framework” now wields “an effective veto over efforts to close the past.” Last month, Generals Wall and Parker wrote that “those who…did their duty in circumstances not of their making…are left exposed, without the shield of context or accountability that should rightfully belong to the state”. This month, we read public reports that members of the special forces are quitting because they sense that the lawyers of the future will come after them. I implore the House, on moral, practical and political grounds, not to support the Bill. I know that Labour Members will not wish to take it from me—and they do not have to—but they should take it from generals and special forces veterans who have dedicated so much of their lives to protecting their country and do not want to see their comrades-in-arms persecuted or their country weakened and put at risk. As politicians, I draw the attention of Labour Members to the fact that the Bill is not beloved by their constituents. They are being sent through the Lobbies tonight by people who may well change their position tomorrow. The failings of the Bill, should it be passed, will be quickly seen but long felt. The House has the power to stop it tonight. If we do not, and the Government persist, the next Conservative Administration will repeal it and once again draw a line under the troubles.

    Hansard source
22. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Smith

    Synthetic Chemicals

    I commend the Committee Chair and the Committee on the report, and I commend the Government on the PFAS plan. I thank him and the Committee for attending the location in my constituency that has suffered from this issue. Realistically, I cannot see this Government or a future Government being able to put in the money needed. The levy idea that he refers to seems to be a key way ahead. While consideration is given to his report’s recommendations, does he agree that communities impacted by PFAS need to have confidence in statutory authorities, such as the Environment Agency and local authorities?

    Hansard source
23. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Business of the House

    With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I want to raise three points with the Leader of the House about the operation of the Humble Address agreed by the House on 4 February. I make clear that I do so on behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee. First, I invite the Leader of the House to confirm that under the terms of the Humble Address, no one within Government has the right to withhold, deny or not disclose the existence of any document within the scope of the Humble Address. Secondly, as the Leader of the House knows, the exemptions set out in the Humble Address that relate to the Intelligence and Security Committee are about redactions that need to be made to protect either national security or international relations. Beyond that, the Government produced a document to go along with the first disclosure of material on 11 March, which set out a number of grounds on which the Government would also seek to redact information. If you will permit me, Mr Speaker, I will quote what they are. The document mentions “Individuals’ email addresses and phone numbers; the identities of junior civil servants; personal data of third parties where this is not in scope of the motion; and legal professional privilege.” It also makes reference to a “small amount of Peter Mandelson’s personal data”, and then says that “It may also be necessary for the government to make further redactions in future publications based on other public interest principles, including commercially sensitive information.” I invite the Leader of the House to confirm that if the Government intend to do so, they need to come to this House to explain what those grounds for redaction will be, because—as I hope he will agree—they are not covered by the terms of the Humble Address as it stands. It is important that the House has the chance to validate the Government’s view that further redactions would be appropriate. My third point is about redactions on grounds other than national security or international relations. As the Leader of the House knows, the Committee I am part of is going through documents now to confirm that the redactions the Government propose to make are appropriate on the grounds of national security or international relations, but no one is doing the same work in relation to redactions that the Government seek to make for other reasons. Should they not be, and should there not be an opportunity for someone in this House to look at the unredacted versions of those documents, to confirm that the redactions the Government are seeking to make are appropriate?

    Hansard source
24. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    UK-EU Relations

    Is the House right to understand that the Government believe that the economy has grown significantly less—measurably less—as a result of leaving the EU, and that this is one of the purposes behind the reset? [Hon. Members: “Yes!”] I hear Government Members saying yes. Could the Government then set that out, with all the evidence and arguments proving the case? Looking at the evidence, the British economy grew at about the same rate as France and Germany when we were in the EU and, since we left, we have been growing at about the same rate as France and Germany; in fact, this year, the British economy is growing faster than Germany’s. Where is the evidence that Brexit was economically damaging? Will the Minister publish a proper statement on that?

    Hansard source
25. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Young Adult Carers: Education and Training

    It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for securing this important debate. He is proving to be a formidable parliamentarian and—I can say this as a friend—a decent human being, all in all. I also pay tribute to the young carers across our country. There are an estimated 1 million young carers aged up to 18 in the UK, with many carers aged under 10. I agree with my good friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I suspect we are of one mind; I remember the carers who come to see me in my surgeries. I remember their strength and resilience, but also how often they go about their responsibilities so quietly and unassumingly. From this debate, I want them to know that we in this House see them and that they matter. During this debate it is critical that we do not lose sight of the sacrifices that young carers make every single day. The responsibilities of caring mean that young people miss out on social plans, extracurricular activities and their schooling to help support those they care for. Young carers give time after school, at weekends, and live with the constant worry about the wellbeing of those under their care. Those are enormous burdens, especially for children. I want to reflect on some of the work done by the previous Government to support young carers. It was the view of the previous Government that young people should be protected from inappropriate and excessive caring responsibilities. We recognised that the important roles they played often went unnoticed, putting their education and childhood aside to care for others. We committed to amending the school census so that it included young carers. That raised the visibility of young carers in the school system and gave us a wealth of demographic evidence on the young carer population. That allowed schools to better understand the impact of caring in education, particularly on issues including attendance and absenteeism. In addition, the previous Government introduced the pupil premium in 2011. That gave schools additional funding to improve outcomes for children facing disadvantages, and helped young carers gain critical extra support. The previous Government also introduced bursaries to help with the cost of education, including travel, books, childcare and residential costs where needed. In the academic year 2023-24, more than £160 million of bursary funding was allocated to institutions to help disadvantaged 16 to 19-year-olds. Furthermore, the previous Government introduced the Young Carers in Schools programme, which addressed the need to ensure that schools do more to identify young carers and increase their engagement in school. The programme set out 10 key steps to help schools to identify and support young carers, and each step provides a key practical tool that can be adapted to support the individual school. Lastly, in 2018, the Conservatives published the carers action plan, which contains proposals to support young carers. It aimed to improve the identification of young carers, which built a rich and informative evidence base to better identify how support can be provided. As we have heard, despite that, young carers are still under extreme pressure. In all our constituencies, there are hundreds—perhaps thousands—of young carers. In the borough of Solihull, of which is my constituency is part, the average age of a young carer is 11 and it is estimated that one in five young people is a carer. Although there are fantastic organisations that do excellent work in raising awareness about young carers and what they go through, including Solihull Young Carers, debates such as this are critical in raising awareness among parliamentarians. Young carers often put their lives on hold for others. They are responsible for cooking, cleaning, supporting with schoolwork and many more tasks, as has already been laid out in this debate. That makes their lives a constant battle, balancing an array of different possibilities. In the education and training context, balancing schoolwork can be particularly hard. It is all too easy to put off that bit of homework because you have had to be up early to care and just want to catch up on a bit of sleep or get some well-deserved rest. The Carers Trust’s most recent report from January highlights the concerning fact that three quarters of young adult carers say that their caring roles make it difficult to take part in training or educational opportunities. That research shows that young carers are missing on average 23 days of school every year—one month in total. Come secondary school, over half of young carers are persistently absent. Some of the information we have on this topic is down to the previous Government and our steps to better identify young carers in school settings. I am more than happy to work on a cross-party basis to help our young carers. What work is the Minister doing to help add to the data? What conversations is he having with school leaders to ensure that we build on this important evidence base? The evidence shows that young people who care are missing out on available learning opportunities. In reality, that means they will be struggling to keep up with their peers and will fall behind for the rest of their lives. When it comes to taking exams, the time spent out of the classroom will no doubt mean that their grades are lower than their peers’. What steps are the Government taking to help support young carers in school settings? What plans does the Minister have in that regard? We have heard today that the Carers Trust has proposed that every school has a young carer lead—a point made by the hon. Member for Harlow. Has the Minister considered that? Will it be part of the Government’s plans going forward? While in Opposition, the now Education Secretary said: “a Labour Government would ensure that young carers’ voices, needs and rights and the support that should be made available to them are taken seriously.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 206.] I noted that in the post-16 education and skills White Paper—this has been mentioned to me by a number of carers—there were no references to young carers. Would the Minister be able to explain his thinking? Perhaps it is to do with the Milburn report, which he might want to elaborate on. In response to a written question about additional support for young carers in schools, the Minister for School Standards stated: “The Government is preparing a cross-Government action plan for unpaid carers which we plan to publish later this year.” On behalf of the Opposition, I ask the Minister whether he will be able to expand on the timeframe for that and what the key principles in those plans will be. In November 2025, the Government commissioned Alan Milburn to author a report into the number of people not in education, employment or training, and part of that will include a call for evidence from parents and carers for young people. Given the pressures that young carers are facing, it is essential that that inquiry finds ways to better support young carers in education and training. I am sure the Minister will agree that young carers cannot be left behind at school, because the knock-on effects are substantial, and it will lead to more young carers struggling to get into work. Does he recognise the correlation between NEET numbers and the number of young carers? Will he highlight the engagement he has had with the DWP in that regard? We have heard some excellent speeches. Once again, I praise the hon. Member for Harlow, who set out the case for young carers so eloquently. I finish by paying tribute to young carers, who give up so much to care for those in need. Every single one of them makes an amazing sacrifice. I hope that many of them are watching, and that they recognise that we think they should be very proud of themselves. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what steps the Government are taking.

    Hansard source
26. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Business of the House

    Last July, my constituent Caroline decided to take out her civil service pension after 37 years working in the tax office in Shipley. Nine months later and she has still not received a single penny of the tens of thousands of pounds she is entitled to, despite many emails, messages and phone calls. Caroline is at her wits’ end, as are many of my constituents in similar scenarios. Capita initially promised to return to normalcy in February 2026, but the goalposts have been moved to June. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on Capita’s mismanagement of the civil service pension scheme?

    Hansard source
27. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Allied Health Professionals

    I start by paying tribute to the allied health professionals in my constituency and across the country, who work so hard to help people to regain and maintain their health. Indeed, I count many among my friends. From paramedics to physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and so many others, I am always amazed at the skill and dedication of these professionals, who often work under intense pressure. My constituent Jackie Lees-Howes is one of 174 registered physiotherapists living in my constituency. She highlighted several statistics that should give us pause for thought. Two thirds of the population will likely be living with a long-term health condition by 2035. Community waiting times continue to grow and, to make matters worse, the UK has far fewer physiotherapists per head than comparable countries. However, we know that physiotherapy is highly cost-effective, generating an overall return of around £4 for every £1 invested. It can prevent illness and help people recover more quickly, which reduces the strain on health services. Crucially, physios enable people to stay in and return to work. They help people to reduce pain, obesity and inactivity, contributing to a healthier and more productive population. Expanding the physiotherapy workforce alone could save the NHS hundreds of millions of pounds over the next five years. However, as we have heard, many physios are struggling even to find a job due to recruitment freezes and a lack of entry-level positions, as well as problems with job security. Worryingly, the Government confirmed last year that they had made no estimate of the impact of recruitment freezes on physiotherapists and physiotherapist support workers. Twenty-three per cent of my South West Devon constituents have at least one long-term condition. Over 18,000 are classed as disabled, slightly higher than the average across England. Relatively speaking, it is an ageing constituency, with 45% of constituents over the age of 50. That makes the role of physios and other allied health professionals in enabling people to prepare for and rehabilitate from things like cancer treatment and surgery even more vital. I commend the Rehab Legends campaign led by Kate Tantam, an inspirational constituent of mine who works as an intensive care sister at Derriford hospital. Kate has spent years campaigning to ensure that every patient in the UK can access rehabilitation services towards the end of their stay in intensive care, which would end the current patchy provision. People might ask what Rehab Legends is. It is effectively a multidisciplinary team that helps rehabilitate men and women who have been on life support, because they often see deconditioning in the rest of their body. With rehabilitation, they stand a much better chance of moving on from intensive care. Why is this important? At the moment, the step down from ICU to a normal ward is huge, and if people do not have the physical ability to take that step, their ultimate rehabilitation and ability to get back out into life will be significantly affected. That point has been raised time and again—it came up during the last Parliament in the work done by the all-party parliamentary group on intensive care, which my predecessor, Sir Gary Streeter, chaired—and it needs to be addressed. While that is not entirely about allied health professionals, I am sure the Minister will be aware of it, and it would be interesting to hear what might be done. Ultimately, the role of rehabilitation is good for patients and for society, because we want to enable everyone who has survived intensive care to leave intensive care and leave hospital. We have heard plenty about occupational therapists and speech and language therapists. The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists and others have highlighted that the NHS long-term workforce plan is likely to cover only speech and language therapists in the NHS workforce, which overlooks shortages in education and criminal justice settings. As we have heard, there is a real need for a holistic approach to developing the workforce, in recognition of the vital role played by speech and language therapists and others in supporting, in particular, children with special educational needs. Without capacity in the NHS for speech and language therapists, we will not be able to deliver on improving outcomes for some of the most vulnerable in our community, which I am sure we would all want to see. Finally, I want to mention the work of allied health professionals who assess people for health-related benefits. We know from Department for Work and Pensions data published in January—rather late—that over half of assessors leave in their first year. Assessors describe stressful time constraints and impossible workloads as some of their reasons for leaving. Under the current Government, one in 10 people in England and Wales is now claiming disability benefits, and the number is only set to increase. I urge the Minister to ensure that all allied health professionals are empowered to assess their patients without undue haste. I worry that otherwise this overstretched system may be incentivising assessors to recommend that a person receives disability benefits without having the appropriate time to thoroughly investigate their needs. Of course, that is in no way a reflection of these professionals themselves, as they are simply doing the job they are there to do with limited time and resources. Let me finish with three brief requests. First, I urge the Minister to capitalise on the record number of newly qualified physiotherapists. Will she confirm what steps the Department is taking to ensure that newly qualified physiotherapists can be guaranteed an NHS job? Secondly, I urge her to commit to retaining the chief allied health professions officer role to ensure that their clinical expertise is recognised in the Department. Thirdly, a plug for rehabilitation: I would love the Minister to ensure that the role of intensive care rehabilitation is reflected in the NHS workforce plan, and a holistic approach is central to that. I echo the concerns raised by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, which has criticised the Government’s requirement for integrated care boards to reduce their budgets by 50% and the impact that will have on allied health professional leadership roles. Under the previous Conservative Government, NHS England set out to increase our much-needed AHP workforce, as outlined in the 2023 NHS long-term workforce plan. This included an ambition to increase training places by 25% by 2031-32. We know how critical allied health professions are to prevention and recovery. The Government must ensure that they prioritise them in the revised NHS workforce plan, which is due to be published this spring. The allied health professions are ideally placed to help people help themselves. If we want a healthier country and a more productive society, we must back them all the way.

    Hansard source
28. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

    The hon. Member is making an excellent speech, which has reminded me of a conversation I recently had in my constituency. Drivers in the area of Hooe and Plymstock are showing really antisocial behaviour, and one of the police officers I was with mentioned this fact. We were not even talking about how cars are registered to the DVLA, but does she not find extraordinary the number that are registered to Mickey Mouse?

    Hansard source
29. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Ninth sitting)

    It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I do not support clause 7 or schedule 2. I welcome the debate on various amendments and the comments from the Minister. Clause 7 and schedule 2 would replace the current automatic right of appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown court with a much narrower permission-based system. At present, a defendant convicted in the magistrates court can appeal to the Crown court against conviction or sentence, and that appeal is heard by way of a full rehearing, usually before a Crown court judge sitting with between two and four magistrates. About 40% of conviction appeals and 47% of sentence appeals succeed. We are now being asked to introduce a system that would instead require permission for such appeals, would usually proceed on written grounds, would be heard by a single judge and would limit the grounds on which permission is granted. The Government say that that would save about 500 Crown court sitting days. I feel that I may be running out of ways to phrase this sentence, but yet again we are seeing a significant roll-back of an important safeguard, justified on the basis of a small hypothetical gain. We should ask ourselves whether an important protection is being weakened for anything like a proportionate return. On clause 7, I do not believe that it is. I strongly emphasise that appeals are not historical oddities or a procedural quirk; they are one of the principal safeguards against the risks inherent in summary justice. The Bar Council is very clear: “The proposed change would remove a vital safeguard against wrongful summary conviction and excessive (or unlawful) sentences imposed by magistrates. The consequence risks adding to the burden on the criminal courts rather than reducing it.” It goes further and says that the current right “does not appear to be exercised frivolously or vexatiously.” The Law Society made similar points in its written evidence: it said that the automatic appeal route is a “vital safeguard” and that in 2024 it was used in 2,487 cases, overturning magistrates’ decisions in 41% of convictions and 44% of sentences. It describes about 1,000 miscarriages of justice as being corrected through that route. That is the central fact that the Government cannot really get around. If four in 10 conviction appeals and nearly half of sentence appeals succeed, that cannot be read as evidence that the appeals process is being abused. In fact, it is the opposite: the process is demonstrably being exercised appropriately. I am deeply concerned that if we roll back the right to appeal, we will be locking the door on an unknown number of cases in which a conviction might have been found to be erroneous, but will now not be identified as such. That is an unknown number of miscarriages of justice not put right, and an unknown number of lives ruined. I am not willing to pay that price for the gain of 500 sitting days, and I cannot bring myself to believe that Government Members are differently inclined. We do not particularly need to speculate about what the safeguards protect against, because we can point to recent examples. In the notorious Hamit Coskun case, a defendant convicted in the magistrates court of a section 5 public order offence had his conviction quashed on appeal to the Crown court. The appeal court found that the prosecution had failed to prove essential elements of the offence and stated plainly: “For these reasons we allow this appeal and quash…conviction”. That is the automatic appeal route doing exactly what it is supposed to do and correcting a conviction that should never have been imposed.

    Hansard source
30. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Ninth sitting)

    One thing I have increasingly noticed, particularly in high-profile cases, is that people live-tweet, setting out exactly what is going on. That is another thing to bear in mind. I very much welcome the progress that the Minister has set out, but in the world of social media it is important that people, and particularly victims, can get an accurate transcript as easily as possible, especially if something inaccurate has been tweeted out.

    Hansard source
31. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Ninth sitting)

    It is truly a pleasure to get to a part of the Bill on which I suspect we will agree more than we will not. I think we will all find that rather refreshing after the last few sittings. Clause 8 seeks to introduce a new framework governing the admissibility of evidence about the previous sexual behaviour of the complainant. I very much welcome the fact that we are now having this debate and looking to address some of the issues we currently see in the justice system with respect to sexual assault crimes. Rape and sexual violence are horrendous crimes that have a lifelong impact on victims. In oral evidence, we heard this directly from some of the brave witnesses who testified, and I thank them for giving their time so generously and for speaking so honestly and courageously. What was made very clear is that they are keen to see change in how the justice system deals with these types of offences. They want to see justice done swiftly and considerately. It takes a huge amount of bravery for an individual to report these types of crimes and to pursue their attacker through the courts, so we must do all we can to ensure that the process is quick, supportive, effective and efficient for them, while preserving the principles of natural justice. Although I may disagree with some victims on the limitation of jury trials being a way to achieve this, I share the same ambition: to speed up the process so that justice is no longer delayed and denied. It is important to remember that most of these crimes are committed by someone the victims knows, making the process even more of an intrusive ordeal. It is deeply personal. That is why it is important to treat victims with respect and care, not to diminish their experiences or feelings, and not to make them feel like they are the ones on trial. It is incredibly important not only for justice, but for deterrence purposes, that the state sends a clear message that those guilty of such crimes will face the consequences. This is much needed at a time when violence against women and girls is rife in our communities. If the state can get this right, we should see more victims coming forward and being more willing to undergo the stress of a trial in the confidence that justice will prevail. In June 2021, the Conservative Government published the findings of an end-to-end review of the criminal justice system response to rape, which they referred to as the rape review. What it found made for difficult reading. In the prior five years, there had been a significant decline in the number of charges and prosecutions for rape cases and, consequently, fewer convictions. One in two victims were withdrawing from rape investigations, demonstrating a big problem. The Home Secretary at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), said: “We are not prepared to accept that rape is just ‘too difficult’ a crime to prosecute. We can, and must, do better.” The review set out that there are an estimated 128,000 victims of rape a year, that less than 20% of victims of rape report to the police, and that only 1.6% of rapes that are reported result in someone being charged. That means that considerably fewer than one in every 100 rapes actually leads to justice for the victim. That shows the scale of the issue. One of the actions set out was that “only evidence about the victim that is pertinent to the case should be used at court and a victim’s credibility should not be undermined by pre-conceptions or rape myths.” In the final recommendations issued by the Law Commission in 2025, it was made clear that the use of evidence relating to the previous sexual behaviour of the complainant—for example, previous consensual sex between the defendant and complainant, or between a defendant and a third party—is highly distressing, humiliating and even traumatising, and is often irrelevant and can prejudice a case. The admission of sexual behaviour evidence has, rightly, long been restricted through so-called “rape shield” legislation, which applies specifically to a trial where a person is charged with a sexual offence. No question can be asked about the sexual behaviour of the complainant without the leave of the court, and various gateways are considered in determining that. However, the Law Commission has criticised those gateways for being too restrictive, too broad and too complicated. Clause 8 seeks to address some of the issues raised by the Law Commission, and has incorporated the stage 1 recommendation accordingly. It amends the conditions that must be met before a defendant can adduce sexual behaviour evidence or ask questions intended to elicit evidence of sexual behaviour in criminal proceedings. It ensures that such evidence may be admitted only if it “has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which— (i) is a matter in issue in the proceedings, and (ii) is of substantial importance in...the case as a whole”. However, clause 8 does not include stage 2 of the two-stage framework suggested by the Law Commission, which prohibits the use of sexual behaviour evidence unless its admission would not significantly prejudice the proper administration of justice. The Law Commission has raised that specific deviation in its written evidence. I ask the Minister to give her reasoning for not adopting the second stage, so that we are all clear. It is reassuring to see the Bar Council welcoming the changes brought by clause 8, which it says “provide appropriate safeguards for victims and for fairness of trials.” The Law Society also supports the proposals, along with many other rape crisis and women’s organisations. Having said that, I note that a joint letter from Rape Crisis England & Wales, the Centre for Women’s Justice, Rights of Women, the End Violence Against Women Coalition and Imkaan, while welcoming much of clause 8, raises some specific concerns. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister on those points and whether she intends to make any changes.

    Hansard source
32. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Ninth sitting)

    My hon. Friend makes a really important point. There is a lot that is positive about the clause, but, as he rightly says, we have to think about it in the context of all the other changes. Unfortunately, we could find that the other changes unwind the good that is done by this clause. That said, it is still a positive clause, and I am pleased to see it in the Bill and to debate it today. Lastly, I want to flag that in its evidence, Victim Not Suspect notes a need to address verification and/or the reliability of digital evidence, which it believes is relevant to the admissibility test and has not been addressed in the Bill. It would be useful to hear the Minister’s view on that matter too. Victim Not Suspect says: “Without forensic verification, including IP address data, account ownership confirmation from platforms such as Meta, and metadata examination, there is no reliable basis for assessing authorship.” That is a point of detail, but it could become important in certain cases, so it is worth bearing in mind. There may be scope to improve and tighten that up in the Bill during its further progress, which is why I have flagged it to the Minister.

    Hansard source
33. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I would appreciate some clarity from the Minister on the deviation from the recommendations of the Law Commission—again, just so that we are clear. To refresh her memory, the Law Commission, in its written evidence, states that “Clause 10 does not implement our recommendations in two key respects. (1) It does not implement our recommendations regarding distinguishing the different categories of evidence and the thresholds that should apply where there is a previous allegation of sexual offending. Nor does it address the confusion about whether FAE should be subjected to the BCE or SBE frameworks”— that probably means more to the Minister than to me. It goes on: “As set out above, in our view, if the evidence of an allegation does fall within the definition of ‘sexual behaviour’, the SBE framework should apply. If not, then the bad character framework will apply, or the relevance threshold will apply if the evidence of an allegation is not said to be false or is not alleged to be misconduct. (2) It does not address the concern that within the BCE framework there is currently no express provision for consideration of the particular risks associated with the sexual nature of previous allegations, as we recommended.”

    Hansard source
34. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I begin by echoing the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle. I completely understand why the Government have brought this clause forward. I welcome the debate. Similar to the hon. Member for Chichester, who spoke so eloquently, I was deeply moved by the evidence we heard from Claire Throssell. I cannot even imagine how she has coped. To do what she has done and to try to take something positive from that is an incredible thing. The evidence this Committee has heard from those witnesses and other survivors of domestic abuse is that they feel that the family courts have not properly identified risk and believe that a pro-contact culture has, at times, overridden safety. That is extremely concerning, and it is absolutely right that we take it extremely seriously. Child safety must come first. Where the present framework has contributed to poor outcomes, it is right that the Government act, but it is also incumbent on us today to make sure that the clause that is being repealed is indeed the cause of the harm to those children. I also make the point that, where Parliament removes an existing statutory principle, it has a duty to be clear about what will replace it. My concern today is less with the Government’s objective than with whether repeal on its own is sufficiently precise, evidence based and thought through to achieve the Ministers’ intended objective. The Government’s own impact assessment, which has already been set out, says that “repeal alone is unlikely to materially change outcomes”, even though it is expected to “change the process judges follow”. That is an important starting point for this debate. It is really important that we do not make changes to law because everyone wants us to make those changes and thinks that will improve things when, in reality, we have the evidence and facts to know that it may not deliver those outcomes. It is incumbent on all of us to make sure that we actually deliver the outcomes that we all desire; we all have the same ambition. I know this comes from a good place and we are all approaching this debate in the best way we can to protect children. My purpose this afternoon is to be constructive—I am not saying I have all the answers on this, and I hope my comments will be taken in that spirit. If the Government proceed with repeal, do they also need to do more to provide a principles replacement framework, clearer guidance and stronger supporting reforms? It is important to start with the facts around the presumption. The current presumption does not give any parent an automatic right to contact, override the welfare checklist or override the paramountcy principle in section 1 of the Children Act 1989, and it certainly does not require courts to make orders that place children at risk. The Family Services Foundation is clear in its written evidence that current law already places the child’s welfare first, stating: “Section 1(6)…expressly ensures the presumption applies” only where parental involvement “does not put the child at risk of suffering harm”. It says that practice direction 12J and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 already provide an important framework for identifying and responding to abuse in family proceedings. Equally, I recognise the contrary concern expressed by survivors who say that, in abuse cases, the presumption can place pressure on courts to prioritise parental contact even where there are serious safety concerns and can make it harder for victims to be properly heard and protected. The real question is therefore not whether safety matters more than contact—it plainly does—but whether removing the current presumption will improve how risk is identified and acted upon, or whether it risks creating new uncertainty while leaving the deeper operational problems untouched and discouraging parental involvement in cases where it would actually be beneficial. There are already substantial protections in the current legal framework, although they clearly fail in the worst way on occasion. The Family Services Foundation points out that the Children Act 1989, practice direction 12J and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 already equip the courts to restrict or refuse contact where “harm is shown”. It also reminds us that the UK is bound by the UN convention on the rights of the child, including article 9, which recognises that children should maintain regular contact with both parents unless that is “contrary to the child’s best interests”. Both Parents Matter makes a similar point, saying: “The Presumption was introduced in 2014” to reflect the UNCRC and provide a statutory benchmark that the safe involvement of both parents generally furthers child welfare. I emphasise the word “safe”—no one has ever said that parents should be involved if it is not safe. I make those points not to argue that nothing should change. If the Government are minded to proceed, we need a clear understanding of how the replacement framework will continue to distinguish between safe parental involvement, which can be beneficial, and unsafe parental involvement, which must be stopped. At present, I am not sure the Bill by itself gives enough reassurance on that point, and I am worried that safe parental contact will be discouraged. That leads to one of the most important points of all. The Government’s own documents suggest that repeal alone may not be the solution that they are hoping it will be. As mentioned earlier, the impact assessment says, “repeal alone is unlikely to materially change outcomes”, although it is expected to change the process that judges follow. That is a significant admission. It suggests that if the Government want safer and better outcomes in family proceedings, repeal can be only part of the picture, and perhaps not the decisive part. We should keep in mind that many of the awful failures that have rightly horrified people seem to be failures of risk assessment, information sharing, institutional practice, professional judgment and resourcing. The Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys puts it well: “If abusive contact is being ordered or preserved inappropriately, then the concern lies with the quality of risk assessment, the speed and fairness of investigation, and the consistency with which courts and agencies apply the law.” That is a useful and constructive way of putting the point. It does not deny the seriousness of the problem, but it does ask whether the solution is the right one. My concern is not that the Government want to strengthen protection; it is that repeal may be presented as more self-sufficient than, on the basis of the evidence, it really is. I also think the Committee should be careful and candid about the strength of the evidence base behind repeal. Both Parents Matter says that the Government’s own review “provided limited and inconclusive evidence of the impact of the Presumption. It could not determine how often the Presumption was applied in judgments, nor could it assess how harm…related to the application of the Presumption.” It also criticises the underlying methodology: “Quantitative analysis was based on only 245 court judgments, with over half from a single magistrates’ bench. Qualitative analysis involved only 29 parents.” It added that the literature review “examined only 55 studies, excluded all research published after April 2024,” and omitted “major studies showing positive outcomes” from safe shared parenting and ongoing parental involvement. Other evidence goes further, arguing that the Government review appears to have misunderstood or overstated the conclusions to be drawn from Professor Anja Steinbach’s work. I recall a striking line from Professor Steinbach, who said: “There is plenty of research showing that contact with both parents is beneficial”, and “except for violence…contact with both parents is the baseline.” I do not think that material should make the Committee cautious about treating the review as a fully settled or exhausted evidential platform for repeal. Again, my point is not that that means that repeal must not happen; it is that we should not over-claim what the existing evidence can prove or support. I also think it is important to avoid turning this into a false choice between protecting children from abuse and supporting children to maintain safe relationships with both parents. The Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys says that the public debate often frames the issue in that way. However, it says: “A good family justice system must do both. It must protect children and adult victims from abusive parents. It must also protect children from the avoidable loss of safe, loving, and important parental relationships.” I think that is right. The Family Services Foundation similarly said: “reform should focus on enhancing the protections available, rather than creating conditions that may inadvertently prevent children from maintaining safe, meaningful relationships with their parents.” That is why I urge the Minister not to present clause 17 as though all principled concern about repeal is somehow concern for parental rights over child safety. It is perfectly possible to support the Government’s child safety objective while asking whether the law should continue to recognise some clear and carefully framed way, where there is no established risk of harm, of enabling children to benefit from stable and safe relationships with both parents. Several of the written submissions that we received raise concerns about unintended consequences if repeal proceeds without a clear replacement framework. Both Parents Matter warns: “Removing this important statutory benchmark, and relying instead on practice and non statutory frameworks” may increase uncertainty, inconsistency and conflict. The Family Services Foundation says something similar, warning that repeal may confuse frontline professionals, affect negotiations outside court, reduce the incentive for out-of-court resolution and, ultimately, increase strain on a family court system that is already under pressure. It notes that only a minority of separated families ever come before the courts, but many more families and professionals orient their expectations around the legal framework. That is a serious point. Even if the court’s paramount consideration remains unchanged, removing a statutory starting point may still alter behaviour before a case ever reaches a final hearing. It may affect how solicitors advise, how CAFCASS frames disputes, how mediation is approached and how parents negotiate. With that point in mind, I hope that the Minister might be in a position to share some more detail on how she expects the changes to operate, and why she is confident that they will improve outcomes rather than simply shift conflict elsewhere.

    Hansard source
35. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I am sure people saw me during evidence. I get really upset about the loss of any child’s life. We have to remember that we all want to keep children safe—[Interruption.]

    Hansard source
36. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Tenth sitting)

    No, I’m okay. I would gently say to the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire that I hope she has heard—and even seen—enough from me to know that I am here to protect children. Of course I am horrified by any loss of a child, but my point is that I am trying to step back, be objective and say, “What is the reason that those children lost their lives?”. I am not convinced that it was the parental presumption—I am not saying that I am right on that; I am just open-minded to it. I have seen a particular case quite closely—I should declare that I am a serving county councillor in Surrey—and that is the case of Sara Sharif. I have gone through the safeguarding reviews in a huge amount of detail; it affected all of us councillors in Surrey greatly. It was an absolutely awful case. So many things went wrong throughout her life. From the family courts to social services, her GP and the school, there was just a barrage of failure that led to that poor little girl being murdered, and that absolutely could have been prevented. People might argue, “Well, if we had removed the parental presumption, that would have saved her.” Having gone through all that, I can tell the hon. Member that, in that case, it would not have done anything. It was safeguarding failures. People just made mistakes. They got things wrong. They were too worried about offending people to take the right actions. What I am saying today is just that it is really important, when we look at these things, that we diagnose what went wrong. We have to do that quite objectively. That is difficult when we are hearing from lots of different people who have gone through awful things, but our job is to try to not be emotional—I say that having got emotional myself—and to look at it logically. At the end of the day, we all just want to deliver the outcome that protects children. That is what all of us on this Committee want to do. But it is important that we can talk about that without the hon. Member suggesting that I somehow do not care about children, because what I am trying to do is to have that objectivity, because it matters to me so much that we do protect those children that I want us to have that proper debate and to say, “Is this really the right way or are there other things we can be doing? Do we need to do multiple things? Maybe this isn’t enough.” I am not saying that we should not do it; I am saying that we just need to make sure that we have thought this through. I will be really keen to hear from the Minister; I know this really matters to her as well, and she will have done that thinking, so I look forward to hearing her thoughts on the challenges I have brought up today. But, as I say, I keep an open mind, and we all share the same objectives.

    Hansard source
37. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Tenth sitting)

    I completely agree with the hon. Member. I appreciate the fact that she has tabled these amendments and that she recognises that it is not easy to strike this balance, particularly when we are trying to address abuse and alienation cases and it is sometimes hard to know what situation we are dealing with. We are trying to come up with a system that protects as many people as we possibly can, but I think we also have to acknowledge that it will never be perfect. If anyone thinks that we can change one bit of law and then all of a sudden nothing horrible will ever happen again, I am afraid to say that these awful things will always happen, and things will always go wrong. It is about trying our best to have a framework that gets the balance right. I will stop there—I have probably made my point. This has been a really good debate, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about some of the points I have raised.

    Hansard source
38. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Civil Service: Performance Management Plans

    8. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of performance management plans in the civil service.

    Hansard source
39. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Civil Service: Performance Management Plans

    Our constituents must interact with many Government agencies each week to renew their passport or driving licence or to submit their tax returns. Despite record numbers of bureaucrats, productivity remains low, which results in many errors and vast delays for our constituents. The answers to my written parliamentary questions confirm that there is no proper performance management of our civil servants, corrective action or even dismissals for continued poor performance. Without the usual platitudes about how hard civil servants work, I want to know what the Government are doing about the thousands of poorly performing civil servants who are costing our constituents millions of pounds each year.

    Hansard source
40. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Topical Questions

    T4. Last week, a former Attorney General wrote that there was no legal reason for the Government not to publish a list of the Humble Address documents being withheld by the Metropolitan police. Will the Government publish that list?

    Hansard source