5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
T5. Scotland’s First Minister John Swinney is not often right, and he is wrong again with his slavish devotion to the European convention on human rights. If this place is to update the ECHR to make it fit for the 21st century, what steps can the Justice Secretary take to ensure that soft-touch Scotland does not become a back door for article 8 applications?
The Minister is describing a really good example of draft regulations being shaped by responses to a UK consultation. Is that a Brexit benefit?
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair once again, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this important debate. In Blur’s immortal words, he knows his claret from his Beaujolais, but I will not have anyone say he is a charmless man. It is a pleasure to speak in support of an industry that is doing well in this country, although it is facing some challenges. Wine is a home-grown success story, with more than 1,000 vineyards and nearly 5,000 hectares under vines across the country. In my North West Norfolk constituency, I am fortunate to have wineries including the award-winning Burn Valley and Cobble Hill, which are contributing to the local economy, supporting tourism and creating jobs. Overall, the wine and spirits industry contributed £76 billion in economic activity last year, with nearly half of that coming from the wine sector. Despite this success, the Government are putting more burdens on the sector. This has been a good debate, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) wins the prize for the number of wineries in her constituency. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) made some important points about public health. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) could not resist mentioning Brexit—he seems slightly obsessed. The domestic sector is largely made up of small producers, with two thirds producing fewer than 10,000 bottles a year. Generally, these are family businesses, local employers and passionate entrepreneurs. Employment in the sector has grown significantly over the past few years, and since 2010 bottle sales have increased to over 9 million. The UK is a global hub for the trade, being the second largest importer of wine by volume and value. This is a sector that we should be nurturing, not penalising. When we were in government, that is what we did. We introduced the simplified duty system, based on taxing alcohol by strength, with an 18-month easement to help the sector. We encouraged businesses to diversify and move into wine production. Importantly in the context of this debate, we froze alcohol duty rates in the 2023 autumn statement, and we continued that in the spring Budget of 2024. That is a record of support, but sadly this Government have taken a different path. At last year’s Budget, they raised the headline rate of alcohol duty by inflation. As we have heard, around 60% of the cost of a bottle of wine is now tax, and Wine GB warns that the increases are driving down demand and, in turn, cutting revenue to the Treasury. One in four drinkers say they will buy less alcohol as a result of the price increases. Let us be clear that producing wine in Britain is not easy. Yields are 30% to 50% lower than in France or Spain, labour costs are higher, the weather is obviously unpredictable, and input prices keep rising. But instead of backing the sector, the Government keep piling on costs. Alcohol duty—up. Business rates—up. National insurance—up. As we have heard, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association has said that revenues from alcohol duty are down £300 million in the first six months of this financial year. If that continues, the Treasury will be bringing in £1 billion less than was forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility at the spring statement. The Government are putting the country on the wrong side of the Laffer curve, not just on alcohol taxes but across the board. The Minister is relatively new in post, but has he commissioned advice on the duty’s impact on the sector? Has he taken a fresh look at the data or at the assumptions used by the OBR? If not, will he do so, and do so rapidly? The Opposition are firmly on the side of Britain’s wine producers. It is a vibrant, innovative and home-grown sector that deserves support, not more taxation. Of course, it is not possible to have this debate without talking about the hospitality sector, as a number of colleagues have. Wine is more than a drink; it is about socialising and shared experiences. The sector clearly depends heavily on pubs, restaurants and hotels to introduce consumers to this great British product. However, under this Government, hospitality, like so many sectors, is struggling. Nearly 90,000 jobs have been lost since the disastrous Budget a year ago, and today we have seen the unemployment rate hit 5%—it has gone up every month under this Government. That is the result of the Chancellor’s terrible judgment in making it more expensive to employ people. With rising employment costs, the jobs tax, the extended producer responsibility and higher business rates, we see layer upon layer of additional cost, so it is no wonder that UKHospitality has described the Government’s approach as a “hammer blow”. The wine sector has put forward some suggestions for the Chancellor and Ministers ahead of the Budget. First and foremost, it asks that they reconsider some of the decisions to increase business taxes, and it asks them to consider a freeze on excise duty or a wine tourism relief. As was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), and echoed by others, it also asks for the alignment of small producer relief with the realities of the wine industry. Those are all practical ideas that are worthy of consideration, so will the Minister commit to looking seriously and carefully at all of them? Rather than taxing success, we should be nurturing it. The wine sector is a model of sustainable, rural growth, and it deserves our support. Its ask of the Minister is simple: will the Government work with the sector and listen to it, and will they look at the evidence and commit to easing the burden on our wine producers?
Public safety should be the Justice Secretary’s priority, so why did it take six days for the Metropolitan police to be informed that a sex offender had been wrongly released from HMP Wandsworth?
Old Windsor is a small village in my constituency with an approved premises that has morphed to include high-risk offenders. It causes problems. Does the Minister agree that, first, probation services have responsibility for residents’ behaviour when they are outside that facility and, secondly, the police should have more focus on Old Windsor than they might otherwise have, given the location of that facility?
The Justice Secretary’s team say that he found out about the accidental release of Algerian sex offender Kaddour-Cherif on Tuesday evening. He contradicted them by saying he only learned of it on Wednesday morning. He said at PMQs that he had been busy shopping for a suit that morning. Did the Lord Chancellor spend any time at all shopping for a suit after he was told about that prisoner’s release?
I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of alcohol duty on the UK wine sector. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful to colleagues for attending this evening’s debate. A bit of background and heritage: the United Kingdom has long been a global hub for beers, wines and spirits. Dating back to 1698, with the founding of Berry Bros. & Rudd, we are the largest exporter of spirits in the world and the second largest importer of wine by both volume and value. The sector represents some of the very best of British enterprise: from heritage distillers to pioneering new producers who continue to innovate and support our economy. Behind every bottle on the shelf is a small family business, a logistics worker or a hospitality employee whose livelihood depends on the trade. Each year, the United Kingdom imports the equivalent of 1.7 billion bottles of wine, accounting for 99% of all wine consumed here. This vibrant culture of responsible enjoyment sustains our high streets, supports independent retailers and provides essential income for pubs and restaurants that continue to face difficult trading conditions. In 2024, more than £12 billion was paid to the Treasury in alcohol duty, with wines and spirits contributing £8.5 billion—around 70% of that total. The wider wine and spirits sector generated more than £76 billion in economic activity in 2022, supported £22 billion in gross value added and sustained more than 400,000 jobs. However, when more than 60% of the cost of a bottle of wine is tax, we must ask who is truly being squeezed—the consumer, the publican or the common sense of good economic policy? The reality is that the margins for producers and retailers are tightening. There is a limit to what the British public are willing to pay before they simply choose to stay at home. Changes in duty directly alter prices on the shelf and on restaurant wine lists. Every percentage point of duty may appear small in Whitehall, but for many businesses, it is the difference between survival and closure. Treasury Wine Estates, the producer of brands such as 19 Crimes and Penfolds, has warned that further tax increases will deepen pressure on hospitality. Its managing director of global premium brands, Angus Lilley, stated that higher costs mean tougher choices for local pubs, higher prices for consumers and less money circulating through the hospitality sector, which keeps our towns and cities vibrant. A recent YouGov poll commissioned by the Wine and Spirit Trade Association found that one in four regular drinkers will buy less alcohol from shops if prices continue to rise, and two in five will reduce their consumption in pubs and restaurants. In my constituency, we have excellent local brewers such as Tilford and Kilnside, and craft distillers such as Hogmoor distillery; I had the pleasure of visiting the team recently and sampling their locally made spirits. Those are small creative producers that bring jobs, pride and flavour to their communities, but they will not survive if the alcohol industry continues to face relentless pressure from Government policy that fails to support its long-term sustainability. If we price people out of the pub, we do not just lose the sale; we lose the cornerstone of British community life. Turning to the current picture, sales data illustrates the scale of the problem. In the 12 weeks to mid-June this year, volume sales for wine were down by 3% in the off-trade, rising to 5% for spirits. The picture in the on-trade is even more severe, with wine volumes down by 7% and spirits by 8%. Hospitality has been one of the hardest hit sectors of the economy since the Budget, accounting for nearly half of all job losses. We are now taxing our way to lower revenues. That is not sound economics; in fact, it is counterproductive. As one industry voice put it: “Britain is becoming the most taxed place to raise a glass and the hardest place to sell one”. Colleagues will recall that in 2023, the UK moved from the inherited EU duty framework to a strength-based system taxing wine by labelled alcohol by volume in 0.1% increments. Alongside that reform, the headline rate increased in August 2023, and it increased by a further 3.65% in February of this year. For a 14.5% ABV wine, that represents a cumulative increase of around 44% in just 18 months.
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and he pre-empts something I was going to say later about the inconsistencies and unfairness in the current system. Small producer relief is capped at 8.5% ABV, and the Government should look at what they can do for the smaller producers that he mentions. The TaxPayers’ Alliance has highlighted that the UK has the third highest wine duty in the world, now at £2.44 per bottle—an increase of 9p since 2023. By comparison, France charges the equivalent of just 2p per bottle and Romania 1p, and Spain applies no excise duty at all. In fact, half of the EU’s 27 member states do not charge duty on wine whatsoever. When neighbouring countries impose far lower rates, our competitiveness suffers. We pride ourselves on being a global trading nation, but we have priced ourselves out of the very markets we helped to create. Labour’s current approach is short-sighted and self-defeating: taxing ambition, throttling innovation and penalising productivity. The Treasury cannot build growth by breaking the back of the very industries that deliver it. As Winston Churchill put it in 1904, we cannot tax our way to prosperity any more than we can drink our way to sobriety. I turn to the inconsistencies and unfairness in the system, which my hon. Friend just mentioned. Products with an ABV of between 8.5% and 22% are taxed at the same rate per litre of pure alcohol, and yet producers of beer with an ABV of between 3.5% and 8.4% pay more than twice as much duty as producers of cider of the same strength. Small producer relief, although it is welcome in principle, is capped at 8.5% ABV and therefore excludes virtually all winemakers and distillers. This policy fails to support small English wineries such as Chapel Down—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam)—Nyetimber or Camel Valley, which I am sure Members are all familiar with, and which contribute to rural employment and agricultural production.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. It makes very little sense to design a system that punishes small wineries for doing precisely what we want, namely innovating, employing and exporting. We need a tax framework that supports the makers, not merely those who take. There is a revenue reality to this as well. Between April and September this year, receipts from alcohol duty were £300 million lower than during the same period in 2024. If that trend continues, the Treasury will collect around £1 billion less than was forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility. We have reached the wrong side of the Laffer curve, where higher duties result in lower total receipts. The Treasury cannot continue to draw from the same barrel and expect it to refill itself. That should give the Chancellor, the Minister and Treasury officials pause for serious reflection. With the autumn Budget approaching, I would be grateful if the Minister could address three areas of concern. First, have the Government undertaken, or will they undertake, a full assessment of the impact of successive duty increases on consumer prices, business sustainability and overall tax receipts? Secondly, will the forthcoming three-year review of the duty system consider whether the current tax by ABV model is appropriate for wine, a product whose alcohol content varies naturally with climatic conditions? Thirdly, will the Government revisit the structure of small producer relief so that it more fairly supports genuinely small-scale producers, including English winemakers and craft distillers, in line with the original policy intent? Finally, will the Treasury review the cumulative impact of wider regulatory costs, such as the extended producer responsibility packaging levy, business rate changes and other compliance burdens, to ensure that they do not disproportionately harm low-margin businesses within the sector? I thank the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and Treasury Wine Estates, whose compelling evidence shows a sector under extreme pressure, a tax system that is internationally uncompetitive and an approach that risks delivering diminished returns to the Exchequer. When consumers are price sensitive, hospitality is struggling, and revenues are falling despite higher rates, it is right to ask whether the system remains fit for purpose. The objective must be a framework that is fair between product categories, proportionate in its impact, and effective in raising the revenue on which our public services depend. The UK’s wine and spirits sector is one of our quiet economic strengths. It deserves a regulatory environment that allows it to thrive, invest and continue contributing to communities and the Treasury alike. The Government should remember that a thriving economy fills the Exchequer, and a suffocated one drains it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and in particular how the Government intend to support the stability, competitiveness and long-term sustainability of this vital industry.
Having eight minutes to wind up, when usually one gets about eight seconds in this place, is a luxury that I will indulge, at least to a limited extent—I do not want to keep hon. Members from their wine. This has been a fascinating debate and a wide range of issues have been raised. It was wonderful to hear about the wine producers and hospitality industries in people’s constituencies, as exemplified by my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), who is a doughty advocate not just for her constituency as a whole but, from what I can see from social media, for her vineyards and the producers in her constituency. Every day is a school day: I did not realise that Scotland produced wine, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for raising that—and for talking about his crisp-eating habits. He rightly mentioned the health implications, and I hope that nothing I said in my speech detracted from that. I would like to see more education, and more targeted services and treatment services. I think that would achieve more than taxing the Shiraz that we have with our Sunday lunch, although he may beg to differ with me on that. We have not just talked about wine; the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) rightly mentioned the Scotch whisky industry, which is vital. The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), outlined comprehensively how complicated the system is. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) for mentioning Blur. I think that dates him and me, but he was right to outline that the last Conservative Government froze duties. That is something that the Government should consider at the Budget. I feel sorry for the Minister, because—behind the Chancellor, perhaps—he probably has the worst job in Government, but it does not have to be that way. He could make everyone very happy at the Budget by being one of the first Ministers responsible for taxation in a Labour Government to reduce tax. We shall wait and see. I was pleased to hear that, in the three-year review, the Government will look at the wider implications and the design of the system—and, I think he said, at small producer relief. However, I was slightly disappointed by the way the Minister dismissed the impact of tax rises on the hospitality industry. That 90,000 jobs have disappeared since the last Budget is a scandal. If the same number of jobs had been lost from a car plant or an oil refinery, we would be debating that in the House and the Government would be stepping in to bail the industry out. Although the impact is dispersed across the country, those 90,000 jobs are equally important, and I hope the Government reconsider in particular their national insurance increase, which has hit the industry so hard. I urge the Minister again to review the cumulative burdens that have been placed on the industry through both tax and regulation, and I hope that when he has his conversations with representatives of the industry tomorrow—I am glad that my debate has spurred him to have that meeting—he listens seriously to their concerns and gives them the relief and response that they seek. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the impact of alcohol duty on the UK wine sector.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. Maritime regulations are critical to maintaining high standards at sea and ensuring our compatibility with the many international maritime treaties to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. The safety, integrity and reputation of our maritime sector depend on a clear, consistent and modernised regulatory framework. It is therefore essential that our regulatory regime is updated periodically, in line with international standards, not only to ensure compliance but to make certain that it remains workable and effective for those across the industry who rely on it. The shipping and maritime equipment sectors are vital to the UK’s trade and economy, and they deserve a regime that helps them to prosper, innovate and compete on a global scale. Broadly, as I understand it, the Government’s proposals are technical in nature and introduce only limited changes to the existing regulations. One of the more consequential proposals appears to be the approval regime for ballast water management systems. It may not be a great surprise to the Committee that my expertise does not extend to the finer points of ballast water management, so I defer to the judgment of the industry which, when consulted, indicated its support for the proposed changes, with only minimal comment. Given the lack of concern from those most directly affected, it seems reasonable to conclude that the changes are sensible and proportionate. I wish to press the Minister on the equivalents provision in the regulations. The provisions allow for the installation of non-UK-approved equipment in certain circumstances. Will the Minister outline whether discussions have taken place with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency regarding the expected frequency and scale of such requests? Will he also provide assurances that the mechanism will not be used as a back-door route to circumvent post-Brexit approval requirements, but will instead apply only to genuine case-specific situations, thereby maintaining both the integrity and the safety of our regulatory regime? I note from the consultation that the MCA has said that the UK’s membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership is expected to provide an additional supply of UK-approved maritime equipment, while offering British manufacturers greater opportunities to export to CPTPP member states. That in itself is a positive development. However, although steps have been taken to maintain co-operation with EU-notified bodies, will the Minister confirm whether there are plans to engage proactively with partners across the Pacific region to ensure that any streamlining or mutual recognition of standards is carried out on a genuinely global basis? Doing so could help to reduce regulatory burdens while strengthening the United Kingdom’s position as a world leader in maritime excellence. I hope the Minister can provide clarity on those few points so that we can continue to ensure that the UK’s maritime regulations are clear, effective and internationally aligned, and that our maritime industry remains as competitive and innovative as possible in the years ahead.
It is a great pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr Pritchard. I welcome the relatively new Minister to her first delegated legislation Committee; I am sure there will be many more. It is a great pleasure to see her for the first time in her place. I welcome the opportunity to address this statutory instrument on behalf of the official Opposition. As the Minister helpfully set out, the instrument gives effect to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30 in Northern Ireland and allows it to be legally enforced. The radio equipment directive requires that the radio equipment sold or used within the EU market must meet what are known as essential requirements. Under the terms of the Windsor framework, Northern Ireland remains subject to EU regulations in this area, specifically on radio equipment. The Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 have been amended on numerous occasions, as the Minister will be aware. Today’s instrument makes further amendments to requirements relating to internet-connected radio equipment such as smartphones and fitness trackers. The Minister alluded to this in her speech, but the Department for Business and Trade states that these regulations enhance cyber-security, and that many businesses are already compliant with the regulations because they export to the EU; therefore, in the Department’s view, there should be no significant impact on the supply of products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Despite that assessment, let me ask for clarification on two points. The explanatory memorandum says, “Many UK businesses also supply the EU markets…and have already taken steps to come into compliance with the Radio Equipment Directive.” What estimate does the Minister have of the percentage of radio manufacturers who are likely to be compliant? It would be helpful for colleagues to have an understanding of the progress made already, without this regulation in place. Secondly, will the Minister outline whether the standards are in keeping with those in other international markets, in particular the United States? What assessment has the Department made of the competitiveness of these regulations in relation to those other markets? Other than that, we will not oppose the measure and I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
Mistaken releases of prisoners do not just undermine public trust and confidence in the system; they cost money, because the police have to go and find them and return them to prison. Can the Secretary of State set out how much it has cost the police to return prisoners to prison since this Government came to power?
Recent events and today’s court ruling again bring to the surface anxiety in our Epping community. My thoughts remain with the victims, including the 14-year-old Epping schoolgirl. Appallingly, they and their families heard about the wrongful prisoner release from the media instead of the Government. It is frankly astonishing that the Government are only using their levers of power in the courts to overturn the case brought by the council, but are not using their powers to address these issues on the frontline: the illegal immigration crisis, mistaken release of convicted prisoners and serious management and safeguarding issues associated with the Bell Hotel, which needs urgently to close. When will the Government get a grip, realise that they are not political commentators but players on the pitch, and use their powers to tackle those issues once and for all?
Last week in Prime Minister’s questions, the right hon. Gentleman said: “Get a grip, man! I know I am the Justice Secretary.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 902.] I am pleased he knows he is the Justice Secretary, and with that comes leadership, so can he guarantee to the public that he has a grip on the issue of prisoners released by mistake?
Last week, when told by my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) that the Sentencing Bill would cut prison time for rapists and child groomers, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said she that would have to “go away and check” whether that was true—the time to check was before she voted for the Bill. Surely the victims Minister knows and can tell the House what proportion of rapists and child groomers will have their prison time cut by Labour’s Sentencing Bill.
Yet again, we have a Government and a Victims Minister who cannot tell the House basic facts about the implications of their Bill. I will tell her: 60% of rapists and 90% child groomers sent to prison will have their prison time cut. That is appalling. We also know that knives are all too often a feature of violence against women and girls. The House will have seen the tragic news that Katie Fox, the female victim of a brutal knife attack in Birmingham on Friday, has died. Over the last few weeks, the Labour Government have been talking tough on knife crime, but can the Minister tell the House what proportion of criminals sent to prison for carrying a knife will have to serve only a third of their sentence under Labour’s appalling Sentencing Bill?
The ministerial code requires honesty and transparency. On 28 October, in a written parliamentary question, I asked how many of those released in error under this Government remain at large. On 3 November I received an answer, but it did not answer the question. Was that because the Government did not know how many people were at large, or because they chose not to be transparent and give the answer?
It is good to see a quieter, more emollient and, even by his own lights, humbler Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box than the one we saw last week. Will he say how many people have been wrongly detained and how much money his Department is setting aside for the likely ensuing litigation?
Why does the Minister think the BBC’s national leadership has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of licence fee payers’ money resisting attempts to publish the 2004 Balen report? Does she suspect, like I do, that it might be because the conclusions drawn 20 years ago are very similar to the conclusions that have been made apparent in the now leaked Michael Prescott report, particularly around a culture that makes it possible for it to be okay to doctor and distort the facts to suit a preformed agenda?
May I say that there is no more appropriate Member of the House to be introducing this debate than the hon. and gallant Gentleman with his distinguished record? I think I represent more generals than any other right hon. or hon. Member of the House. The Minister will have seen that nine four-star officers wrote to The Times to raise their concerns about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the legal activism that it is likely to encourage, which “risk weakening the moral foundations and operational effectiveness of the forces on which this nation depends.” While we all honour our brave servicemen and servicewomen today rhetorically, does the Minister agree that we need to follow that through with real action, to ensure that they are not disadvantaged today and into the future?
It is a real privilege to close this debate on remembrance and the contribution of the armed forces for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I think we can all agree that it is even more special for falling on Armistice Day. I place on record my thanks, and the thanks of Conservative Members, to the Royal British Legion, our armed forces personnel and their families. Over this remembrance weekend, they stood in the cold and rain—something I think we all endured this weekend—organised parades, supported services in every community, and ensured that people across the country could remember with dignity and pride. We are grateful for their service—not only this weekend, but every day. One hundred and seven years ago today, the guns finally fell silent on the western front. The first world war, which was said to be the war to end all wars, came to an end. The cost was unimaginable: millions of men and women never returned, and millions more came home forever changed. Families were torn apart, futures were rewritten, and a generation carried grief that shaped the century that followed. Remembrance is our solemn promise to that sacrifice that we will never forget it. But remembrance is not exclusive. It belongs to all of us. Today, we honour those who served in our armed forces in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth from every nation, every faith and every background. We honour the families who bore the silent burden of fear and separation. In the past 18 months, we have marked significant milestones in our national history, including the 80th anniversary of D-day, and we once again heard from the extraordinary men and women who served in the second world war, but we all know that that living link to history is fading, and as it fades, our responsibility to carry their stories forward only grows stronger. We do not remember to glorify war; we remember to understand its cost. We remember so that future generations understand why peace matters, and why it must be protected with everything we have. We all know that the world is becoming more volatile, more unpredictable and more dangerous. History teaches us something simple and profound: when nations forget the true price of conflict, they become far more vulnerable to repeating it. We have heard many strong and heartfelt contributions from Members from across the House, starting with the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who talked about how our armed forces personnel are deployed globally every day of the year, and how they truly represent the best of British. The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) raised an issue relating to the Falklands campaign and the Sir Galahad faced by her constituents from the Welsh Guards. I hope that the Minister, in her closing remarks, can shed some light for the hon. Lady. My right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) talked about the bravery of one of his former units, the special forces, which saved lives in Iraq and other conflicts around the world, and the dangers of lawfare for morale. We heard from the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), whose constituency has been the foundry and beating heart of defence. I pay tribute to her constituents, who really are at the forefront of keeping us safe. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) spoke powerfully about his time in Afghanistan on Herrick 11. It was heart-wrenching to hear the young ages of his fellow soldiers who lost their lives on that battleground. We heard from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) about the 85-foot granite tower that provides a constant and visible reminder to his constituents of the cost of war. The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) raised the important point that this time in November, around Remembrance Day, is one of the only times in the calendar that civil society gets the chance to look at the members of our armed forces, and it is imperative that we strengthen the link to the armed forces wherever we can. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) talked about military personnel transitioning into civilian life; I hope that this Parliament can ease that transition as much as possible. I think we all know that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) was decorated in multiple wars. He is an experienced soldier and officer, and I really hope that the Government will listen to his words. We heard brilliant contributions from the hon. Members for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane), for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) and for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia). We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who, as we all know, is an expert on security and defence matters, and who really enriches debates when he talks about those issues. We heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), and from the hon. Members for St Helens North (David Baines), for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew). The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), who is an experienced aviator from the RAF, raised the salient point that remembrance belongs to all of us. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) highlighted the significant contribution of her countrymen and countrywomen from Northern Ireland. I align myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) about our formidable Gurkha force. We heard contributions from the hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). I align myself with the comments of the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) —a fellow south-west MP—who said that defence can be a real engine for growth, and I look forward to working with her on that in this Parliament. Finally, we had contributions from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger). I want to take the last few minutes to raise an important aspect of remembrance that I believe this House must confront more openly. Remembrance must not be limited to the conflicts that are easy to talk about— the ones where history gives us a clean narrative and a clean moral outcome. When we talk about the second world war, the story is instinctively understood: it is democracy and freedom prevailing over fascism and tyranny. Although the human cost was unbearable, the outcome was unambiguous. It is a conflict we can speak about with pride and respect. The challenge for our country going forwards is how we remember with the same respect and dignity conflicts in which the outcome was less clear. I rarely speak publicly about my service, but now that I am in this House, I feel a responsibility to speak up for my generation of soldiers—friends who were sent to war as a result of decisions made in this House. I believe that the British state needs to talk more openly about the recent conflicts we have asked our young men and women to serve in, including but not limited to Northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. These are conflicts without victory parades, without neat endings, and without a universally agreed narrative, and because they are complex, we sometimes avoid speaking about them altogether. That silence has consequences. There is a growing feeling in parts of the veteran community that I hear when I meet former Royal Marines who served in places such as Northern Ireland and when I speak with those I served alongside in Afghanistan. The feeling can be summed up in two painful questions: “What was it all for?” and “Does my country still have my back?” As someone who served in Afghanistan during a period that is now under intense legal scrutiny, I cannot pretend that those questions do not sting. I served my country, and I have pride in the way in which we conducted ourselves, yet sometimes it feels as though the country I served now wants to paint me and others like me as something we are not. We risk creating a culture in which those who served feel judged rather than honoured and where stereotypes replace understanding and assumptions replace gratitude. There is a deep and genuine fear among veterans that the nation no longer stands behind them. I know that the Minister responding also served, and I hope that she will take these comments in the constructive spirit in which they are offered—from one veteran to another. I will not turn this remembrance debate into a debate on current politics, but as has been mentioned by many right hon. and hon. Members, a letter was written yesterday by nine four-star generals warning about lawfare and its impact on our armed forces. That should be a wake-up call to the Government. Legislation affecting those who served deserves full and open debate in this House. Most people who join our armed forces do so out of service to our country. We must remember that. Let us be clear that the courage shown in recent conflicts is equal to the courage shown in any war in our national history. The sacrifice is the same. The cost to families is the same. These young men and women went there because this House sent them. They answered the call of Parliament. They put on the uniform knowing the risks. Some returned with life-changing injuries. Too many did not return at all. We must not allow the complexities of a conflict to diminish the honour of those who served. Their courage is defined not by the outcome of a war but by the character they showed when our country asked them to go.
I have long been a champion of the BBC as a UK national institution, but at the last charter review I raised my concern about the prevalence of a metropolitan elite at the heart of the BBC—not just at UK level but in Scotland—who do not always convey that they understand or indeed respect rural or older constituents such as my own. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in order to preserve the BBC as a national institution, this charter review will convey an understanding of people right across the UK, wherever they live?
Every nation rightly celebrates the heroism of its soldiers, but in the United Kingdom’s case, we also celebrate their skill in avoiding innocent deaths when dealing with the enemies of our nation and our democracy. When nations neutralise terrorists, they typically use a bomb or a missile, but bombs and missiles also kill innocent bystanders in the house, in the wedding party or in the bus, so Britain, as the Minister knows better than anybody else, often uses special forces in those circumstances. Richard Williams, the former commanding officer of the 22nd Special Air Service Regiment during our operations in Iraq, said that “the SAS soldiers took extreme risks, facing violent and well-prepared opposition to capture these terrorists and hand them on to Iraqi justice and detention. It was a deliberate and careful approach…It required precision, intelligence, self-control, skill…in the face of immense danger—the very opposite of the hot-blooded, murderous drama depicted by poorly informed outsiders. At the start of 2005, approximately 100 vehicle-borne suicide bombs were being detonated every month in Baghdad by AQ-I”— al-Qaeda in Iraq— “and thousands of Shia Muslims were being slaughtered by assassination gangs. But by the end of 2007, after the combined US and SAS effort…The number of suicide bombs had dropped to a single detonation per month”— saving lives— “and the Sunni population of central Iraq was supporting the coalition efforts in eradicating AQ-I from their midst. It was a remarkable outcome justifiably celebrated by military and political leaders”, and it was all down to our soldiers. However, those special forces and that capacity to protect innocent lives are at risk. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said earlier, only today we have seen nine retired four-star generals warning in The Times of the damaging effects of lawfare. I will quote some of their words extensively and put them on the parliamentary record. They said: “Having held the honour of leading the United Kingdom’s armed forces…we feel bound to warn that the government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and the legal activism surrounding it, risk weakening the moral foundations and operational effectiveness of the forces on which this nation depends. Presented as a route to justice and closure, the bill achieves neither. It will not bring terrorists to account; it will not heal division in Northern Ireland; and it undermines the confidence of those who volunteer to serve this country at its request and under its authority. This lawfare is a direct threat to national security. Contrary to recent ministerial assurances, highly trained members of special forces are already leaving the service. These are the men and women who quietly neutralise threats and protect lives every week. Their loss is significant; it is a direct consequence of legal uncertainty and the erosion of trust. This is a corrosive form of ‘lawfare’…which now extends far beyond Northern Ireland. Today every deployed member of the British Armed Forces must consider not only the enemy in front but the lawyer behind. The fear that lawful actions may later be judged unlawful will paralyse decision-making, distort rules of engagement and deter initiative.”
Yes, that is right. All of them had soldiers serve under them at risk on the frontline and had soldiers die under their command, so they are all people with strong knowledge of what we are talking about. To go on with the quotation: “And make no mistake, our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.” If we do not speak up to protect both our current service personnel and our veterans, the innocent will suffer, as I have described, because we will not be able to do what we have done in the past and we will find ourselves unable to defend our nation when called upon. The Minister did not like it when my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire raised this issue, and I understand that it is an uncomfortable one for a day like today, but it is important that we are not guilty of hypocrisy in this Chamber, and that we recognise that the people we are standing up for face a new threat that we have to deal with. I have to say to the House, again to the Minister’s probable discomfort, that I have been surprised, on two occasions in the last two weeks, to have people on the frontline on this issue quote Martin Luther King: “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” We owe it to them not to be silent on these issues.
The internet is full of people who think they are in touch with a bigger truth and that it does not matter what happens to all sorts of littler truths along the way in getting that bigger truth across. In his letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), the Chair of the Select Committee, Samir Shah spoke of the “sacred job” of the BBC to use evidence that can be trusted. That is more important than ever. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is events such as these that give ammunition to people who say, “Disregard the BBC—don’t look at the mainstream media” and consider all sources to be the same? The most worrying thing is not that a mistake happened, because mistakes happen in big organisations; the most worrying thing is that it took this long for it be corrected. Does the Secretary of State agree that in future, corrections must always be made swiftly and proactively?
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and I echo her words about the director general and the head of news. She will know that the airwaves over the last couple of days have been dominated by a number of debates about the BBC: the concern about bias, particularly on some of the most contentious issues; the ability of the board to govern effectively; and, most of all, editorial standards and accuracy. That last point has led the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I chair, to issue invitations today for the non-executive members of the BBC editorial guidance and standards committee Dr Samir Shah, Caroline Thomson and Robbie Gibb, and the former external independent advisers Michael Prescott and Caroline Daniel to appear before us in the weeks ahead. In the meantime, what support is the Secretary of State’s Department giving the BBC at every level to steady the ship? On charter review, I heard the Secretary of State use the words “imminently” and “shortly”, but I have heard similar words since the beginning of the year, so could she be more specific on the timeline?
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. She will be aware that she had two minutes during the course of the statement to raise her concern. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State wishes to respond.
I understand that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead wishes to raise a similar point of order.
I thank both Members for their points of order. May I seek clarification that the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was informed of them in advance?
The terms and conditions for downloading and making use of clips from parliamentlive.tv are published online. Although it would not be appropriate for me to refer to guidance given to individual Members, I urge all colleagues to follow the rules. Ultimately, I am not responsible for what Members post online. How we treat each other is important and sets the tone for national debate. I ask Members to consider carefully what is in good or bad taste, and to exercise good judgment in what they post online about colleagues. On the broader point about the use of AI in relation to footage of our proceedings, that is an issue that the Administration Committee may wish to pursue. In particular, the House might benefit from considering whether the current licensing rules and enforcement mechanisms are appropriate.
I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. She has put her correction on the record.
I inform the House that the Nathan Gill bribery case is still technically sub judice until sentencing on 21 November. However, given that the accused has pleaded guilty to the charges, and in the light of Members’ continued interest in this case in the context of Russian interference in British politics, Mr Speaker has granted a limited waiver to allow discussion of the case during today’s proceedings. Members should avoid making reference to sentencing issues.
Before I put the Question, I would like to confirm whether the hon. Member informed the hon. Members for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) of his intention to refer to them. If he has not, it would have been a courtesy for him to have done so in advance. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Calum Miller, James MacCleary, Monica Harding, Dr Al Pinkerton, Mike Martin, Richard Foord, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Stephen Gethins, Sir Julian Lewis and Alex Sobel present the Bill. Calum Miller accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 326).
Order. Before I call the Chair of the Defence Committee, let me inform Members that a five-minute speaking time limit will be imposed after the speech from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Order. After the next speaker, there will be a four-minute time limit.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for having given notice of her point of order, and I take it that she has notified both the Secretary of State at the DWP and the former Secretary of State at the DWP of her intention to refer to them in the Chamber.
This, as the hon. Lady will know, is not a matter for the Chair, but she has put her point very much on the record and I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted her comments.
4. What steps his Department is taking to help support the Probation Service to manage repeat offenders who cross jurisdictional boundaries to avoid supervision.
Residents living in villages across north Worcestershire in my constituency of Bromsgrove are often victims of crime that originates from urban areas, including Birmingham. What message would the Minister send to my constituents who want a reassurance that the Probation Service is being strengthened in order that repeat offenders who evade supervision by crossing jurisdictions do not fall through the cracks as a result of the police not sharing data?