Conservative and Unionist Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Conservative and Unionist Party

Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

  1. ParliamentMr Richard Holden

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Cabinet Office guide to parliamentary work is very clear that “Every question should be approached with a predisposition to give relevant information fully. There should be no inconsistencies between the provision of information in answers to written questions and information given” under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If “information would be released under FOI, it would also be released in response to” a written parliamentary question. This position was confirmed by the then Leader of the House in October last year when she stated that if information would be released under freedom of information legislation, it would also be released in response to a written parliamentary question. This guidance appears to have been breached in relation to questions about representations on the Government’s plans to hike up parking fines. On 10 July, in answer to parliamentary question 64511, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), refused to publish the material. On 19 August, the Department released the same information under the Freedom of Information Act, explicitly referencing the unanswered parliamentary question. When asked again to publish the released material, on 16 October, in answer to parliamentary question 77651, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), once again refused to do so. We now have a situation where Parliament is being treated with contempt and information is being provided to members of the public under FOI but withheld from Members of this House. This is a direct breach of the Government’s own guidance and of the principle of accountability to this House. Madam Deputy Speaker, will you consider communicating to the Leader of the House and to the Departments that such inconsistencies are wholly unacceptable and that information that would be released under FOI must also be released to Parliament? Should the two Ministers not now correct this affront and place the information in the Library of the House?

    Hansard source

  2. ParliamentMr Peter Bedford

    Sentencing Bill

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source

  3. ParliamentMr Peter Bedford

    Sentencing Bill

    In September 2024, my constituents and, indeed, the country were left shocked by the senseless killing of Braunstone Town resident Bhim Kohli. Mr Kohli, a well-respected and decent man, was just walking through Franklin park as he usually did, accompanied by his dog Rocky, when he was targeted and assaulted to death by a 14-year-old boy, egged on by a 12-year-old girl. Since this horrific event, I have been working with Mr Kohli’s daughter Susan, and I pay tribute to the Kohli family for the dignified manner in which they have dealt with the emotional and tragic aftermath of such a horrific incident. Susan is not looking for retribution; she is simply looking to promote justice for the families of victims, who at the moment do not feel that the justice system works for them. I pay tribute to Susan, who I know is sitting at home, alongside Rocky, watching today’s debate. I have tabled new clauses 1 and 14 in memory of Mr Kohli, and I would like hon. Members across the House to support them. They would place greater responsibility on child offenders and the parents of child offenders. New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the effectiveness and use of parental orders throughout the justice system. For hon. Members who do not know, parental orders are measures that either require parents of child offenders to pay for their children’s crimes, or force them to attend parenting classes. Yet, despite those powers being on the statute book, they are rarely used. In fact, the Ministry of Justice confirmed that their use has decreased from over 1,000 in 2010 to just 27 in recent years. That is woefully inadequate. These measures are designed not to punish, but to support; to help families restore discipline and stability; and to prevent the next crime before it happens. Susan put it to me that if the parents of the two individuals in this case were placed under parental orders, they would perhaps appreciate the damage and impact that their negligent behaviour has caused. The fact that one of the parents recently asked for their child’s tag to be removed so that they could go on a family holiday is shameful. New clause 14 would bring an end to anonymity protections for young offenders who commit the most heinous and serious crimes. I believe in deterrence, and I believe that when an individual commits an act so vile and abhorrent, the full weight of justice must be felt, including being named publicly. The boy—15 years old by the time of the trial—should not be shielded. Our judicial system should not protect those who have shown such disregard for human life; they should be named, just as Axel Rudakubana was following a court order, and as Mohammed Umar Khan was last week. New clause 14 is simple: if an individual under the age of 18 commits a serious crime, they will be named—no ifs, no buts. In my eyes, if someone is old enough to commit such an appalling crime, they are old enough to face the full consequences of their actions.

    Hansard source

  4. ParliamentMr Peter Bedford

    Sentencing Bill

    I could not agree more. My hon. Friend mentions the rumours that the Government are planning to lower the voting age, and it would seem contradictory to have two ages of responsibility. I will turn now to new clause 18, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). It is shocking that the girl who was with the 14-year-old boy, and who egged him on to commit the assault—quite literally to kill a man—did not receive a custodial sentence. Sentencing guidelines make it nearly impossible for individuals of that age to receive a custodial sentence. But what can we in this House do about that? The answer is “very little” because we have an unelected and unaccountable quango determining sentencing guidelines, rather than democratically elected Members in this place. That is wrong and must change. We must abolish the Sentencing Council and restore democratic accountability to our judicial system to promote equality before the law and ensure that serious crimes are treated with the tough punishment that they deserve, irrespective of a defendant’s sob story. Crime is crime. That is why I also support new clauses 17 and 19, which would ensure tough sentences for those who commit sexual abuse or murder. I also support new clause 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), which would deliver a powerful message: someone who takes a life through dangerous or reckless driving should forfeit the privilege of driving. It would prioritise public safety and provide justice for families who have lost loved ones, like my constituent Emma Johnson who lost her parents to the actions of a careless driver. I sincerely hope that the Government support the amendments. We in this place must ensure that justice is done and seen to be done.

    Hansard source

  5. ParliamentMr Mark Francois

    Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have just been debating the important matter of asylum seekers in MOD accommodation. Could you confirm, as I hope Hansard will, that in the nearly 37 minutes that we have spent debating this important matter, no Member of Reform has been in the Chamber or, indeed, made any contribution whatsoever?

    Hansard source

  6. ParliamentMr Louie French

    Draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 Draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025

    As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. As the Minister rightly said, these regulations are made under powers introduced by the Media Act 2024, which is a significant piece of legislation designed to modernise our broadcasting framework for the digital age, passed under the previous Conservative Government. The draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 update the Broadcasting (Original Productions) Order 2004 to ensure that key definitions and obligations remain consistent with the new statutory regime established by the Act. In particular, these regulations bring the treatment of repeats within the original and regional productions quotas up to date, reflecting the way in which programmes are now produced, distributed and consumed. As members of the Committee will know, the Media Act gave the Secretary of State the power to determine whether repeats of public service content could count towards broadcasters’ quotas. These regulations delegate the responsibility to Ofcom, the industry regulator, which already sets the levels of the original productions and regional programme-making quotas for public service broadcasters, other than the BBC. Allowing Ofcom to decide how repeats are treated ensures a coherent and practical approach—one that links the measurement of quotas to the operational realities of programming, commissioning and scheduling. By modernising the definitions and entrusting Ofcom with the appropriate discretion, these regulations help to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom’s public service broadcasting system, while ensuring that it remains fit for purpose in a fast-changing media landscape. They are a further example of how the previous Conservative Government’s Media Act continues to provide the foundations for a flexible, forward-looking and well-regulated broadcasting sector. Moving on to the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025, as members of the Committee will know, the previous regime for independent production quotas was based on linear television, requiring each public service broadcaster to commission at least 25% of their qualifying hours from independent producers. However, as audiences have increasingly turned to on-demand platforms, such as ITVX and BBC iPlayer, the old system no longer reflected how viewers were accessing public service content. The Media Act addressed this by extending the scope of the quotas so that they could be delivered across a broadcaster’s wide range of services, and by converting percentage-based quotas into minimum hours targets. This statutory instrument gives effect to those provisions, setting the new quotas for each of the main public service broadcasters—the BBC, S4C and Channels 3, 4 and 5—based on a five-year average of qualifying hours. I understand that the updated framework has been agreed with both Ofcom and the broadcasters themselves to ensure that it remains balanced, proportionate and achievable. It also updates the definitions of “independent production” and “independent producer” to bring them into line with modern industry practice without making substantive policy changes. An important part of the reform relates to Channel 4. Following the removal of the publisher-broadcaster model under the Media Act, Channel 4 has been permitted to undertake limited in-house production for the first time. To maintain its strong relationship with the independent sector, the quota for Channel 4 has been increased from 25% to 35% of its programming hours. We believe this represents a fair and reasonable adjustment that safeguards opportunities for small and medium-sized independent producers, while giving Channel 4 the scope to adapt and innovate. Overall, this instrument reflects a pragmatic and forward-looking approach to media regulation. It ensures that public service broadcasters continue to meet their obligations to commission high-quality, independent content while providing flexibility to operate effectively in a rapidly changing digital landscape. It builds on the legislative foundations set out by the Media Act and maintains the UK’s reputation for having a diverse, independent and world-leading broadcasting sector. On that note, we will not be seeking to divide the Committee.

    Hansard source

  7. ParliamentMr Andrew Snowden

    UK-Türkiye Typhoon Export Deal

    Ever since I was elected, it has been a critical part of my work to push to secure Typhoon orders at the Warton site because of the impact those orders would have not only on jobs across Fylde and Lancashire, but on our sovereign capability to build our own military aircraft. I massively welcome this announcement and the work that has been done by Ministers on the Front Bench and former Ministers on the Opposition Benches. I was touched that the Minister invited me to join him on his visit to BAE Systems last week, although the Prime Minister did not invite me to the announcement in my own constituency yesterday—perhaps he has been taking my questions at PMQs too personally. The deal is welcome, but it means that we are now the only major partner in the Eurofighter project that is not ordering the aircraft that we are trying to sell to other countries. We are trying to sell aircraft abroad that we are not buying ourselves. I am sure it would be a great aid to future export deals—for getting that extra 20 further down the line and for looking at Saudi and other places where we are trying to sell them—and equally, it would continue to boost our sovereign capability in military aircraft and maintain jobs across our country if we placed that order for more Typhoons for the RAF. I would happily heap praise on the Minister if he did so.

    Hansard source

  8. ParliamentMims Davies

    Farmers: Inheritance Tax

    I note that it takes three women to take me on now, but I very much welcome the Ministers to their places. Charles Rees, a fifth-generation Pembrokeshire farmer, has bravely and moving shared his battle with cancer on the BBC’s “Countryfile”, and I know this House will send him and his family our best wishes. His illness is not his only worry; he is also seriously concerned that his son, who is running his farm, could now be facing an unaffordable inheritance tax bill of £1 million, solely due to this Government’s catastrophic family farm tax. Despite Ministers saying differently, Charles and many other farmers across the country are fearing for their livelihoods, their way of life, their futures, and for food security. Will the Government scrap the family farm tax?

    Hansard source

  9. ParliamentMims Davies

    Economic Growth

    Under the watch of the current Secretary of State, opportunities for young people are now unbelievably dire. Despite what she says, unemployment is rising and employment is falling, and that situation is not good enough for the next generation in Wales. Last week, my colleague, Darren Millar, who is the Conservative leader of the Senedd group, met the Welsh First Minister—does anyone know who that is?—offering to potentially support the Welsh Government’s budget, provided Labour Ministers agree to scrapping Welsh stamp duty. That would help young people on to the property ladder in Wales, where it is the hardest to achieve that, and boost the Welsh economy. Will the Secretary of State confirm that she agrees with scrapping Welsh stamp duty? If so, what measures is she taking to persuade Baroness Morgan of Ely to scrap the tax in Wales?

    Hansard source

  10. ParliamentMims Davies

    Asylum Seeker Accommodation

    After wantonly scrapping the Rwanda scheme, the Labour Government are now overseeing record-breaking figures of illegal immigrants. It is reported that the scandal is now engulfing north Wales, where more than 200 illegal immigrants have tried to gain entry to the country on ferries from Dublin to Holyhead. Meanwhile, there is talk about Penally military camp in south-west Wales, which was previously condemned by the Welsh Labour Government. It appears that their policy, along with Reform’s, is from boats to barracks, as is happening in Scotland and Sussex, yet Plaid says that there is no such thing as illegal immigration. Does the Minister agree that her Government and Plaid have no idea about and no interest in how to make our borders safe?

    Hansard source

  11. ParliamentMims Davies

    Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing

    Well, what a bolt from the blue! There has been huge concern throughout the Wealden district since the news broke of a “boats to barracks” plan in Sussex. The council leadership urgently needs to speak to local MPs, as do many other councillors, to assuage deep concerns about hundreds of asylum seekers coming to a very rural part of Sussex. Does this simply mean that people living in the Copthorne hotel will move to the barracks? Will the Minister kindly try to work with the Wealden district council leadership, so that public meetings can be held locally to discuss the significant issues that have arisen and the discussions that have taken place? What is happening about the planning process, and the community and police support? Many people need to understand these matters, given the unexpected choice of such a countryside location.

    Hansard source

  12. ParliamentMike Wood

    Engagements

    Q9.   I am proud that the last Government introduced the triple lock, and we have committed to keeping it. [Interruption.]

    Hansard source

  13. ParliamentMike Wood

    Engagements

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. The triple lock was a great achievement of the previous Government, and we will be keeping it. From April, pensioners with private pensions as low as £2 a month will be paying income tax for the first time. At last year’s Budget, the Chancellor was clear that extending the freeze on personal allowances would breach Labour’s manifesto commitment. Will the Prime Minister prove the media speculation wrong, keep his promise and guarantee that there will be no extension to the freeze on personal allowances?

    Hansard source

  14. ParliamentMatt Vickers

    Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing

    Since this Government entered office, the illegal immigration crisis has gotten seriously worse on every front. The number of people arriving in this country illegally is up, and not just by a little bit; arrivals are up by more than 50% compared with the same period before the election. Before the election, the number of migrants staying in hotels had fallen by 47%. It has now gone up, and fewer of the people breaking into this country illegally on a small boat are being removed. We are now in a position where the Government are putting forward a proposal that, in opposition, they described as “an admission of failure”. The Defence Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), is unable to say whether the plan will save us money or cost us more. We also hear that this proposal will involve accommodation on a site that is directly next to homes provided to the families of our brave armed forces personnel. Have the Government consulted those families about this plan? All this demonstrates that we need much stronger proposals than the weak efforts the Government are presiding over. That is why we have put forward the borders plan, which goes beyond tinkering with the system. If we want to stop the use of this accommodation, we need to change completely how we approach this problem and ensure that all illegal immigrants are removed within a week. It is a comprehensive plan based on our proposals to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, reform how our asylum system operates, and remove the blockages that have prevented the removal of illegal entrants. It is a proposal that is not only practical, but fair, as those who come to the UK illegally should not be housed at the taxpayer’s expense in ever greater numbers. People need to know that if they break into this country, they will be detained and deported. That is how we will solve this crisis. I will finish by asking the question we are all wondering: when will the asylum hotels close? Will the Government commit to closing all asylum hotels within a year?

    Hansard source

  15. ParliamentMark Pritchard

    UK-Türkiye Typhoon Export Deal

    I welcome today’s statement, of course. It is interesting that the Minister comes to the House with good news, but has to be dragged here when there is less good news. Nevertheless, this is welcome news and a real boost for defence jobs in this country. The Minister mentioned that some of our Eurofighter allies had signed this off and were happy with the deal. Would he like to comment on whether the White House is happy with it? Of course, anything that weans Turkey away from the Russian defence industrial complex and supply chain is to be welcomed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) outlined. When the Prime Minister met the Turkish President on Monday in Ankara, did he also discuss Turkey being weaned off Russian oil and gas and being used as a conduit for Russian oil and gas going into some parts of the European Union—up at 36% at the moment, I think—which, of course, is funding the Russian war effort in Ukraine?

    Hansard source

  16. ParliamentLewis Cocking

    Sentencing Bill

    My hon. Friend is making an excellent and passionate speech. Does he agree that the Government should consider supporting new clause 14 and removing anonymity for young people who commit such serious crimes, because they are looking to reduce the voting age to 16? We should talk about when people in this country become adults. They should not be protected if they commit such serious crimes.

    Hansard source

  17. ParliamentKit Malthouse

    Gaza and Hamas

    Once again, it is the children of Gaza who seem to bear the brunt of the violence, with reports that 35 of them were liquidated overnight in the casual dropping of bombs in retaliation. Equally as shocking is the realisation that there will be absolutely no accountability whatsoever for those deaths, likely no investigation into the targeting or intelligence used, and no sense of any punishment for what is very obviously a significant crime. Allied to that is the fact that it has proven quite a handy distraction from the significant violence and brutality taking place daily in the west bank. Given that we have now recognised Palestine as a sovereign nation, will there be any further measures to deter Israeli aggression on Palestinian soil?

    Hansard source

  18. ParliamentJerome Mayhew

    Farmers: Inheritance Tax

    10. What discussions she has had with farmers in Wales on the potential impact of planned changes to inheritance tax relief on the agricultural sector.

    Hansard source

  19. ParliamentJerome Mayhew

    Farmers: Inheritance Tax

    I welcome the Minister to her position at the Dispatch Box. I know she will be excellent at the job. I also refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Welsh farming is central to the Welsh economy—we can all agree on that—but it is now facing a double whammy from the mad sustainable farming scheme from Labour in Cardiff, and the frankly bad family farm tax that has been dreamt up by Labour in London. The Farmers’ Union of Wales tells us that more than 85% of active farms in Wales will have IHT bills that exceed their incomes. That spells economic disaster. Why is Labour so deaf to the voice of farmers in Wales?

    Hansard source

  20. ParliamentJerome Mayhew

    Independent Lifeboats: Government Support

    As ever, it is a pleasure to appear before you, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) on securing this debate. I know he is a long-standing supporter of independent lifeboats, and he hid his light under a bushel by understating his involvement in the creation of the National Independent Lifeboat Association. I will pause to remember the efforts of Anthony Mangnall, the former Member for Totnes, who was an excellent contributor—a very good orator—in the Chamber. He had his own style, stood with his hand in his pocket, right at the Front Bench where there is no protection at all. He was a very impressive Member of this House. I should declare an interest. I do not think it is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but since my early 20s I have been an offshore member of the RNLI, having been a sailor and boating enthusiast all my life. During the debate I played a game with myself to see whether I had sailed or been on a boat in every constituency mentioned. The answer is that I have. I was a bit nervous when the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) spoke, because that constituency is quite a challenge, but then he mentioned the Thames, and I have been there. I was also concerned when the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke; I have of course been on Strangford lough, but I was challenged by Lough Neagh. I have been there, and I think I have been on a boat there. The hon. Member could have mentioned Lough Erne—I have been all over that. So I know of what I speak, having followed every Member round their constituencies and their references to the lifeboats. I can say I have been in those areas, but actually I was under the unseen protection of each and every independent lifeboat that was standing ready and willing to come to my aid had something bad happened. We need to remember that. Being out on the sea is a wonderful recreational experience. It is fun until it is not, when it becomes very dangerous very quickly. These men and women stand ready to put their own lives at risk to protect us, whether we are working on the sea or there for recreation. It is important that we remember that throughout this debate. Independent lifeboat services offer important support for lifesaving, both on the sea and on inland waters, such as those in my constituency of Broadland and Fakenham. The National Independent Lifeboat Association says that more than 80 independent lifeboat organisations operate along the coastline and inland waterways, and it estimates that in 2024 there were getting on for 3,500 volunteers, of whom over 1,000 were operational. They attended almost 2,000 incidents, assisting more than 2,000 people in distress or need. As has been mentioned, that work has been valued at £2.6 million in savings to the Government. This selfless work, carried out by inspirational people, many of whom have been mentioned by name in the debate, not only saves lives but saves the taxpayer money. I want to join in the local celebrations. I am a bit stretched, because I represent an inland constituency, although it includes a part of the Norfolk broads—the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) and I share them. At Great Yarmouth we have Caister lifeboat. I am told, although I stand to be corrected, that it is the oldest lifeboat in the country. It has existed since 1791—consider that: well over 200 years. It is at the heart of the Norfolk coastal community that raises the money to support it. That money goes towards lifesaving equipment and training. This year, Caister came out not just to save lives but to save a historic vessel. As a keen sailor, I have watched the complete restoration of the former royal yacht Bloodhound—I read about the progress in the sailing press over the course of months—which sprung a devastating leak off the Norfolk coast. The Caister lifeboat went out, helped to pump out and secure the vessel, and escorted it safely to the shore. Bloodhound is the vessel in which Prince Philip taught Prince Charles how to sail. It was a royal yacht from 1936 until 1969. On the other side of the Wash is the Humber Rescue lifeboat. On 23 May this year it was launched multiple times over a 10-hour period to deal with a series of serious incidents on the Humber, and it saved three lives in a single day. That is just one example of the incredible work that independent lifeboat has done. An interesting point, which some Members have raised, is that a local lifeboat knows its waters, some of which have particular characteristics that mean that specificity of training pays dividends. Where we have local conditions, we need local lifeboats—independent lifeboats, in particular—to provide the coverage we are all looking for. Last year, the Felixstowe coast patrol and rescue saved six lives and provided assistance to 58 people while taking part in 55 patrols covering thousands of miles. Closer to home, the hon. Member for North Norfolk will recall that, just last month, Hemsby Broads rescue was tasked by Humber coastguard to assist in the rescue of six people on the lower Bure on its approach to Great Yarmouth. We fight over the Bure; it is the barrier, or the demarcation point, between our two constituencies. I have not researched sufficiently to know whether it happened on my side of the river or the hon. Gentleman’s, but the vessel that ran aground was listing heavily near Great Yarmouth. All the casualties were safely evacuated, but without that swift and co-ordinated approach, the situation could have ended very differently. We owe a debt of gratitude to independent lifeboats, whether they operate in inland waters or out at sea. There is a wider point here. For all these institutions, their strength comes from their independence. Although state provision can provide funding and coverage, it comes at the very significant cost of disenfranchising local communities. It comes at the cost of undermining their sense of belonging and the network of social ties—the community resilience—that supporting, running and manning a local independent lifeboat brings about. The strength of independent lifeboats is their very independence. More widely, this is a model for devolution—not the Government’s version, devolution from above, where we destroy the lowest level of government and bring it up to county or bi-county level as a vehicle for undertaking the directions of the national state, but devolution down to communities that empowers them to take decisions on their own behalf. That is the kind of devolution towards which independent lifeboats lead the way. Although these organisations are a celebration of independence, there is a difference between independence and funding, which remains a huge challenge. We have heard that between 2014 and 2020, the previous Government granted a total of £5.66 million to 104 different independent inshore and inland rescue boat charities through the rescue boat grant fund. Sadly, that was stopped in 2020. I hear the lament of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley, and I join him in it. It was a mistake that, to save £1 million pounds a year, the capital advantage given to these independent charities, which do so much for their local communities, was stopped. That leads me neatly into my request to the Minister to consider that as we approach the Budget on 26 November. What is she going to do about it? We need to make sure that independent lifeboats are able to act to protect those in need. Are regulations in place to that ensure independent lifeboats can act effectively? Does the Minister agree with everyone in the Chamber about the importance of independent lifeboats? If so, will she update us on the Government’s approach to funding—that is important—and on how she can encourage local lifeboat institutions to thrive? My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) made a very important point about the bureaucracy of volunteering. That is an increasingly significant constraint. There are lots of requirements, each of which is no doubt sensible on its own, but the accumulation of bureaucracy, when taken en masse, prevents people from volunteering. We need to do something about that. Will the Minister commit to a permanent position for NILA on the search and rescue framework? This debate has been a celebration—of civic society, not the state. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley on drawing our attention to this very important part of our civic society and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s speech.

    Hansard source

  21. ParliamentJames Cartlidge

    UK-Türkiye Typhoon Export Deal

    I am grateful to the Minister for providing advance sight of his statement. I strongly welcome this very important news for UK fighter production. Combat air has historically been the largest component of UK defence exports, and few nations can hope to sustain such an advanced industrial base purely on domestic sales. I stressed throughout my time as the Minister for Defence Procurement the critical importance of exports, and this deal is very positive for the workforce in Warton—but also, as the Minister said, in Bristol, Edinburgh and elsewhere in the UK—for the wider small and medium-sized enterprises supply chain, for our NATO ally Turkey and for the Royal Air Force, which requires a domestic base of highly skilled workers to maintain our ability to deliver sovereign competitiveness in the air domain. At the very well-attended global combat air programme event in Mr Speaker’s state rooms, I said that defence exports were like a baton passed between Administrations, because the biggest deals take years to pull off and require teamwork within and across Administrations. As with the Norwegian frigates, there was a massive and concerted effort under the previous Government to engage constantly with Turkey in support of Typhoon exports. In my time as a Minister, Typhoon exports were a top priority in the MOD and I chaired a weekly cross-Government committee that was focused in particular on persuading our German allies to change their long-standing position of opposing Typhoon sales to Saudi Arabia and Turkey. That work irrefutably helped pave the way for this deal. I note that the Trinity House agreement with Germany, which I welcome, builds on the proposal to restore large-calibre barrel production to the UK, which I initiated from scratch. Does the Minister agree that Germany’s change of position on Typhoon exports underlines the strength of our bilateral relationship with the Germans and the welcome stiffening of their military disposition more broadly, given the common threat we face? Of course, we should also recognise the important role of other long-standing defence export partners in this announcement. I note that it has been reported that the deal involves Qatar and Oman giving Turkey up to 24 existing Typhoons. Can the Minister confirm whether either will be buying replacement Typhoons? I note that Qatar has the option on 12, which I understand is still outstanding. Can the Minister update us on progress on Typhoon exports to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? That brings me to the very relevant matter of GCAP, the programme that is developing the Typhoon’s successor. I have previously spoken of how GCAP is, like AUKUS, effectively two pillars: the Tempest platform is pillar 1, and pillar 2 includes critical elements such as loyal wingmen and electronic warfare, with significant potential benefit to the RAF’s immediate lethality. While appreciating the complications in inviting new nations to join pillar 1, and having given strong hints about the German position in relation to its SCAF partnership with France, has the Minister considered inviting Germany to be a pillar 2 partner of GCAP? Does the deal include any movement on complex weapons for integration into Typhoon, given our industrial strength in that area? The MOD has now retired some 30 RAF tranche 1 Typhoons. Does the Minister plan to order any further Typhoons for the RAF to replace those, and if so, when? E-Scan radar for the RAF’s Typhoons, which is led by Leonardo in Edinburgh, has been successfully developed, but no production orders have been placed. I have previously urged Ministers to accelerate procurement to boost the lethality of our existing Typhoon fleet. When will E-Scan radar be in service for the RAF? The Typhoon needs an associated electronics upgrade known as P4E—phase 4 enhancement—to fully exploit the capabilities of E-Scan radar, but I understand that no contract for that has been placed yet either. When is P4E intended to be on contract? Finally, it would be wrong of me not to welcome the Minister to his newly named position as the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry. Personally, I think it is a shame that there is no longer a Minister for Defence Procurement, but perhaps that should not be a surprise, given how little procurement is going on in the MOD. Is it not the reality that, for all the boasts about defence spending, Labour is prioritising penny-pinching in the MOD and forcing a deep freeze in procurement? Specifically, can he confirm or deny reports in The Telegraph that he is demanding that the armed forces make in-year cuts this year of £2.6 billion?

    Hansard source

  22. ParliamentJames Cartlidge

    Sentencing Bill

    The position that the Minister seems to be articulating is literally bizarre. He has said that he fully agrees about the problem and with the remedy set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). The Government have had 14 years in Opposition and more than a year in Government, and have introduced the Bill at this time. But the Minister is saying that, notwithstanding the fact they have brought forward this Bill after more than a year in office and agree on the problem and the diagnosis, he is still going to vote tonight—and ask his Back Benchers to vote tonight—against fixing the issue.

    Hansard source

  23. ParliamentHelen Grant

    Sentencing Bill

    I wish to speak to new clause 20, regarding the introduction of a child cruelty register. Tony and Paula Hudgell are my constituents, and I have had the honour of getting to know both of them—especially Paula, Tony’s adoptive mum—extremely well. One special aspect of our job as MPs is getting to meet incredible people doing incredible things, often behind the public gaze, but in a decade and a half as a Member—I am showing my age now—I have personally never come across such a courageous, driven and united mother-and-son team. That is what they are: a team, especially given Tony’s young age of 11. New clause 20 would introduce a child cruelty register, described so eloquently and passionately by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), who is also a great champion of victims. It underlines what our job is really about: changing and improving the lives of our constituents, keeping them safe and protecting the most vulnerable. When Tony was just a little baby—41 days old—his birth parents, Jody Simpson and Anthony Smith, abused him so badly that he had to have both his legs amputated. Tony will have to live with the consequences of his injuries for the rest of his life. Smith and Simpson were sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment by a judge at Maidstone Crown court—at the time, the maximum that the judge could give. They served eight years, and were released quite recently. They will be managed and monitored by police and probation for the remaining two years of their sentences, but after that, there is nothing—zero. There will be no management, no monitoring, and no reporting requirements if they change their names, start a new family, move county or have more children, and their case details will be archived, leaving a terrible and dangerous gap in our child protection system.

    Hansard source

  24. ParliamentHelen Grant

    Sentencing Bill

    I hear what the Minister has to say. Will he bring forward a Government amendment to introduce a child cruelty register when the Bill moves to the House of Lords?

    Hansard source

  25. ParliamentGreg Smith

    Vehicle Headlight Glare Standards

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for securing this debate. We have all heard from constituents who say that they now avoid driving at night altogether because of dazzling headlights. The BBC recently reported on this issue, highlighting the frustration of drivers who say that modern lights, while being brighter and more energy-efficient, are simply too intense for oncoming road-users. Drivers have spoken of being momentarily blinded by glare or of feeling unable to judge distances, and consequently of losing confidence behind the wheel. For many, that means avoiding night-time journeys altogether. However, this issue is not just about comfort; it is also about access and safety. When people tell us that they no longer drive at night because the glare from other vehicles hurts their eyes or makes them anxious, that represents lost freedom and independence, particularly for older drivers or drivers in rural areas, such as my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire. The data supports those stories. According to the RAC’s headlight glare study, which was published in February, a quarter of drivers who have been dazzled by the headlights of oncoming vehicles now stay off the roads more at night; 61% of drivers said the problem is worse than it was a year ago; and three quarters of those who are driving less say that it is because others cars’ headlights make the experience uncomfortable or more difficult. The issue matters because glare does not just cause discomfort; as I have already said, it interferes with people’s ability to process visual information quickly. Older drivers are particularly affected. The evidence shows that a 70-year-old’s eyes can take nine seconds to recover from glare, compared with about one second for a teenager. Nine seconds is a very long time to be effectively blinded while driving at any speed, let alone at national speed limits on a country lane. However, we should also be guided by the data on collisions. The Department for Transport’s records show that the number of road traffic accidents in which dazzling headlights were recorded as a contributory factor has not risen sharply in recent years; the figures fluctuate from year to year, but they do not indicate a dramatic upward trend. However, although the statistical picture does not suggest that glare is causing more crashes, it does confirm what drivers have been telling all of us: that glare is making people feel less safe, which in itself is a serious issue. We know that several factors contribute to glare. Misalignment of headlights is one of the most common. Of the 32.4 million MOT tests carried out in 2022 on cars and light vehicles, 1.6 million vehicles—1.6 million!—failed because their headlights were misaligned. Even a small upward tilt can make a big difference to the intensity of glare experienced by other road users. Newer lighting technologies also play a role. LED headlamps, which are now fitted to most modern vehicles, produce a whiter and more focused beam than traditional halogen bulbs. The human eye reacts differently to such light and although LEDs improve visibility for the driver using them, they can cause real discomfort for oncoming traffic. I also want to raise a related concern about the glare from powerful bicycle and personal lights. Many drivers and pedestrians now report being dazzled by high-intensity LED lights that are poorly aligned or excessively bright. Some of these lights are designed for off-road use, yet they are now being used on busy streets and in shared spaces, creating unnecessary discomfort and danger for everyone else on the road. Some cyclists and runners even wear head-mounted lamps, which can shine directly into the eyes of other road-users. The issue is not about stopping people being seen; clearly, visibility is vital. However, it is about balance and consideration. It might be time for the Government and the British Standards Institute to consider introducing clear standards for all lights used on the public highway, whether on a car, a bike or a person, to ensure that they are properly focused, safe and considerate to others. Of course, we also have the problem of illegal retrofitting—drivers replacing their halogen bulbs with cheap LED kits that are not compatible with their vehicle’s design. These conversions are not road-legal; they fail the MOT test and make glare far worse. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has increased surveillance to tackle this, but more needs to be done to stop the sale of unsafe aftermarket products online. The Government have said that research into that is under way, but it was first announced by the previous Conservative Administration in May 2024. The research, commissioned by the Department for Transport and undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory, was meant to include real-world testing to examine how different lighting technologies, vehicle designs and driver characteristics affect glare. However, here we are more than a year later and the findings have still not been published. I ask the Minister directly: when will the research be released and will the full findings be made public? Until that happens, drivers will rightly question whether the issue is being taken seriously enough. It is also worth recognising the international progress made under the previous Government. They raised the issue of dazzling headlights with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which oversees global vehicle standards. In April 2023, that body agreed to tighten rules on headlamps, aiming to make automatic headlight levelling mandatory for new vehicles. That technology ensures that when a car is heavily loaded with passengers or luggage, the headlights automatically adjust downwards to avoid dazzling oncoming drivers. Those rules with tighter tolerances come into force in September 2027, which is welcome progress. But it only applies to new vehicles; millions of older cars will remain on our roads for years and decades to come. We should be asking what more can be done to mitigate glare in the existing fleet of vehicles—whether that is tougher and better MOT checks, awareness campaigns, proper headlight alignment or encouraging wider adoption of adaptive headlight systems that dip automatically when other vehicles approach. A lot of evidence has been put out and it has been a good debate. The issue is about balance: making sure that headlights are bright enough to see, but not so bright that they blind. It is also about fairness—ensuring that drivers of all ages in all types of vehicles can travel confidently and safely, whether it is noon or night.

    Hansard source

  26. ParliamentGreg Smith

    Gaza and Hamas

    Does the Minister agree that, on top of the absolute imperative of Hamas releasing the remaining hostage bodies and not only completely disarming but being removed from all governance in Gaza, there must be a widespread deradicalisation programme to undo the damage done by innocent children in Gaza being taught in their textbooks, some of which were funded through the UNRWA—an uncomfortable truth—to hate Israel and Jews? That deradicalisation must happen too.

    Hansard source

  27. ParliamentGraham Stuart

    Economic Growth

    It is not just farmers but lots of other family businesses who are terrified for their future. Under the business property relief, a company worth £20 million would have to pay £4 million in tax, yet that responsibility falls not on the business but the person who inherits it, so they will have to extract another £4 million to pay that tax, crippling family businesses, crippling investment and hurting growth in Wales. That is true, is it not?

    Hansard source

  28. ParliamentEsther McVey

    Sentencing Bill

    I rise to speak to the amendments that I have tabled. I am delighted to have another attempt to stop the Government doing something that defies justice as well as common sense and that will make our streets less safe. As I said in Committee, my amendments would mean that some serious offenders would not be given the “get out of jail free” card proposed by the Government. Since Committee, we have had the ludicrous situation involving Hadush Kebatu, who was released from prison after being jailed for sex offences. Quite rightly, there was a public outcry and widespread condemnation from politicians. The massive irony is that if the Bill had already been passed, he would have qualified for the presumption in favour of a suspended prison sentence and would not have been in prison in the first place. Under my amendments 15, 16, 24 and 25, foreign offenders and sex offenders would not be included in the presumption in favour of a suspended sentence when an immediate prison sentence was deemed to be the right outcome by the courts, so someone like Kebatu would still be sent to prison. I hope that Labour Members agree with those amendments, especially given that the Health Secretary said: “This man was behind bars because of serious sex offences…So the idea that he’s loose on the streets is incredibly serious.” Perhaps the Health Secretary will back my amendments, and perhaps he will have a word with the Justice Secretary to get him to back my amendments as well. Following the Kebatu debacle, people have blamed the incompetence of prison staff in releasing him, yet if the Government do not accept my amendments we will not need to be concerned about the incompetence or otherwise of our Prison Service, because such offenders will not even go to prison. However, we can be sure of the incompetence of the Government in allowing these sentencing changes to happen and in not sending offenders like Kebatu to prison. Even the Secretary of State for Justice said: “Let’s be clear, Kebatu committed a nasty sexual assault involving a young child and a woman, and for those reasons this of course is very serious.” On Monday, he said to the House: “Mr Kebatu’s victims are rightly outraged about what has happened. I am livid on their behalf, and on behalf of the public.” He also said: “He is back where he belongs: behind bars.”—[Official Report, 27 October 2025; Vol. 774, c. 43.] If it is so serious, and the Justice Secretary really means that Kebatu belongs behind bars, why on his watch will the Bill ensure that the next Kebatu will not be behind bars, and will not be sent to prison in the first place? These are serious questions that need to be answered. It is not too late for the Government to stop this dangerous aspect of the Bill and prove to everyone outside this Chamber that they are not hypocrites, by accepting my amendments. While they are at it, the Government need to seriously consider accepting my amendments 20 and 29, which would prevent those who commit knife crimes from being eligible for suspended sentences. The Government should hang their head in shame for proposing a non-prison sentence for the offence of carrying a knife on our streets, and even for those who commit the offence more than once. I am sure that many Members will know of cases where someone has been injured or killed by a knife. Everyone who votes for the Bill without amendment will be voting to enable someone who carries a knife or threatens people with a knife, even repeatedly, to avoid prison.

    Hansard source

  29. ParliamentEsther McVey

    Sentencing Bill

    I shall remind the hon. Member what happened. The last Labour Government collapsed the economy, and the coalition was brought into power to get the books back on track. Unfortunately, as always happens after a Labour Government, spending had to be cut because they had bankrupted the country. When there was more money in the bank, we did need to invest more, and that is why the last Conservative Government put £4 billion into building more prisons. Three have now been completed and there are a further three left to be completed. Do Members really want it on their conscience that they are changing the laws for people with knives or who threaten with knives? I think not. Labour has always talked tough on this matter, but now that it is in a position to do something about it, it fails. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) stated: “Under a Labour Government, there will be tough consequences for carrying a knife. A Labour Government will end the empty words and apology letters for knife possession, and will guarantee sanctions and serious interventions for young people who carry knives.”—[Official Report, 21 May 2025; Vol. 750, c. 332WH.] Those were the words of the Labour party, but sadly, Labour will not do that. Time and again, Labour is proving to be a party of empty words and broken promises, and this will be yet another example. There will be plenty of people ready and willing to remind Labour Members of this, especially an outraged public. There will be no words of comfort for the family of a needless victim of this type of crime. Members should also think twice about the fact that those who assault emergency workers will be included in this prison avoidance Bill. I know that many Labour MPs very much supported the introduction of the offence of assaulting an emergency worker, with its increased sentence for those who are convicted, yet all of that will have been for nothing if the Bill is passed in its current form, because people who assault emergency workers and receive sentences of 12 months or less will be likely to avoid prison altogether. Having worked hard to increase the sentence to 12 months in prison for assaulting an emergency worker, Labour will now effectively be agreeing to zero months in prison in many cases. The hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who introduced the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, did so to ensure that those assaulting emergency workers felt “the full force of the law”.—[Official Report, 27 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 1159.] The right hon. Member for Lewisham West and East Dulwich (Ellie Reeves) supported the legislation and said that it was “long overdue”. The trade unions supported it. The GMB national officer said at the time: “It’s welcome to see arrests taking place, but we also need to see an increase in prosecutions and tougher sentences handed down for these unacceptable assaults.” My amendments 17 and 26 would exclude the offence from the Bill and show support for those who risk their lives to keep us all safe. What a kick in the teeth it will be for emergency workers to know that this Government do not have their backs at all. It seems the Government would rather be on the side of many of those who assault our emergency workers or to keep them from being sent to prison—as they should be. The amendments would also exclude assaults on those generally providing a public service.

    Hansard source

  30. ParliamentEsther McVey

  31. ParliamentEsther McVey

    Sentencing Bill

    I thank the Minister for allowing me to speak now. Members on both sides of the House were concerned about attacks on emergency workers, and such offenders who are sentenced to 12 months or less will now get suspended sentences. Can he state on the record that that will not be the case—that those offenders will still go to prison, as Members on both sides of the House want? Will he protect emergency workers or will he let them down?

    Hansard source

  32. ParliamentEdward Argar

    UK-Türkiye Typhoon Export Deal

    I welcome this announcement, and I congratulate the Minister and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and their Conservative predecessors on the team effort in getting us to this point. Following this announcement, what next steps are the Government planning to take to build on it and further strengthen the UK’s hugely important defence, diplomatic and economic relationship with our close NATO ally Turkey?

    Hansard source

  33. ParliamentEdward Argar

    Sentencing Bill

    On new clause 1, will my right hon. Friend give way?

    Hansard source

  34. ParliamentEdward Argar

    Sentencing Bill

    I am very grateful. As a former sentencing Minister, I can see no logical reason why the Government would oppose new clause 1—tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), my fellow Leicestershire MP—which simply asks for an assessment and recommendations to be made and for them to be reported back to this House. Can my right hon. Friend, who is himself a former senior Home Office Minister, see any reason why the Government could not simply do the right thing and accept new clause 1?

    Hansard source

  35. ParliamentDr Kieran Mullan

    Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing

    Let me begin by making it crystal clear that Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani), is doing everything she can to object to proposals to house illegal migrants at the Crowborough training camp in her constituency, just over the border from mine. The site is not suitable. It was previously considered by the Home Office and rejected, but it seems that we now have a council willing, for ideological reasons, to roll over to the suggestion that it is used. Councils can object to these proposals, so what objections has the Green and Liberal Democrat-led Wealden council made to the proposals to use the Crowborough training camp to house hundreds of asylum seekers?

    Hansard source

  36. ParliamentDr Kieran Mullan

    Sentencing Bill

    I rise to speak in support of new clause 19, and other new clauses tabled in my name and those of Opposition Members. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for opening the debate. He has drawn attention to an important issue, and something I often ponder. I am aware that many powers are available to tackle the involvement of parents in offending, but I never get the sense that they are working as well as we would want them to. My hon. Friend’s new clause would help us to get to the bottom of that. It is a privilege to take part in this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, and to have a further opportunity to do what I can to make clear to Labour Members the enormous negative impact on victims that the Bill will have. The Bill will fundamentally change how we deliver justice for victims of serious violent and sexual crimes in this country. The official Opposition tabled amendments and new clauses in Committee, but we did not get to undertake line-by-line scrutiny in a proper Bill Committee. I suspect that that is because the Government know that the reality of the Bill is so damning that they fear an outright rebellion of their MPs if they cannot continue the pretence about what it does and does not do. Nevertheless, we attempted to provide a limited and more acceptable reform of the early release measures to exclude sexual and serious violence offenders. Labour MPs rejected that, and we are now left only with a new clause to remove those measures entirely. Why do we persist? Because the consequences if we do not are dire. The Government have said time and again that no person who has committed what they describe as the “most serious” offences would be released earlier, but we know that to be completely false. The change in automatic release rules applies to all standard determinate sentences, and to every person who is on one. I reiterate that the independent Library briefing note confirms that these releases will be automatic. More than 60% of offenders sentenced to prison for rape receive standard determinate sentences, as do more than 90% of those convicted of child grooming offences. Around half of individuals imprisoned for attempted murder are also given standard determinate sentences. Each year, hundreds of people convicted of child rape or sexual assault, including offences involving victims aged under 13, serve those types of sentences. In total, more than 6,000 offenders are sent to prison annually for serious violent sexual offences, and they will get out of prison earlier under the Bill. I do not know in how many ways I can explain that to Members to overcome the briefing that it is not true, which is happening outside the Chamber. I have no choice but to take Members through the numbers. I have in front of me the sentencing data for those convicted of the rape of a female aged 16 or over. In total, 590 men on average are sent to prison for that offence every year. One hundred and ninety-seven of them would be excluded from the early release measures because they were given extended determinate sentences or life sentences, but 393 would not. That is 393 rapists—the vast majority—being sent to prison every year who will be let out of prison earlier. That is without including those guilty of the rape of children, many of whom will also be let out of prison earlier. Many Members have spoken about terrible cases of causing death by dangerous driving. Glenn and Becky Youens from Justice for Victims campaign in memory of their daughter, Violet-Grace, who was killed at four years old by a drug dealer going at 80 mph in a 30 mph zone. The drug dealer fled the scene then returned, stepping over her as she lay injured on the pavement, to get to their drugs. Are we seriously going to tell people such as Glenn and Becky that those perpetrators can get out of prison earlier in future? Because that is what will happen. Every year, 169 offenders on average are sent to prison for causing death by dangerous driving. Some 163 of them are given a standard determinate sentence and will get out of jail earlier as a result of the Bill, and some of them will serve only a third of their sentence. I have pages of examples. Out of 228 offenders sent to prison every year for sexual grooming, 211 serve standard determinate sentences, and under the Bill, 196 will serve only a third of their sentence. Out of 475 people sent to prison every year for stalking, 458 serve standard determinate sentences, and under the Bill, 427 will serve only a third of their sentence. Out of 576 offenders sent to prison every year for the offence of sexual activity involving a child under 16, 502 will get out of prison earlier because of the Bill, and 269 of them will serve only a third of their sentence. This morning, the Home Secretary said that she was glad that the “vile child sex offender”, as she described him, Hadush Kebatu, is off our streets. She is right to welcome that. Kebatu was convicted of sexual assault offences against women and girls. What do the measures proposed by the former Justice Secretary, who is now Home Secretary, mean in relation to other vile child sex offenders who have been sent to prison for the same offences? I can tell the House that under the Bill, two thirds of the offenders sent to prison for similar sexual assault offences will have to serve only a third of their sentence. The Government celebrate removing those offenders from the streets, while at the same time legislating to put them back on the streets. It is shameful that Labour Members, with their majority, voted against our amendments and new clauses to remove the early release measures in specific circumstances. Our new clause to remove the measures entirely remains before the House, even if we will not get the opportunity to vote on it today. New clause 19 seeks to address a clear gap in the law that I believe the majority of Members across the House would agree must be closed. At present, our sentencing framework requires that a whole life order be imposed on anyone convicted of murdering a police or prison officer while that officer is carrying out their duties. That provision acts as both a deterrent and a guarantee of justice for those who risk their lives in confronting dangerous offenders, yet a recent court case has created a precedent that that measure will not be applied if the prison or police officer is not actively on duty at the time of their murder. I want to describe to the House the disturbing events surrounding the murder of former prison officer Lenny Scott, who was killed by a violent offender he had once supervised. Mr Scott was working as a prison officer at HMP Altcourse in Liverpool. In 2020, Elias Morgan offered him a bribe to keep it to himself that a phone had been found in Morgan’s cell. The vast majority of prison officers do an excellent job and follow the rules, but the House will be aware of examples of corruption in our prison service. Mr Scott could have taken that bribe—he almost certainly knew that Morgan was capable of violent offences and was involved in organised crime—and forgotten his duties and responsibilities, but he did not. He refused the bribe. He was then subjected to death threats by Morgan. It is a matter of public record that Mr Scott’s time as a prison officer was not unblemished, but when it comes to the question of courage, sheer guts and bravery, refusing to be cowed by a violent thug, and refusing to take the easy way out, Mr Scott was an exemplar, not just to prison officers but to all of us. But Morgan made good on his threats, waiting for years, until 2024, to murder Mr Scott in cold blood. It was a carefully planned murder. Lancashire police found evidence that the month before the murder, Morgan was scoping out locations linked to Mr Scott. He drove close to Mr Scott’s home in Prescot in Merseyside, a gym in the Speke area of Liverpool where Mr Scott sometimes trained, and a gym on Peel Road in Skelmersdale, where the shooting would later take place. Morgan gunned down Mr Scott as he was leaving the gym, shooting him six times. Mr Scott did not stand a chance. In 2013, the then Home Secretary, Theresa May—the former Prime Minister and right hon. Member for Maidenhead—announced that we would change the law so that the murder of a police officer or a prison officer would result in a whole life order. Speaking at the time in relation to police officers, she said: “We ask police officers to keep us safe by confronting and stopping violent criminals for us. We ask you to take the risks so that we don’t have to…We are clear: life should mean life for anyone convicted of murdering a police officer.” As prison officers carry out similar duties, the measures rightly included them. However, the sentencing for Mr Scott’s murder has made it clear that the courts have not understood the will of Parliament, because Morgan was not given a whole life order. He was given a life sentence with a minimum tariff. It is true to say that his sentenceis longer than most, at 45 years, but Morgan was 35 when he was convicted, so it is not inconceivable that he could get out one day. I do not believe that Parliament intended for criminals like him to ever get out. I was shocked at that outcome; it had not occurred to me that the measure would not apply. I was very familiar with the measure in relation to police officers, following my own time as a volunteer police officer, so my initial reaction was to believe that it must not have been applied to prison officers, and I raised that in the House.

    Hansard source

  37. ParliamentDr Kieran Mullan

    Sentencing Bill

    I note that the Minister is nodding. We can ensure that criminals know that the fullest possible consequences of the law will follow if they murder a police or prison officer simply because they were doing their job. New clause 20 seeks to establish notification and offender management requirements for those convicted of child cruelty offences, in effect creating a system similar to the sex offenders register for individuals who have abused and neglected children. I want to be clear why this matters. Every one of us in this House knows that behind the legal language of child cruelty or abuse lie some of the most distressing and life-altering crimes imaginable—crimes in which a child, utterly dependent and vulnerable, gets the worst instead of the best, often from those who are supposed to love and care for them. This measure will not fix everything—sadly, that is not the world we live in—but before us there is a clear and proven step we can take towards improving how we protect our children. At present, if somebody is convicted of a sexual offence against a child, they are rightly placed on the sex offenders register. They are required to keep the police informed of their whereabouts, their identity and any change to their circumstances, including whether they live with children. The requirement sits separately from probation requirements. If a person is convicted of an offence to which the requirements apply and receives a prison sentence of 13 months or more, the notification requirements are indefinite. That allows the police service, along with other agencies, better to assess and manage risk and ultimately to protect children and others from harm. If a person is convicted of horrific physical abuse, of neglect, or of causing a child’s death through sustained cruelty, there is no equivalent requirement. Once their sentence and probation is over, they can disappear into the community with no requirement to report where they live, no oversight by those who might need to protect other children, and no legal mechanism for ongoing management. That is a clear gap in our child protection system, and new clause 20 would correct it. A person convicted of any of the listed child cruelty or violence offences, including causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, child cruelty or neglect, infanticide, exposing children whereby life is endangered, and female genital mutilation, would be required to notify the police of their details within three days of conviction or release. They would have to confirm where they live, any other addresses they use and any names that they go by. They would have to keep that information up to date and confirm it annually, just as child sex offenders already do. Importantly, that information could be shared between the police and other agencies that work to safeguard children. That would give local law enforcement the information it needs to identify the risk that individuals could pose to the local community and to intervene with any precautionary measures early to protect children before harm could come. It would offer greater protection to the public by ensuring that those who have committed abuse and cruelty to children are treated in the same manner as those who have committed sexual abuse. Let me say a few words about the reason why we are considering this measure and about an extraordinary lady called Paula Hudgell. Paula Hudgell’s name has been spoken before in this House. She is the adoptive mother of 11-year-old Tony Hudgell, who had both legs amputated after abuse by his birth parents. She has previously campaigned successfully for tougher sentences to be available for child abuse offences, for which she was awarded an OBE. When Paula adopted Tony, the criminals responsible for what happened to him—his birth parents—were not even going to be prosecuted. Paula told me that if anyone had done to her birth children what they had done to Tony, she would have done everything that she could to pursue justice, and that Tony was no different, even though he was adopted. That is exactly what she did for him, and in the end his birth parents were convicted. The maximum sentence they received appalled Paula, and her first campaign began, to change that maximum to a life sentence. However, during the course of her campaigning and from getting to see the parole system and what it can do to monitor people after they have served their sentence, Paula got an incredible insight into the system’s flaws and what needed to change. Discussing it with a police officer, Becki Taft—I also pay tribute to her—who Paula got to know during the course of the prosecution, they both recognised the glaring omission that we are seeking to remedy today, so Paula acted. She is continuing to act despite facing enormous challenges in her personal circumstances, as she is undergoing treatment for cancer that can no longer be cured. Paula said: “I’ve been battling cancer, but as long as I have fire in my belly, I’ll keep fighting to protect children by pushing for this register. That’s what keeps me going—knowing that Tony’s legacy can help save other young lives.” She is an incredible woman who I am honoured to have gotten to know, and her MP, the shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), has done so much to help Paula turn her campaign into words on a page—into legislation we can pass. She is someone I am pleased to be able to call a friend. I sincerely thank the Justice Secretary for taking a direct interest in this issue, and I am sure that the Minister will also want to closely consider it. I want to ensure that the strength of feeling among Conservative Members and others is reflected in the Lobby tonight. It may be that the Government are not ready to support this measure this evening. Labour MPs may feel that that is reasonable at this stage, but I would welcome a commitment from the Dispatch Box that will enable me to conclude that we can agree to work cross-party in the other place to get this done. I look forward to the rest of the debate, and to considering amendments tabled by other Members. I hope I have been able to clearly explain our proposals, which relate to prison and police officer whole life orders and the child cruelty register. However, whatever else this Bill achieves and whatever else we might reasonably disagree on, at the heart of the Bill is the biggest step backwards in securing justice for the victims of serious crime in a generation. For it to pass unamended would represent a betrayal of victims. I do not believe that Labour Members want that, and it is not too late. I am confident that the Lords will not let this Bill pass unamended, so at some point, Labour MPs will again be able to decide to say no to the Prime Minister and his plan. MPs always have choices, and this Government spend £1 trillion a year on various services. Whatever the positive and honourable intentions Labour Members have when it comes to securing justice for victims, and whatever positive measures they suggest, they will be disastrously undone if they do not work collaboratively to make clear that they will not support measures that will let thousands of serious violent and sexual offenders out of prison earlier.

    Hansard source

  38. ParliamentDr Kieran Mullan

  39. ParliamentDr Kieran Mullan

    Sentencing Bill

    I do not think that it said anywhere in the Labour manifesto that a Labour Government would cut prison time for serious sexual and violent offenders. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the case?

    Hansard source

  40. ParliamentDr Kieran Mullan

    Sentencing Bill

    I note the interest of the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) in domestic abuse and other offences. Will the Minister confirm for her that the vast majority of offenders convicted of offences related to domestic abuse will get out of prison much earlier as a result of this Bill?

    Hansard source