Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

   Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

   I commend the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for bringing forward this estimates day debate. It is a pleasure to serve under her stewardship on that Committee. This country continues to feel the impact of Labour’s disastrous and anti-growth policies. The day-to-day spending of this Department is increasing by more than £2.4 billion—an increase of 22%—which is welcome, but it is clear that Labour’s plans to save on our planning system and the cost of local government are once again a false promise. The £2.3 billion extra being given in local government resources grants will not help our communities and local people, as £500 million of it is just to fund Labour’s detrimental increase in employer national insurance. That tax is hurting every business up and down this country, and it is placing unsustainable pressure on key sectors, such as the care industry and those who provide early years care. Labour continues to U-turn on its commitments and policies. The impact of its changes to personal independence payments and its cruel cuts to winter fuel payments can be seen in the £800 million increase in costs for adult social care. That is yet another example of Labour’s headline mistakes costing money. An additional £399 million has already been allocated for the affordable homes programme, and continual rises for that are unsustainable. Labour will not deliver its target of 1.5 million new homes, with Savills recently predicting that as few as 840,000 homes could be built. That is significantly less than the 2.5 million homes and 750,000 affordable homes built under the last Conservative Government.

   Hansard source
2. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

   Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

   I agree with my hon. Friend. We are fortunate that the Minister has a background in local government, so he understands those pressures. I look forward to further clarification on grey belt and building on brownfield first, which every constituency MP wishes to see, but it is not yet transposed on to local plans and the growth ambitions of this Government. I was about to come on to green belt and the changes to the national planning policy framework. Those changes will not solve the problems that we all have identified as the bottleneck in increasing development on non-green-belt land. Labour’s policies unfortunately simply cause damage. In the spring statement, the Chancellor claimed that the planning reforms would be the main driver of the reduction in borrowing that she has promised. However, there is no obvious reduction yet in the money given to local authorities, with the amount estimated for the day-to-day spending of local government up 22% from the main estimate last year. Although the Treasury might celebrate that as being 3% less than budgeted at the spending review, this dramatic increase, along with the increases of 30% in communities day-to-day spending and 27% to the communities capital fund, is simply unsustainable. Labour continues to show how it prioritises areas where it has support to the detriment of rural areas, such as in my constituency, and areas in need of support around the United Kingdom. The cuts of £101 million in the levelling-up fund and £183 million in the UK shared prosperity fund are disappointing, and the non-delivery of the services grant and the rural services delivery grant will place pressure on services that are already struggling in rural and semi-rural areas such as my constituency, including bus services. Instead, Labour is rewarding poor financial management by Labour-run councils and mayoralties across the UK, with £823 million being used for a recovery grant and a funding floor and the Labour-controlled Greater Manchester and West Midlands authorities receiving the first integrated settlements, which could cause an increase of over £400 million in spending. Labour says that it is cutting local government costs by creating unitary authorities, but that is just placing greater control in their hands at the expense of local democracy. This estimate shows how little control Labour has over local government spending—and I will have to finish on that point. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how he will deal with these matters.

   Hansard source
3. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

   Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

   I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 11, page 12, line 22, at end insert— “(aa) in that sub-paragraph omit ‘28’ and insert ‘56’”. This amendment increases the window for applying to the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme from 28 days to 56 days.

   Hansard source
4. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

   Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

   Before any observers start panicking that the shadow Justice Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, has really let himself go over the weekend, I should say that he sends his apologies to the Committee, although it is not clear whether that is for his absence due to illness or for lumbering Members with me this morning. I rise to speak in support of Opposition amendments 9 to 12. In the last sitting, we spent considerable time considering the role and involvement of victims and their families in the sentencing process. We spoke about measures aimed at making it as meaningful as possible by both involving them and trying to ensure that offenders are present. Disappointingly, we were unable to secure changes that we believe would strengthen the voice of victims and their families. Across the criminal justice system, we have seen considerable effort made to improve the experience of victims and their families, including through the introduction of screens, the pre-recording of evidence, the work of organisations such as Victim Support, and the many ways in which the Victims’ Commissioner has expanded the rights of victims and their families and the services available to them. However, there is cross-party agreement on the need to go further. We welcome many of the measures that the Government are introducing, including through clause 11, but victims and their families are not just interested in what the processes of the criminal justice system are like. Although the views of victims and their families are not the only ones we should seek, we really want them to have a fair and reasonable experience of the justice system, and to consider its outcomes to be fair and reasonable. The unduly lenient sentence scheme provides victims, their families and others with a route to redress when they feel that the outcome does not represent justice. However, it is clear from the evidence we heard last week, and from victims’ family members whom the shadow Minister and I have spoken to, that the current scheme is woefully inadequate. Witnesses who spoke for victims during our evidence sessions, as well as the Victims’ Commissioner and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, all agreed that the current time window is simply not fair. As Paula and Glenn from Justice for Victims said, echoing what Katie Brett from the group had originally said, 28 days is the same amount of time people get to return something to a shop. There is an inherent unfairness, because there is an exceptional circumstances clause under which a criminal gets no time limit—none at all. The Bill will amend the unduly lenient sentence scheme, but only for the Government’s Law Officers—not in relation to victims and families. We can see no good reason why we should not act now, with legislation before us, to improve the scheme for victims and families too. Our amendment 10 would allow victims, or a deceased victim’s next of kin, to request a review up to one year after sentencing. Giving them time to act would show that we understand that this can be a deeply traumatic time for many people. Many of us will have had victims come to our advice surgeries soon after sentencing, but outside the 28-day period in which we are able to offer any help. When we have spoken to victims, it has been clear that, first, they were not aware of that, and secondly, because of their state of mind after the trial and sentencing, they were not focusing on such things immediately. Therefore, it is reasonable to extend that period. Katie Brett started a petition to change the law, which has gathered more than 14,000 signatures. Katie is doing that in memory of her sister Sasha, who was brutally murdered; she was stabbed more than 100 times, raped, and her body was set on fire. Katie has every reason to believe that her sister’s killer should have received a whole-life order, but will never get the chance to legally test that. Ayse Hussein, also from Justice for Victims, had a similar experience, and the group is campaigning for a change in the law. I am sure the Minister will say that the Law Commission is looking into unduly lenient sentencing and that we must let it do its work, but anyone reading that review will see that it is primarily about criminal appeals from the viewpoint of offenders. The consultation document makes it clear that the Law Commission does not think there is anything wrong with the way in which the ULS operates at the moment, and it is not clear how it can possibly reach that view. Why does the Minister need the Law Commission to tell her and us that this needs to change? The Government are giving the appearance of being dependent on reviews to make up their mind on quite simple principles, but particularly anything significant in the judicial sphere. Here is an opportunity to be bold, and to apply good instincts, which I know the Minister has and am confident would be similar to ours on this issue. We hope that the Government will accept the amendment. Amendment 12 addresses the equally important issue of awareness. Of course, a short time window creates a greater risk of someone never being made aware, but either way, we need a more robust mechanism of notification, so that victims know of the possibilities. The amendment would introduce a new duty on the Crown Prosecution Service to inform victims, or a deceased victim’s next of kin, within 10 working days of sentencing that they can apply to the ULS. This is about enforceable rights. A legal right means little if the person entitled to it does not know that it exists. Victims deserve to be told what their options are clearly and promptly. The amendment would ensure that no one missed their opportunity for justice simply because no one had bothered to tell them. Surely we do not need the Law Commission to tell us that this is the right thing to do. Finally, amendment 9 would make a straightforward but crucial change—to increase the time limit for referring a sentence under the unduly lenient sentence scheme from 28 days to 56 days. This is about achieving simple fairness by extending more broadly the Government’s measure to award more time to their own Law Officers.

   Hansard source
5. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

   Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

   I thank the Minister for her comments. Given those, we will not press amendment 10 to a Division today, but we reserve the right to return to it later in the process. However, we would like votes on amendments 9 and 12. Question put, That the amendment be made.

   Hansard source
6. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

   Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

   The clause is a sensible measure updating the sentencing provision for certain offences on summary conviction. It will replace the fixed six-month maximum term with the general limit in a magistrates court. The change affects a number of serious offences, including breaches of sexual harm prevention orders, criminal behaviour orders and restraining orders. Those are not technical breaches; they often represent a continuation of harmful, coercive or threatening conduct, and it is right that magistrates should have the greatest possible flexibility to impose sentences that reflect the seriousness and risk involved. The clause brings consistency to how the offences are treated and allows magistrates to use the full extent of the sentencing powers available to them. Although we will be watching closely to ensure that the expanded powers are used proportionately and in ways that genuinely improve public protection and victim confidence in the system, we agree that the clause is a sensible provision, and we will support it. Question put and agreed to. Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause 4 Court transcripts of sentencing remarks “(1) All sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court must be published within two sitting days of being delivered. (2) All publications must be freely available to all members of the public.”—(Mike Wood.) Brought up, and read the First time.

   Hansard source
7. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

   Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

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

   Hansard source
8. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

   Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

   The new clause seeks to address a critical gap in transparency and accessibility in our criminal justice system: the publication of sentencing remarks from the Crown court. Sentencing remarks are the moment when justice is spoken out loud; when the judge explains not only what sentence is being passed, but why. For victims, families, journalists and the public at large, the remarks are essential for understanding the rationale behind a sentence. They provide clarity, accountability, and allow the public to see that justice is being not only done, but explained. Under the current system, however, the remarks are often buried, available only on request, behind paywalls or subject to lengthy delays, and generally at significant financial cost. That feeds a sense of injustice and confusion, particularly when sentencing decisions are controversial or appear lenient. It also limits public confidence in our courts. People should not have to be legal professionals or pay fees just to access the reasoning behind a judge’s decision. The new clause would change that. It would require that all sentencing remarks made in the Crown court be published within two sitting days and that those publications be freely accessible to the public. That is not only a matter of open justice; it is a basic democratic civil right. Open justice is not served if court processes and explanations are inaccessible to the very people they affect most directly. Victims deserve to know how their case was resolved. The public deserve to see how justice is applied in their name, and journalists deserve timely access so that the courts can be reported on accurately and fairly. This is a modest ask with significant democratic weight: two days to publish and no barriers to access. We should expect nothing less from a modern justice system that values openness, trust, and public understanding. It ties into our earlier amendments, because these remarks would help someone understand whether they should consider a referral to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. I hope the Government will support the new clause to deliver the basic right for victims, their families and the general public.

   Hansard source
9. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

   Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

   Does the Minister see the irony in saying it is too onerous to produce the transcripts within 48 hours, when a verbatim transcript of the remarks she has just made will be available to the general public within a few hours?

   Hansard source
10. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I thank the Minister for her remarks, but it does seem that, particularly with the use of AI, as she has said, releasing an initial transcript need not be overly onerous. Obviously, after having got that initial release, the measure would allow for a definitive recording to be produced at a later time if an appeal was to be based on that. I do think that making these transcripts available is in the public interest, so we would like to press new clause 4 to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time

    Hansard source
11. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 7 calls for a review of court delays and their impact on victims to be conducted within six months of the Bill becoming law. Clearly, the impact of covid on our Crown courts in particular is still being felt within the system. Prior to covid, the Crown court backlog was actually lower than it had been under parts of the previous Labour Administration. Due to significant investment in recovery efforts to try to address the backlog since the pandemic, including a provision for Nightingale courts and uncapped sitting days, the previous Lord Chancellor was clear that our last provisionally agreed sitting days were to be seen as a floor, not a cap. We support the calls from the Lady Chief Justice for more sitting days, and regret that the Government have only gone part of the way towards meeting the capacity that the Lady Chief Justice said was available within the court system. Moving forward, it is important that we keep up the scrutiny to ensure that the court system is operating effectively and in the interests of victims. Delays in the court system are not just administrative; they retraumatise victims, reduce conviction rates and push people out of the justice process altogether. This review is urgent and overdue. If we are truly to put victims first, we must understand and act on the toll that these delays take. The Opposition believe that this review will help to focus efforts on reducing those delays to a minimum.

    Hansard source
12. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

    We support the work that Sir Brian is doing, but do not feel that the new clause would contradict or otherwise impede that work. We also do not think that we ought to wait for the conclusions of Sir Brian’s work before acting. For now, we will leave the new clause as a probing amendment, but we may return to it at a future stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 8 Victim personal statements “(1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue revised guidance on the content of victim personal statements. (2) The revised guidance issued under subsection (1) must stipulate that when making a victim personal statement, a victim shall be able to say anything they wish about the defendant, provided it is not contrary to any statutory limitations on free speech, makes allegations of untried criminal conduct or is disorderly language. (3) The court must disregard any prejudicial comments made during a victim personal statement.”—(Mike Wood.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how to make victim personal statements less restrictive and clarify what can be included. Brought up, and read the First time.

    Hansard source
13. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause addresses the rules on victim personal statements, about which we heard much in the evidence sessions. There is clearly a desperate need for reform to allow victims to properly and accurately communicate the impact that crimes have had on them. Our new clause introduces a right to be heard for those victims and for families making victim personal statements. We heard appalling stories of traumatised family members, such as Becky and Glenn Youens and Jeremy and Susan Everard, who were told that, no, they could not say what they wanted—they could not say anything derogatory about the guilty offender. Victim personal statements are not appropriate platforms for gratuitous abuse, but the focus needs to be on allowing the voice of victims, rather than worrying too much about the hurt feelings of the convicted offender. The new clause would ensure that victims can speak freely with the most minimal restrictions possible. We can fairly ask the judge to consider what can and cannot be taken into account for sentencing rather than removing or censoring everything in advance. It is time that we uphold the voices of victims and provide them with the platform and the dignity that they deserve.

    Hansard source
14. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I thank the Minister for her response. This is an extremely important matter that needs to be dealt with in this legislation. I think she said that she wishes to proceed with something that broadly achieves our aims, but which addresses her concerns about the drafting. If she will undertake to work with the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, before Report to find a form of drafting that satisfies the new clause’s objectives without what she clearly sees as defects in its proposed wording, we would obviously be happy to work with her and not press the new clause for now. Hopefully, we will have something that we can agree to on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 10 Sentencing guidelines on court fines “Within 18 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Sentencing Council must revise relevant sentencing guidelines so that the court must award compensation to a victim to the value of items stolen when imposing compensation for the offence of theft, burglary, fraud, or any other crime that has resulted in a financial loss to the victim.”—(Mike Wood.) This new clause would require the Sentencing Council to revise sentencing guidelines so that a court must impose compensation commensurate to the value of stolen items when issuing fines. Brought up, and read the First time.

    Hansard source
15. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause seeks to correct a long-standing imbalance in the way in which financial justice is delivered to victims of theft, fraud, burglary and similar offences. It does so by requiring the Sentencing Council to revise its guidelines within 18 months of Royal Assent so that courts must impose compensation that reflects the actual financial loss suffered by the victim. Right now, victims of crime are far too often left bearing the financial burden of the offence, while the offender, even when convicted, is handed a compensation order that does not even begin to redress the damage that has been done, either directly or indirectly. The result is an insult added to injury. Offenders walk away with a light financial consequence, while victims are left out of pocket and out of luck due to the crimes committed by others. The new clause would shift that balance, not punitively but justly. It would make it a duty, not a possibility, for sentencing to account for what was actually taken or lost. This is not an unfamiliar concept. Courts already have the power to impose compensation orders, but the inconsistency and infrequency with which they do so undermines public confidence in the system. Let us be clear: all the ordinary processes remain in place for pursuing outstanding payments, but why should we not recognise what is actually owed? If someone has a change of circumstance, it may well be that they could quite readily pay what they owe. Most importantly, this is about victims. It is about restoring faith in the idea that when someone suffers a loss through crime, the justice system stands behind them—not just symbolically but materially by seeking, as far as possible, to provide restitution. The new clause proposes the straightforward but meaningful step of revising the sentencing guidelines so that, where there is a proven loss, it must be reflected in compensation. That is not just fair; it is the very least that victims should be able to expect. I urge the Committee to support the new clause.

    Hansard source
16. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I thank the Minister for her comments, but there is an imbalance in the system. Whereas convicted offenders may appeal against a sentence, victims do not have a similar ability to appeal against a failure to award full compensation. The new clause ought to be the presumptive starting point for compensation. Full compensation should usually be awarded, so we will press this matter to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
17. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This new clause seeks to close a loophole in the recovery of unpaid court fines. At present, the Limitation Act 1980 imposes a six-year time limit on recovering debts, including fines handed down by the Crown court. Criminal fines are not ordinary civil debts. They are the product of judicial sanction, often imposed in response to serious offences, and reflect the principle that individuals must be held accountable for their actions through the justice system. The new clause would ensure that Crown court fines do not simply expire with time. It would give the Secretary of State the power to pursue unpaid fines without restriction, sending a clear message that justice delayed must not become justice denied. For victims and communities, the payment of court-ordered fines is about not only financial restitution, but accountability and the credibility of our criminal justice system. The Victims’ Commissioner, Baroness Newlove, has long identified this as an opportunity to secure funding, and we all know the tight constraints on expenditure.

    Hansard source
18. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

    Given the Minister’s comments, we are content not to press the new clause to a Division at this time. Again, we may return to it at a future stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 15 Duty to collect and publish data upon sentencing “(1) At the time of passing a sentence by a judge or magistrate the relevant court must provide to HM Courts and Tribunals Service (‘HMCTS’) the following information regarding the sentence passed— (a) offence type, (b) sentence length, (c) such information about the sentenced individual as the Secretary of State sees fit, which must include— (i) nationality, (ii) method of entry to the United Kingdom, (iii) visa route, (iv) visa status, (v) asylum status, and (vi) country of birth. (2) HMCTS must collect and collate the information on the basis set out in subsection (1) on sentences passed in the courts. (3) Once every three months, the Secretary of State must publish statistics based on the information collected by HMCTS under subsection (2).”—(Mike Wood.) Brought up, and read the First time.

    Hansard source
19. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause was tabled in the name of the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). It would introduce a new statutory duty for courts to provide structured data on sentencing outcomes, including key information about individuals’ immigration status. Transparency on crime is critical not only for building public trust in our justice system but for ensuring that we have the right tools in place to understand and respond to the realities of criminal offending. The new clause would create a clear, accountable framework for collecting and publishing sentencing data that sits at the intersection of the criminal justice and immigration systems. By requiring His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to gather and publish that data quarterly, we would enable policymakers to detect patterns, assess outcomes and develop evidence-based responses. Crucially, it would also strengthen the ability of immigration enforcement to make fair, informed decisions on removals, deportations or protections—decisions that must balance public safety with legal and humanitarian obligations. Ultimately, the public have a right to this level of transparency. For too long, assumptions have filled the void left by incomplete data. The new clause would replace speculation with facts, and in doing so it would promote more informed policy, more effective enforcement and greater public confidence. I commend it to the Committee.

    Hansard source
20. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

    Given the Minister’s disappointing response, we will wish to have a fuller debate on Report. I do not intend to press the new clause to a vote now, but we will almost certainly do so at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 13 Power to make consequential provision Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
21. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

    On behalf of the Opposition, I thank all the Clerks, officials, Doorkeepers and Hansard Reporters. I also thank you, Dr Murrison, and Mr Stringer for your work on this Committee. There is much that is very positive in this Bill, which is why His Majesty’s official Opposition are pleased to support it. Obviously, there are various points on which we think the Government could and should go further, and we will seek to make the Bill even better on Report. For now, I thank all members of the Committee for their contributions over the past week. I look forward to returning to this debate on Report. Question put and agreed to. Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

    Hansard source
22. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs

    I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called during the debate.

    Hansard source
23. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

    Israel dealing with Hamas and Hezbollah is to be welcomed, but the continuing blockage on medical and humanitarian aid going into Gaza is not welcome. As we continue to talk, children continue to die. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will make it very clear that the continuation of children dying every single day is unacceptable, and that he will stand up to the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon and to the Knesset and the current Israeli Government of Netanyahu. These deaths are just going on and on and on. How many more children need to die before something changes?

    Hansard source
24. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Topical Questions

    Melia, Gvaramia, Badri Japaridze, Khazaradze, Zurab Japaridze and Vashadze: all six opposition leaders arrested over the last two weeks in Georgia. What are the British Government going to do about it, and what is the message from the British Government to the Georgian people, who are suffering as a result of this huge democratic backsliding?

    Hansard source
25. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this important debate. He is a passionate defender of small and medium-sized businesses in his constituency and across the country. I meet small business owners in my constituency of Broxbourne almost every week, and every single one, from Carmela’s hairdressers in Cheshunt to the Smokeshed restaurant in Hoddesdon, has made it clear to me just how damaging Labour Government policies are towards small businesses. This Labour Government have put up the cost of growing a small business significantly, with the hike in employer’s national insurance making it more expensive for businesses to bring on and employ new people. Increasing the burden of regulation is also deterring employers from taking risks with who they employ. Both of those disastrous policies are leading to fewer people in work, taxes at the highest level on record and growth down. As I have said in this Chamber before, the drastic reduction in business rates relief is crippling for our retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, which are the anchor of so many of our town centres up and down our beautiful United Kingdom. As we have heard this morning, what is also holding SMEs back is the current rules around VAT registration. When I go out and speak to businesses across my constituency of Broxbourne, whether I speak to them in business forums, through Love Hoddesdon, Love Cheshunt, Love Waltham Cross or the Stanstead Abbotts small business network group, they are all united in one thing and one single policy that they reckon is really holding them back: the VAT threshold. They all moan to me about it. They all say they need an easier solution. I have so many examples of businesses that I speak to that have said, “Lewis, it is not worth upscaling our business. It is not worth trying to do better, not worth taking on more business, not worth employing more people. It is not worth doing those things because, when we go just over the threshold, it takes our competitive edge away when we are trying to compete with people that are just below that threshold.” They have all come forward with a simple solution, which is that there should be a taper mechanism to build up to the 20%, rather than the cliff edge that we have now. The situation is absolute nonsense. I have successful business owners in my constituency that go in day in, day out. As I have said in this Chamber before, I was told at the Dispatch box by a Government Minister that it is the Government that create economic growth. Well, it is not. They do not understand how business works in this country. Their whole philosophy around who creates economic growth is wrong. It is the millions of small business owners up and down the United Kingdom and all of the entrepreneurs that invest in their ideas that create economic growth. As I said, it cannot be right that I have examples in my constituency of people turning down work, not taking on more employees, and not creating the economic growth that we all want to see for this country because of measures like the VAT threshold. We heard before the general election that this Government were going to be the most pro-business we had ever seen, but they have not come up with a single policy that has helped my business owners in Broxbourne. They all think that all this Government’s policies around businesses, including changing the threshold for business rates and not looking into the issue of VAT registration, are affecting how they do business across the country. That simply cannot be right—it is nonsense. We all want more jobs created and we all want our high streets to thrive. Lots of business owners have lots of issues with what is going on in the economy right now, but this one single thing unites them. When I speak to them, they all raise this issue with me. They all want the Government to take it seriously and think up a solution. The Minister could go and speak to his officials at the Treasury and there could be a simple solution to this problem. That would create economic growth overnight. Businesses up and down the country would probably take on more employees and more business if this problem was solved. It is affecting lots of the people that I speak to in my constituency of Broxbourne. Why on earth would someone come out of the education system, invest in their idea, take risks and set up a business in the United Kingdom right now? It is so heavily burdened with regulation. We need to unlock the aspiration of the next generation, and we can do that by solving simple things that business owners come to speak to us about. We need to make sure that the VAT threshold is no longer a cliff edge and bring in a taper mechanism. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in reply to this debate. I am hopeful that he will think long and hard about what he can do about this issue, because he has the tools at his disposal to solve it. I suspect that there will be lots of consensus among those of us speaking in this debate on the issue and on what we think the solution will be. I hope that the Minister is listening and will take note of all our comments when he winds up.

    Hansard source
26. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs

    We have all mentioned a number of businesses that think this Labour Government are taking the wrong direction. Can the Minister list the businesses in his constituency that believe that this Labour Government are taking the right direction for business growth in this country? If he lists the businesses in his constituency, we will go and ask them.

    Hansard source
27. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

    I commend the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for securing this important debate. I congratulate her on her fair and robust approach to leading the Committee, and every now and again she allows me to ask some difficult questions of Government Ministers, for which I am very grateful. All of us on the Committee have taken very seriously our duty of scrutinising the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government over the past year, recognising its widespread responsibilities and the deep impact its decisions have on our constituents right across the country. I wish to mention a couple of those responsibilities. One of the biggest drivers of the financial difficulties facing councils has been the catastrophic rise in the amount of money spent on children with special educational needs. This is very close to my heart, as I have seen it from both sides. I grew up with a brother and sister who both benefited from SEND provision, and I have also been a local councillor in Hertfordshire. In just 10 years, the number of children in the county with education, health and care plans has grown by a staggering 223%, which is even higher than the 140% national rise. The funding has not kept up. Incredibly, Hertfordshire receives the third lowest funding per head out of every authority in the country. If it was funded at the national average, an extra £47 million would be available for children with the most complex needs across Hertfordshire. I hope the Minister agrees that it should not matter where in this country someone is born, because the system should have the resources to meet their educational needs. Removing this historical funding formula would be the first step in creating such a system. The Minister will of course point out that the total reorganisation of local government in this country is the answer to these problems, and that the efficiencies promised by huge unitary councils will solve the funding crisis. However, residents of my constituency of Broxbourne already feel that they are getting a bad deal from the county council, so exactly how will forcing them into a much larger council, which will have a much longer list of responsibilities for an even bigger area, help this situation? As with everything the Government touch, one of the inevitable consequences of this reorganisation will be higher taxes for my constituents. It will be constituents living under Conservative-controlled Broxbourne council who will feel this the most, as they will go from paying the lowest non-parish council tax in the country to, inevitably, a higher charge under a merged authority. There is no way that efficiencies will cover the extra spending of these bloated authorities. Reorganisation itself is not cost-free, and I am yet to see councils that have gone through a reorganisation come out saying they are awash with cash. I hope the Minister is genuinely listening to the concerns raised in this debate, and will come back with the Department of Education in the near future with genuine solutions to the SEND funding crisis, and ensure that all our constituents have a fair say when local government reorganisation is forced upon them in our areas.

    Hansard source
28. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Julia Lopez

    Rights of Women and Girls

    I should like to know what steps the Foreign Office is taking to protect women and girls in this country. There can be no better candidates for deportation than non-UK nationals who have violently raped children here. After the Casey report into the gangs scandal last week, Ministers promised that they would do everything they could to deport the men involved. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that he has already told Pakistan that British aid and diplomatic visas will be withdrawn if convicted rapists are not taken back?

    Hansard source
29. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    I am a serving Isle of Wight councillor.

    Hansard source
30. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I rise to endorse the comments made by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and to draw further attention to an issue with new clause 22: placing duties on local authorities without money coming in. Central Government are very good, and have been for decades, at requiring things of local government, which naturally leads to increased costs on councils to deliver the relevant duties and comply with the law, but councils do not automatically—in fact, very rarely—get money to go towards complying. The duties set out in the new clause seem obvious. Subsection (1) says: “It is the general duty of any relevant authorities overseeing bus operations to promote bus services in their jurisdiction.” Subsection (2) has paragraphs (a) to (g). I will not read them all out, but paragraph (a) says that authorities may consider “the potential benefits of making bus services economically competitive with other transport options”. There is also a requirement to report every two years. That looks laudable. One would hope it would lead to better bus services, but it would place a cost burden on local government without money coming to every local authority. That is my concern: placing duties without accompanying finance in all cases. That is why I have difficulty with new clause 22, although I appreciate the intention and sentiment behind it.

    Hansard source
31. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    All the comments I was going to make have already been made by the shadow Minister. He was so complete and comprehensive that he leaves no space for any additional comment. However, I will briefly give my slant on some of the points. When I rose at the beginning of this sitting, it was to talk about the costs that would be put on to local authorities by the general duties in new clause 22. That has been dealt with. This clause will put much more significant costs on to local authorities that choose to go down the franchising route—after all, franchising is a choice available to a transport authority. Those are costs incurred by transferring a risk from commercial operators to local authorities and the taxpayer if the business does not go in the way of the business plan. The shadow Minister has already spoken about the huge cost subsidy, effectively, to the services operated in London and Manchester, where there are huge economy of scale advantages. My view is that the franchising model, if it works at all, works for high population densities—cities, large local authorities and those that can swallow bad years—and offers nothing at all for smaller authorities other than the option to take a step into the unknown for no obvious benefit. I think of my local authority on the Isle of Wight—it is fanciful to think that that unitary authority could in any way take a step towards franchising. Even if we end up with a combined mayoral authority with Hampshire county council, which has a big budget deficit, it seems highly unattractive to Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight to go down the franchising route and take on all those risks. I have no direct experience of the Manchester model, but if Manchester really is the shining beacon, it is one that has cost a huge amount of money. However, that is a huge amount of money that the taxpayer in Manchester may be able to swallow. For a transport authority with a significant chunk of rurality—Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is an exception only in that it has an island attached to it, not in terms of how rural it is—I cannot see the figures adding up because no money goes with franchising. The Government may talk about money being available for bus services and the £3 fare cap. Those are welcome things, but they are not sums of money that naturally flow with an option to go down the franchising route. Although that does not go against having franchising as an option, I feel that it is going to be attractive only to a fairly small proportion of England—areas with high-density populations and those with metropolitan authorities. In this country, franchising is for the few; it is not a mass model that all local authorities will find attractive. It could lead to a more uneven quality of bus services across the country, and to a two-tier system.

    Hansard source
32. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    I was not suggesting that it is an obligation. Plainly, franchising is an option. My point is that it is an option that is unattractive to smaller local authorities, which cannot benefit from the economies of scale of franchising bus services. It is much more attractive for city areas. Of course I want rural bus services to be improved; my constituency is a rural area and we want better bus services. I see absolutely nothing in the franchising option that will deliver that, because I cannot see a local authority—in my own or other rural areas—looking at it and thinking, “This is helpful.” That is because it does not, as a right, bring money with it.

    Hansard source
33. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Department of Health and Social Care

    The hon. Member is making her points very well, and I congratulate her on her success in bringing this debate to the Chamber. I agree with what she has said about fair pay for social care workers—I support that as well—but does she agree that a fair pay agreement will put undue pressure on providers unless there is some money or financial incentive attached to it so that they are able to meet their fair pay requirement?

    Hansard source
34. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

    Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with the Government’s housing policy is that they are failing to identify the right places to build the right homes? Until they do that, they will not deliver these eyewatering numbers, especially if they are relying on greenfield rural sites.

    Hansard source
35. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    It is very reassuring to have you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I already feel calmer, and I am sure the Minister does as well.

    Hansard source
36. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    I will tell you at the end of the day. The Opposition welcome the Bill in principle, which is why we did not divide the House on Second Reading. We welcome it because franchising was an innovation that the previous Government introduced in 2017. At that stage, it was limited to mayoral combined authorities, although any local authority could apply to the Secretary of State for agreement that franchising could be brought in. We are concerned, however, that the Bill does not deliver the goals of value for money and improvement of passenger services as it is currently drafted. It is therefore important that we use this opportunity to carefully consider the many amendments from the Government, official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens; each of them has their various merits, and there are many good ideas to improve what every party agrees is currently an imperfect Bill. That brings me to clause 1—the purpose clause—which was proposed by the Earl of Effingham in the other place, and received substantial support. It ensures that the overarching aim of the Bill is to improve bus services, and that that remains at the heart of all decisions undertaken in its provisions. By explicitly requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to that purpose, the clause embeds into the legislation a commitment to improve bus services. That is not merely a formality; it is about setting a clear duty on the Secretary of State to put the improvement of bus services at the core of any decisions he or she makes under the legislation. The clause gives the Bill a necessary focus; it is the framework on which all the baubles of other clauses and requirements are hung. That is important when there is a change to structures, as the Bill anticipates, because it is easy for process to take over from the clear objectives of the Bill. In a purely commercial construct, where there is an operator driven by the profit motive—they need to drive fare box and have customers to get a return on their investment—it is obvious that the natural incentives focus on the customer. When we move to a franchise and the primacy of commercial incentives are removed, the risk is that the customer gets overlooked. In what is commonly described as full-fat franchising—rather like the Manchester example of the Bee Network, which I believe we will refer to quite frequently in Committee—the local authority takes full assumption of commercial risk within its remit and the operator is contracted merely to provide a service. That brings the temptation to mould services in favour of the supplier—particularly if the supplier is a municipal bus company, such as an in-house provider—as opposed to the passenger. With external providers, there are a couple of checks on that: first, the direct relationship between fare box and profitability, which I have already mentioned; and secondly, the local authority’s overseeing position to challenge operators and hold them to account, particularly when partnerships are the enhanced partnerships that we have in many local authorities around the country. That combination enforces the interests of the passenger, even when they are not directly consistent with commercial performance. Under wider franchising, there is a risk—albeit a manageable one—that that check will disappear, because local authorities may become both the judge and the jury. That makes the purpose clause even more important to ensure that the Secretary of State focuses on passengers in every decision. It makes it clear that the accountability for achieving that result lies firmly with the Secretary of State, and it is useful, as in any complex consideration, to have organisational clarity. Nothing in the Bill, other than here in clause 1, puts passengers front and centre—that is a notable omission from the Bill as currently drafted; all the rest deals with procedure. Placing an explicit duty on the Secretary of State provides a valuable guiding principle throughout the Bill’s implementation period, and ensures that every step taken under the Bill will be aligned with the objective of improving bus services for all those who rely on them. The Minister in his opening remarks said that the clause was not necessary, because it does not encompass “the full scope of the Government’s ambition.” Yet the clause says that the Bill will “improve the performance, accessibility and quality”. Surely “quality” encompasses safety, which was the Minister’s example as to why the clause was inadequate to describe the full scope of the Government’s ambitions. I push back on that, because quality does encompass safety in the ordinary sense of that word. Paragraph 1 of the Government’s explanatory notes for the Bill says: “The Bus Services (No. 2) Bill brings forward primary legislative measures intended to support the government’s commitment to deliver better buses.” Clause 1 honours that Government commitment to deliver better buses and should remain part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
37. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    Clause 2 amends the Transport Act 2000 in relation to the availability of franchising schemes. It is essentially a facilitating clause to allow for one of the really important changes in the Bill, which is to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to consent to any local authority other than mayoral combined authorities when deciding whether to embark on a franchising scheme.

    Hansard source
38. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    I agree with much of the hon. Lady’s description of Warrington’s Own Buses. A few weeks ago, I spoke to the company’s managing director and I was impressed, as I said on Second Reading. However, does the hon. Lady agree that that is because Warrington’s Own Buses has 30, 40 or 50 years’ institutional experience in running those kinds of services—experience that other local authorities simply do not have? Does she also agree that exactly the same delivery of services can be achieved through an enhanced partnership, in which the operator works in collaboration with the local authority, and it is up to them to decide what is important for the community?

    Hansard source
39. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    There is a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about which system passengers prefer. The way to really judge that is through ridership—how many people take the buses. It is absolutely right that in Greater Manchester, under the Bee Network, there has been a post-pandemic increase in ridership of about 34%, from memory. However, does the Minister not accept that in Norfolk, where there is an enhanced partnership, ridership has increased by more than 40%, and in Essex, another enhanced partnership area, ridership has increased by more than 50%? The point is that it is not the scheme design that is fundamentally important, but the way in which it is approached. Does the Minister accept that we can have outcomes that are just as good—better outcomes, in fact—through enhanced partnerships as we can through franchising?

    Hansard source
40. 24 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

    The Minister is right, of course, that all sorts of different franchising schemes and mechanisms are available, and I am looking forward to his description of the Jersey model. However, does he not recognise and accept that, of the authorities that have expressed a direction of travel so far, both Liverpool and West Midlands have also decided to go down what I have described as the full-fat model? It is not just Manchester being an outlier. It is likely that the Bill will ensure—in fact, it is happening already—that full fat is seen as the direction of travel. Does the Minister not think that that is correct?

    Hansard source