Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,804 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 23 Apr 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

   Planning and Development: Bedfordshire

   I absolutely agree. There is a lot of support for brownfield-first development, but also for gently densifying our towns and cities so that we have houses where people want to live within the existing infrastructure. The Government have been elected with a clear mandate to build, build, build, and I accept that. But I hope that they will do the hard yards to plan, plan, plan, and ensure that the 1.5 million houses that they build are the right houses in the right places, as part of the right communities and with the right infrastructure. It is in that spirit that I bring forward this debate, because Bedfordshire is not a place that is standing still. I congratulate the Government on completing the negotiations, begun by the previous Government, to secure the new Universal UK theme park at Kempston Hardwick. That will be a game changer for our local economy, and I will continue to support the Government, Universal and our councils as it progresses through the planning system, but to maximise its potential, it will be important to get the infrastructure right. That means we need to plan for the planes, trains, automobiles and accommodation. Through the planning system, we need to see work done to deliver the right accommodation that will be available in Bedfordshire for people to come and stay, hopefully to enjoy Universal and then stay a while in our towns and villages, spending their time and money enjoying everything that Bedfordshire has to offer. As I noted earlier, I understand that Government have a mandate to “just get on and build”. I have some sympathy for their frustration with Members of Parliament like me who they see as trying to put the brakes on that ambition, but I hope the Minister will recognise that that is not my intention. I believe as fervently as he does that we need to deliver new homes for young people growing up right across Britain, but I believe we must do so in a way that is sensitive to our countryside and our communities, and that delivers the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure. The current planning system is not working for anyone. Too often, it blocks good development and allows bad development—development that erodes local character, that builds houses but divides communities, and that comes without the right infrastructure, leaving new residents and old alike frustrated and unwilling to accept the further houses the Government want to deliver in their communities. As this Government’s planning reforms progress, I hope they will take time to consider how the planning system can more effectively protect the character of our towns and villages, and how it can seek to disarm those blockers that the Government are concerned about by addressing the things they are concerned about, not by tying their arms behind their backs. That is a harder job, I accept, but is anything that is worth doing in politics easy? In Bedfordshire, I would like to see the Government give us the tools through the planning system to protect everything that makes our communities such special places to live—protections for our historic character and our villages, protections for our beautiful and unique countryside against unending and unplanned urban sprawl, and protections for the great British pub; indeed, I would like to see more of them built as our communities expand. In Mid Bedfordshire, we have always done the right thing and taken our fair share of housing—we have even taken Luton’s surplus housing need. We have done everything we were supposed to do, but our communities suffer the effects of bad development. Still, residents in Maulden see development crawling even further up the slope of the Greensand ridge, as their flood risk steadily worsens. Still, residents in Wixams find themselves fighting for a GP surgery that no one locally seems keen to take ownership of. Still, residents find themselves fighting developers who are keen to pocket the profits of development but less keen to deliver on their promises of well-maintained green spaces, proper flood protections and local amenities.

   Hansard source
2. 23 Apr 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

   Planning and Development: Bedfordshire

   Again, I must declare my interest as a Central Bedfordshire councillor. I learned recently of the sums that are held at Central Beds from section 106 contributions. The council is very good at collecting the sums but not necessarily at spending them, particularly in the right places and on the right things. Residents would be keener on development in their local communities if they knew that section 106 contributions would be spent there, not in some other part of the large unitary authority area. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and thank him for it. Worse still, these developers often put in planning applications for big developments, have those fights with the local community, make promises about local infrastructure, secure their planning permission, and then nothing happens. The community sits and waits while more and more other developments get planning permission around them, but the developers do not get on and build the things they have got permission for. Research by the Institute for Public Policy Research found that 1.1 million homes that were given planning permission between 2010 and 2020 were not built by 2024. That is 1.1 million homes that defied the Government’s blockers and got through the planning system but did not get built. So far, this Government seem to have failed to grasp that problem—there is nothing in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that even acknowledges it. If the Government are determined to block the blockers and back the builders, perhaps they should take some action to stop the blocker builders that are failing to build out planning permissions that they have received, because they are having a real impact. In Central Bedfordshire, planning inspectors have twice concluded that we cannot demonstrate a five-year land supply in recent months. That means that our countryside now stands virtually unprotected against speculative development, yet our communities have taken more than 20,000 new homes in the past 10 years. The Central Bedfordshire local plan sets out locations for thousands more, but despite its passage four years ago, key strategic sites in that plan sit without a single shovel having been put in the ground. This Government must hold the builders to account to get on and build things, and not put the blame for our broken planning system on my constituents’ desire to avoid flooded homes or see a GP. Looking ahead, this Government are asking our communities in Bedfordshire to take tens of thousands of additional new homes. That future housing pressure will put our communities under huge additional strain. We need the Government to work with us to do more to ensure that developers deliver what they promise—and deliver it at the right point in development.

   Hansard source
3. 23 Apr 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

   Planning and Development: Bedfordshire

   I thank my right hon. Friend—

   Hansard source
4. 23 Apr 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

   Planning and Development: Bedfordshire

   I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—I forget which positions people have had over the years. I absolutely agree. I will discuss new towns later in my speech; it is important that the Government provide clarity, and clarity soon, on where those new towns will be built. In my constituency too, people want the infrastructure to be built at the right time—before people move into houses, not afterwards. Those promises need to be fulfilled much earlier in the development cycle. I mentioned some of those points just now. I would like to see the Government either commit to requiring developers to deliver new infrastructure right at the start of development, or consider a programme of investment whereby the Government provide capital funding up front for councils to deliver the promised infrastructure, which they could then claim back directly from developers’ section 106 contributions. I would like to see the Government go further on flooding, and commit to a ban in all circumstances on development on functional floodplains. New homes mean nothing if they flood. Rivers and valleys have been here longer than we have, and the water that flows through them will not simply get out of the way because of the size of the Government’s mandate. We must ensure that our housing policy keeps houses out of the way and restricts floodplain to amenity and recreational land as part of proper local placemaking strategies. We must also ensure that the sustainable drainage infrastructure that gets installed with housing is effective and properly maintained. Too often, we see and hear of sustainable drainage systems that are nothing more than overgrown and sometimes blocked ditches, which offer no protection when the rain starts falling. We need a proper strategy to manage them, for example with ownership devolved to properly funded internal drainage boards that can provide expert maintenance. We need to embrace nature-based solutions to flooding—an opportunity presented by the Government’s proposed environmental delivery plans if they are strengthened to include a duty to consider such solutions. I would like to see the Government commit to properly funding and empowering planners in urban areas with high housing targets to identify and release appropriate sites for urban densification—a point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). For too long, urban authorities have been able to restrict land supply and the duty to co-operate to foist urban sprawl on neighbouring rural communities. Development that builds dormitories on our countryside rather than densification in our towns and cities is development that fails us all. We must end the easy fixes and see a focused strategy to densify our urban areas. In rural Bedfordshire, without such a fix we face a real and significant risk that our villages will be forced under the duty to co-operate to take thousands more homes for Luton in addition to the thousands of homes we took last time. Sticking-plaster planning politics where housing targets mean nothing because they are consistently and repeatedly delivered elsewhere does nothing to resolve the housing crisis and nothing to appease the Government’s blockers, who rightly wonder how it can be fair that they must continue to pay the price for failures in urban areas to deliver targets.

   Hansard source
5. 23 Apr 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

   Planning and Development: Bedfordshire

   Will the Minister take this opportunity to talk about building on flood plains? He may be coming on to this matter, but it is close to the hearts of my constituents and, particularly, constituents in North Bedfordshire. It is important that we do not build houses in areas that are going to flood.

   Hansard source
6. 23 Apr 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

   Planning and Development: Bedfordshire

   Will the Minister confirm whether new towns will contribute to current house building targets or be in addition to them?

   Hansard source
7. 23 Apr 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

   Interpersonal Abuse and Violence Against Men and Boys (Strategy)

   I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a strategy for tackling interpersonal abuse and violence against men and boys; and for connected purposes. This Labour Government have pledged to halve instances of violence against women and girls, an intent that I have no doubt those on both sides of this House are fully able to support. The aim of this Bill is to tackle an aspect of the current violence against women and girls strategy—an aspect that makes no sense and that it is essential for the Government to address. The violence against women and girls strategy currently includes male victims of violence against women and girls. The Government still define violence against women and girls, or VAWG, as a category of crimes which disproportionately affect women. Therefore, all victims of crimes such as domestic abuse, rape, sexual assault, digital image abuse, forced marriage and honour-based violence, including men and boys, are considered victims of VAWG. I want to make it clear that this Bill in no way detracts from the work already done and still to be done in tackling violence against women and girls; the Bill simply aims to ensure that male victims of those crimes have a dedicated strategy that reflects the differing nature of their circumstances and ensures that male survivors are recognised and receive appropriate support. The current mis-categorisation forces male victims into spaces and discussions that may more appropriately be reserved for women. At present the Government have no dedicated strategy for tackling interpersonal abuse and violence against men and boys. In 2019, the previous Government published their first ever position statement on male victims, and they followed this in 2022 with an addendum on supporting male victims. The change in Government and a revised strategy on violence against women and girls present a new opportunity to devise a parallel strategy for violence against men and boys in lieu of any direction from the Government regarding the publication of a new, updated position statement. The Minister for Safeguarding, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), is, as I understand it, currently rewriting the violence against women and girls strategy for publication later this spring, and to that end, now is the time to legislate for such a change to be formalised. It should be noted that when the Government state their hope to halve violence against women and girls, the start-state of that data currently includes victims who are men and boys. Victims of gender-based violence face many barriers that prevent them from reporting instances of abuse: the fear of not being believed; the threat that the perpetrator may still pose; or the simple fact of not being aware of the services available to help or being aware and not being able to access them. There are also the complexities around the consequences of disclosure, such as the impact on living arrangements or financial security and how this can, in turn, lead to instances of coercive control. For men and boys, however, there are additional factors: the shame and stigma of not appearing to be masculine, of being vulnerable, of potentially having their sexuality outed, and of being the victim of a crime considered, and officially referred to, as applying to female victims. The majority of men seeking help have coped alone, often for long periods, and are still living with their abusive partners. Men in such circumstances might need help with housing and finances, and, in circumstances involving dependent children, with how they can maintain their role as a father. Safety planning for this group of men must be initiated at the point of disclosure, as the majority of those seeking help do not return to those providing it following first contact. The crime survey for England and Wales for the year ending September 2024 showed that 3% of men aged 16 and over were victims of domestic abuse between September 2023 and September 2024, compared with 6.6% of women. According to Women’s Aid’s 2025 annual audit report, as of May 2024 there were just 50 refuges in England with bed spaces for men. As such, of a total of 63,950 people supported in safe accommodation in that period, only 1,830 were men. There is also a difference in the needs of men who are gay, bisexual or trans. Owing to the complexities of the nature of these relationships and the risk of being outed, of being the victim of prejudice or of being disowned by family members, male victims are less likely to report domestic abuse to statutory services. Carlisle and Withers Green’s 2023 survey highlighted that over 70% of gay, bisexual and trans male victims of domestic abuse had never sought support from a statutory service provider. Their statistics are therefore not recorded in any official figures and as a result these victims find themselves further isolated, increasing their vulnerability to abuse. Sexual abuse against men is a vastly under-reported crime: one in four adults sexually assaulted in the UK each year is a man; one in 10 rapes and one in seven sexual assaults have male victims according to the Office for National Statistics; 3.5% of boys become victims of child sexual abuse before they turn 16; one in four victims of child sexual abuse are men; and over 70% of child sex abusers are people known to their victims. Shame, stigma, homophobia and emasculation are all factors in preventing sexual abuse from being reported. It often takes years for a male victim to report a sexual assault to the police. Male sexual assault survivors are three times more likely to tell a family member, friend or colleague than they are to report an incident to the police. Data from the Office for National Statistics suggests that fewer than a third of male victims of sexual assault have ever disclosed what they have experienced. For straight men, there can also be a hesitancy to disclose abuse owing to the misconception that men should be physically strong enough to prevent an assault. Male victims of abuse who have been forced to penetrate by a partner can struggle to identify their experiences as abuse because it caused them to be aroused. Rape and sexual abuse should never be minimised because a perpetrator is female. The law currently states that while males and females can be the victim of rape, only males can realistically commit the act of rape. The introduction of a “forced to penetrate” sexual offence could therefore address that. Honour-based violence is another factor that is poorly understood and catered for. Victims of honour-based violence are at greater risk of repeat victimisation and are often at risk from multiple perpetrators. However, no discrete crime of so-called honour-based violence or abuse is defined in our legislation, so in most instances male victims would be classified by police as victims of violence without injury or stalking and harassment. Data from the Crown Prosecution Service suggests that around 30% of prosecutions for honour-based violence involve male victims. Additionally, the forced marriage unit has consistently seen that 20% of forced marriage victims are male. That often includes men from overseas who are forced to marry UK citizens and can find themselves forced into domestic servitude, thus also becoming victims of modern slavery. This time last year, Professor Nicola Graham-Kevan of the University of Lancashire undertook research and published data on how male survivors feel about being categorised as victims of violence against women and girls: 89% stated that it made it harder to seek help; 89% stated that they experienced distress; 88% stated that the Government do not care; 80% stated that it was minimising their experiences; 75% stated that it was not taken seriously; and 73% stated that it was not recognised by society. It is clear that the damaging impact of including male victims within a strategy that caters for violence against women and girls means that male survivors cannot identify with that labelling. Organisations such as We Are Survivors, the Men & Boys Coalition and the ManKind Initiative have been instrumental in providing support to male victims and advocating for a solution, and I thank them for their work to highlight this inequality. Last November, the Victims’ Commissioner Baroness Helen Newlove wrote to the Safeguarding Minister outlining many of the same concerns that I have highlighted. The concerns are not unique; they are shared by the male survivor community. The view of the Victims’ Commissioner should not go unheeded, nor that of her predecessor Dame Vera Baird KC, who expressed similar views. The purpose of the Bill is echoed in Baroness Newlove’s words: “I believe it is beyond time for a dedicated men and boys’ strategy, with specific policies, strategic milestones, and accompanying funding. A tailored approach for male victims of interpersonal violence is essential to developing their rights and ensuring the availability of appropriate support services. I urge you to seize this opportunity to create both a robust, cross-governmental VAWG strategy and a separate, comprehensive strategy for men and boys, with clear policies, strategic targets, milestones, and sustainable funding arrangements.” Six months later, and with nothing further heard on implementing such a strategy, this Bill is required to push the Safeguarding Minister to act. My hope is that male survivors of such traumatic violence and abuse can finally be given the focus their plight deserves. I also hope that Members on both sides of the House feel they can support what the Bill sets out to achieve, and I thank them all for listening. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Sir Roger Gale, Sir Ashley Fox, Charlie Dewhirst, Wendy Morton, David Simmonds, Paul Holmes, Rebecca Smith, Bob Blackman, Alison Griffiths, Mr Richard Holden and Ben Obese-Jecty present the Bill. Ben Obese-Jecty accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 May, and to be printed (Bill 224).

   Hansard source
8. 23 Apr 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

   Hospitals

   I will focus my speech specifically on Hinchingbrooke hospital, and highlight some key issues that will impact delivery of our new hospital in Huntingdon. During the general election campaign, I pledged to fight for the resources to rebuild Hinchingbrooke, and I will continue to push this Labour Government to ensure that they follow through on the programme they committed to deliver. In May 2023, the then Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), announced that Hinchingbrooke was part of the Government’s new hospital programme. Since that time, I have been concerned that this Government are not acting with enough haste to address the issues faced at Hinchingbrooke. There has been a lack of clarity, particularly regarding the ongoing traffic issues around Hinchingbrooke and the lack of a firm commitment to upgrade the road network as part of the project, which has caused concerns across my constituency. While I welcome the fact that Hinchingbrooke is rightly in wave 1 of the programme, we need clarity on the timeframe. Although this Government are aware of the RAAC issues, they have still not given a detailed timeframe as to when we will get our hospital built; there is a vague start date, but no completion date. Crucially, in September 2024, the Minister for Secondary Care confirmed in a written answer to me that the detailed structural assessment of Hinchingbrooke hospital in 2022 “estimated that the remaining life of the RAAC panels” extended to “approximately 2030”, even after “the installation of fail-safe steelwork.” In February, she stated that this summer, the Government will publish a report “assessing the clinical and operational impacts of the running of the existing hospital beyond the estimated life of the current hospital site”. With the delays already caused by road access and grid access, and the lack of clarity about a start date or a completion date, what assurances can the Minister give that my constituents will not find themselves in a condemned hospital building after 2030, with the DHSC simply owning the risk that it will collapse? If the new hospital is to be completed by 2030, we need plans, action, and focus on making sure that any changes are usable, safe and fit for purpose, with no more delays. In short, the following issues must be addressed in order for Hinchingbrooke to be delivered: the programme business case for the NHP must receive ministerial approval; a hospital 2.0-compliant design must be approved and delivered; a capital envelope of at least £900 million and a realistic contingency must be allocated; and mobilisation of the programme must be quick. It is clear that the 2030 target might now be unreachable, but mobilisation by spring 2026 seems realistic, and I will push the Government and all stakeholders to work towards that target. There also needs to be further work between Hinchingbrooke and the NHP to develop a strategic outline case, and it is crucial that that case is then approved as soon as possible in order to complete the new hospital by as close to 2030 as possible. We also need grid access that is fit for purpose, as the current grid access will not be sufficient for Hinchingbrooke. Currently, the gap between sufficient grid space being approved and meeting that which is required will be a year—that is clearly not appropriate. There are issues regarding a vital new access road to alleviate traffic. Those issues are caused by land owned jointly by Cambridgeshire constabulary and National Highways. The Government must get all stakeholders around the table to reach a solution, given that they are public bodies. To conclude, I reaffirm that I will do all I can to work with the Government, the NHS and others to make sure that my constituents get the new hospital they so desperately need.

   Hansard source
9. 23 Apr 2025·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

   North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) on bringing such an important issue to Westminster Hall today and on opening the debate with such an eloquent and passionate speech on behalf of her constituents. For many of us here today, this is a deeply personal debate. We all know or are related to people employed in the oil and gas industry off the north-east coast of our country. Finding a solution and ensuring that the transition is indeed just for those workers is vital for our constituents. We often talk about needing the North sea for our energy security, to produce the tax revenue for the Exchequer and to support supply chains and local economies. It sounds incredibly intangible at times, but for the 200,000 people employed in the oil and gas industry, directly or indirectly, the impacts of the transition in the North sea will be very tangible indeed. As the decline accelerates, we risk seeing lost incomes and lost futures in whole communities without a purpose. That is 200,000 employees up and down the entire United Kingdom: the oil and gas supply chain touches nearly every single constituency in the United Kingdom, but more than 68% of all direct employment is in Scotland, and more than 80% of that is in the north-east of Scotland, in and around Aberdeen. In my own constituency of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, everybody knows someone who relies on the offshore industry for their livelihood. Just last week, during recess, I was in Westhill speaking to companies. That town is the subsea exploration capital of the world and home to Total, Technip, Tetra, Subsea7 and more. The oil and gas industry is the lifeblood of the north-east of Scotland. That is evident to anybody who visits. Although I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for the passion that she brings to the debate and her concern for her constituents, I cannot help reflecting on the rhetoric emanating from the Scottish Government over the past few years and their presumption against oil and gas, which has contributed to an increasingly pessimistic outlook for the North sea. When we engage with oil and gas companies, it is the language and the tone that we use to describe the situation in the North sea that they say is driving away the investment that they need to drive forward new technologies such as offshore wind, whether floating or fixed bottom. When we say “decline”, “ageing” or “terminal”, that does not give investors from overseas a thriving and attractive investment picture. We need to address that language.

   Hansard source
10. 23 Apr 2025·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support

    Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right that it is a declining basin—everybody is aware of that—but we must be careful about the language we use about it. We should point out the positives that can be achieved through further investment and recognise the profits being realised by energy companies engaged primarily in the extraction and exploitation of oil and gas underneath the North sea. They will be investing in those new technologies, and they need to convince shareholders—who are deciding whether to invest in the middle east, south-east Asia, the United States of America or elsewhere in the globe—that the North sea is still an attractive place to invest. The language that we use about that basin and the industry in the United Kingdom is incredibly important, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to engage with the industry and speak to individuals—as I have; I know that the Minister, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and others do too—because that is exactly what they tell us. They want to contribute to the transition—indeed, they lead it—but they want the negative atmosphere overshadowing the North sea to change. That means changing some of the rhetoric and language used to describe the industry, which is so important to the economy of the north-east of Scotland.

    Hansard source
11. 23 Apr 2025·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support

    Yes, of course we believe in net zero, but not in setting arbitrary targets and dates that are unachievable without making this country poorer or more reliant on foreign imports for our energy supply. The fact is that imports of LNG have doubled just to keep the lights on as we actively accelerate the decline in our own North sea oil and gas industry. That is nonsensical—it is madness. It is an act of national self-harm. We should revert to our policy of maximum economic recovery from the North sea while doing all we can to ensure that the companies involved invest in new technologies.

    Hansard source
12. 23 Apr 2025·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support

    I am conscious of time, but I will be delighted to give way.

    Hansard source
13. 23 Apr 2025·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support

    I am not in any way trying to talk down the North sea. What we need to do is talk up those companies—especially those in the supply chain—the technologies and the skilled workforce, which rely at present on a successful and profitable oil and gas industry, because we will need them to develop new technologies in the North sea. The ships engaged in drilling for rigs, for example, will be used to work on the new offshore wind farms. Right now, as work is drying up in the North sea as a result of the accelerated decline, those assets are being sent to other parts of the world and being redeployed or redesigned. When we call on those assets to help speed up the deployment of new offshore wind farms, they will not be there—the skilled workforce that we will need to develop wind farms and other technologies will be overseas because those people will be offered high-paying jobs in existing energy sectors in the UAE, Qatar, Australia, North America and south-east Asia. We cannot just flick a switch and expect all those workers and the supply chain to be there. That is why we need a profitable and successful energy industry. Like it or lump it, at the minute that is reliant on continued investment in our oil and gas industry. That is good for our energy security and the Treasury, so it makes abundant sense to continue to support it. The highly paid jobs in renewables that are going to exist simply do not exist yet—that is a fact. We were promised that by 2020 there would be 130,000 green manufacturing jobs, but frankly only a fraction have materialised. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) talked about the need to expand capacity in our ports. Aberdeen South harbour, in the port of Aberdeen, was built specifically to take advantage of the investment that it was assumed would come from the expansion of the deployment of offshore wind, but still to this day only 1% of its overall profit is driven by offshore wind and renewables, whereas 60% comes from the oil and gas industry. Until the balance shifts, we need to ensure that the companies driving that investment continue to invest in the North sea, but I am afraid they will not do so if this Government’s policies continue. We need a just transition. As ever, the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) spoke eloquently about his constituency. Workers in Grangemouth, who are looking with great trepidation at what the future holds, tell us that there is nothing just about the transition as it stands. It is incumbent on the Government to do what they can to ensure the safety and security of jobs, the continued profitability and investability of our oil and gas industry as it seeks to transition into the technologies of the future, and the economic success and sustainability of north-east Scotland and the Scottish economy as a whole.

    Hansard source
14. 23 Apr 2025·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support

    I pay tribute to the Minister’s continued commitment to and engagement with the industry and the region. It seems, given the amount of times he is in and out of the north-east of Scotland these days, that he may be buying a second home in my constituency. Of course, we welcome that, because any engagement with the Government is positive. The tone with which the consultation on the future of North sea energy was launched was incredibly positive and has been warmly welcomed. However, there is also an ongoing Treasury consultation on the post-EPL fiscal framework; what engagement is the Department having with the Treasury on what that will look like? Is there any opportunity to speed up the process by which we can replace the energy profits levy?

    Hansard source
15. 23 Apr 2025·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    Higher Education

    I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about the passing of His Holiness Pope Francis. I also wish all those not fortunate enough to have been born north of Hadrian’s wall a very happy St George’s day. While he is not a graduate of the University of Aberdeen, like me the Secretary of State is a beneficiary of a Scottish university education. Scotland has some of the finest and most respected higher education establishments in the world, but as we saw last week at the University of Aberdeen, in warnings from the University of Edinburgh and, most starkly, at the University of Dundee, where over 600 jobs are being shed to make emergency savings, the current funding model, overseen by the SNP, is failing our institutions and our young people. I know we agree on that, but will the Secretary of State also acknowledge the devastating impact on Scottish university budgets of his own Government’s national insurance increase, adding £45 million to their salary bills, or will he continue to defend that job-killing, anti-growth tax on workers?

    Hansard source
16. 23 Apr 2025·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    North Sea Oil and Gas Licences: Economic Growth

    Does the Secretary of State agree with the Scottish Labour leader, who says there is no question but that there has to be new oil and gas, or does he agree with his colleague the Energy Secretary, who has banned new licences in the North sea and is overseeing the accelerating decline of the UK’s oil and gas basin?

    Hansard source
17. 23 Apr 2025·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    North Sea Oil and Gas Licences: Economic Growth

    I think we all heard that, and I am sure Anas Sarwar did. The Secretary of State was unable to agree with his own leader in Scotland, and is so in hock to the UK Labour party that he cannot stand up for Scottish workers or the Scottish oil and gas industry. It has always been the party interest over the national interest for Labour, with no notice taken of the Scottish Labour party. Ten years ago, the Scottish Labour party was described by its own leader as being simply the “branch office”. Nothing has changed, has it?

    Hansard source
18. 23 Apr 2025·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Sewage

    I am pleased to be able to bring the House’s attention to my constituents’ concern about the continuing discharge of raw sewage into our local seas and other bodies of water. In my constituency, we saw 529 such discharges in 2024 from just 14 storm overflow points. These incidents continued for a combined duration of over 6,200 hours. That is simply not acceptable. It poses a serious threat not only to public health and the environment but to our local tourism and marine economy, on which so many of my constituents depend. We must act decisively to improve our ageing water infrastructure, enforce stricter regulations and demand transparency from our water companies, from Ofwat and from the Environment Agency.

    Hansard source
19. 23 Apr 2025·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Sewage

    I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s diagnosis, but I do agree that the fines need to be collected and distributed. The other issues that have been identified in my constituency—I imagine that they are wider issues, too—are illegal misconnections and cowboy builders, which we must crack down on. Without addressing those issues, we will not get the results that we need, and constituents need to know what is being done to stop them. Since being elected, I have had constructive engagement with Southern Water and the Environment Agency’s local team and head office. Having visited Ford wastewater treatment works and done a shift with the misconnections team in Bognor Regis, I know that work is being done to upgrade the network, but this issue requires a strategic, cross-agency approach—one that considers the serious impact of the Government’s continued pursuit of house building on our floodplains on flood resilience and sewage discharges. When schools in my constituency are taking children to the beach and being told that they cannot swim in the sea, it is not just disappointing; it is disgraceful. It is not the legacy that we want to leave for the next generation—we owe them better.

    Hansard source
20. 23 Apr 2025·Parliament·Alberto Costa

    Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy

    I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Only a few weeks ago, I visited Sue Davis’s hair salon in Blaby in my constituency, and she introduced me to two of the young people my hon. Friend has in mind, Tegan and Poppy. Does she agree that the measures the Government have brought in not only damage the hair salon industry, but risk reducing the number of apprenticeships, making it possible that there will be no future Tegans and Poppys going into the hairdressing business in the first place?

    Hansard source
21. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Topical Questions

    T7. We should all be really concerned that the Government have quietly abandoned their pledge to hold five local inquiries into grooming gangs. The victims still need justice, the public still need answers, and we still need a full inquiry. In the meantime, can the Minister tell us what specific actions—not just references to AI—her Department is taking to ensure full transparency and public confidence in the cases that do come to court?

    Hansard source
22. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Birmingham: Waste Collection

    Despite assurances from the Dispatch Box before the Easter recess, we continue to see piles of rubbish on the streets in Birmingham. The costs are mounting, and the rats—the squeaky blinders—continue to roam the streets of Britain’s second city freely, so I ask the Minister again: what are his Government and Labour-run Birmingham city council doing to bring an end to the strike? Enough is enough—residents want an end to the situation.

    Hansard source
23. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Victoria Atkins

    “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling

    Follow your own advice then.

    Hansard source
24. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Victoria Atkins

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Post Office Horizon scandal affected many innocent people, including a constituent of mine who has been waiting for a response to their claim under the group litigation orders scheme since August last year. I wrote to the Minister for services, small business and exports, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), on 10 December last year about that delay. Despite chasing the Minister more than 10 times, and being assured repeatedly that an answer was on its way—in fact, the latest reply was that I was to expect an answer by Easter—I have still had no response to my letter, and my constituent is still waiting. They cannot understand why they have received no answer from this Government. How might we ensure an urgent response to my constituent on this very sensitive matter, and for those other Horizon victims who are also apparently experiencing delays with the scheme?

    Hansard source
25. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Victoria Atkins

    Points of Order

    indicated assent.

    Hansard source
26. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Topical Questions

    Will the Minister take a special look at the problem of rogue builders who repeatedly target our constituents—often very vulnerable people? They take thousands from them and wreck their homes, yet the only redress is said to be trading standards. Surely that amounts to fraud and there ought to be a prosecution to follow.

    Hansard source
27. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Birmingham: Waste Collection

    Given that the Minister no doubt sincerely believes that the offer on the table is a good one, why does he think the unions are not accepting it?

    Hansard source
28. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Ukraine Update

    Coupled with the decision of the leader of the free world to describe Ukraine as the aggressor in this war is the news today that America may be considering no longer supplying the Supreme Allied Commander Europe to NATO. Is the Defence Secretary looking forward as much as the rest of us are to hearing what President Trump has to say, if he comes to this Parliament in September, about how it is that the system that kept the peace in Europe for 50 years after the second world war is no longer applicable for the future?

    Hansard source
29. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Ukraine Update

    indicated assent.

    Hansard source
30. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    British Steel

    On the day that Parliament was recalled, I gather that the workers themselves had to confront Chinese executives who were intent on coming on to the site. They believe that those executives intended to take unilateral action to shut down the blast furnace irrecoverably. Is that correct? What does that tell us about the motivation and behaviour of China when it gets its hands on our strategic industries?

    Hansard source
31. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    The right hon. Lady has just said something very important: namely, that she would normally expect a pre-sentence report to be given in all, or at least almost all, cases. I hope that is her position, because what seems unfair to me is that a pre-sentence report, which presumably enables people to present arguments in mitigation, should be available to some people who have been convicted of a crime but not to others. Surely it should be available either to everyone or to no one, because everyone’s individual circumstances deserve the same degree of consideration.

    Hansard source
32. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    I do not think anyone is questioning the firm action the Lord Chancellor is taking. The point my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made is: why should it be necessary for her to take that action? Surely, if the Sentencing Council cannot see the distinction she makes between its proper role and Parliament’s proper role, it is not fit to do the job.

    Hansard source
33. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Ukraine Update

    The Secretary of State rightly began his statement by condemning the Russian missile attack on Sumy on Palm Sunday, which killed civilians and children. However, he will be aware of Russian claims that this was a military target and that 60 Ukrainian military commanders were killed, as were NATO servicemen who were “in charge”. Can he confirm that we will not only provide increased military support to Ukraine, but step up efforts against Russian lies in the information war?

    Hansard source
34. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    The chairman of the Sentencing Council has argued that the sentence should be tailored to the offender, but my constituents—and, I suspect, those of the Secretary of State—think that the sentence should be tailored to the offence and its effect on the victim. That is what counts, not the background, circumstances, history or origins of the offender.

    Hansard source
35. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    The right hon. Lady is right about the moving process or trend that she has described, but the trouble is that it is part of a bigger problem, is it not? It is the problem of judicial activism, and it is not new. For some time, judicial activists have sought to do exactly what she has said, and it is they, not people in this House, who endanger the separation of powers.

    Hansard source
36. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    My right hon. Friend deserves great credit for championing the cause of justice and obliging the Government to follow suit, albeit grudgingly. Leaving aside the fundamental injustice that he describes—the two-tier justice system—does he acknowledge that what the Sentencing Council proposes and continues to do undermines popular faith in the rule of law and justice and, as the Lord Chancellor herself says, tears the whole system apart?

    Hansard source
37. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    The Lord Chancellor has just given us, very helpfully, the list of matters that might be relevantly considered in a pre-sentence report. As she has said, however, one of the items on that list is “personal circumstances”, and that is what the Bill will remove from the Sentencing Council’s discretion. May I ask her why she has not used in the Bill the language that is included in the explanatory notes? Paragraph 8 states that the Bill will “prevent differential treatment… It does this by preventing the creation of a presumption regarding whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort”. That strikes me as a much narrower exclusion, and perhaps one better targeted at the problem that the Lord Chancellor has, in my view, rightly identified.

    Hansard source
38. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

    It is important in this debate to be clear what we are talking about and what we are not. The part of the guideline produced by the Sentencing Council that led to this legislation relates to the circumstances in which a pre-sentence report is produced, not to the passing of a sentence itself. It is also important not to overstate the problem. As we have heard, there is already law that says there should be a pre-sentence report in almost all cases, unless it is unnecessary, and most offenders being considered for either a community or custodial sentence—in the Crown court, at least—already have one. The guidance that the Sentencing Council produces on the ordering of a pre-sentence report, though, does matter. That is because such a report is designed to give sentencers more information about the person they are sentencing. Without that information, it can be very hard to apply the full range of sentencing options. That might be about whether a rehabilitation activity requirement or a programme requirement might be appropriate, or to assess capacity for unpaid work. If a sentencer does not order a pre-sentence report for a particular offender, they may not be able to impose some of the more demanding community sentences and may find themselves more likely to impose a custodial sentence as the only available and realistic alternative. It does matter whether a sentencer is being encouraged to order such a report for an offender, and any guideline suggesting that this should be more appropriate for someone of one ethnicity, faith or culture, as opposed to another, cannot be right. I accept that the Sentencing Council was trying to do good, but in reality we do not address inequality by replacing it with a different inequality. The Sentencing Council has misjudged this issue, and the Government are entitled to come to that view too. It would have been better if legislation was not needed to resolve this issue, but the Sentencing Council, independent as we know it is, has clearly concluded that it will not do as the Lord Chancellor has asked, and that means that legislation is the only realistic alternative. However, I have concerns about the way in which the Government are going about this, particularly in the breadth of the drafting of the Bill. I mentioned in an intervention on the Lord Chancellor one specific concern, which I will not go over again in view of the time, but which we might return to in the later stages of the Bill. I think it is worth Ministers considering whether the use of the phrase “personal characteristics” is too broad. The Chair of the Justice Committee read out some of the other personal characteristics referred to in the draft guideline, which I do not think are anywhere near as controversial. We need to keep in mind that this is about a process in which a sentencer is given information about an offender in order to determine the appropriate sentence. I do not think that information about faith or ethnic origin would fall into the appropriate category, but information about health conditions or disabilities most certainly might. There is a danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater: not all personal characteristics should be left out of account in sentencing. I therefore ask Ministers to consider whether they can tighten the wording of clause 1(2) and (3) in particular. If they do so, I think that will avoid some rather arcane discussions about what can be properly described as personal circumstances and personal characteristics. However, I also think there is a danger of losing sight of the good work that the Sentencing Council does. I accept that this will not be a universally popular point of view, but I do think that the Sentencing Council adds something important to the sentencing process. It is important that we do not lose sight of that, or of the fact that the guideline that has been drafted is to replace substantially out-of-date guidance. I hope that point will also be noted by Ministers.

    Hansard source
39. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    Reoffending on Probation

    Because our prisons are running at about 98% capacity, not only are existing prisoners more likely to reoffend but, sadly, as we allow more prisoners to be released early, more people on probation will do so. Apart from the terrible effect on victims, the Ministry itself estimates that this costs a staggering £18 billion a year in England and Wales. What is the Minister’s policy to help reduce reoffending?

    Hansard source
40. 22 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    British Steel

    I take at face value what the Minister has said today about British Steel having a bright future. However, she did not mention any figures, other than a global figure of £2.5 billion floating around somewhere. Will she tell the House when she expects to publish the accounting officer assessment that is required when public money is committed? We can then test in the Public Accounts Committee whether those rules for spending public money are being adhered to, particularly in terms of feasibility.

    Hansard source