Category: Speeches

Laurence Turner – 2025 Statement on Criminal Injuries Compensation

The statement made by Laurence Turner, the Labour MP for Birmingham Northfield, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 29 April 2025.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered compensation for criminal injuries.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Dr Murrison. At the outset, I thank the members of the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to allocate this debate and all hon. Members, across parties, who supported the application. I also thank those constituents and members of the public who have been in touch in advance of the debate. Criminal injuries are, by their nature, not easy matters to discuss, so I am grateful to all the people who took the time to recount their experiences.

I am also grateful to all the Members present today, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who has already done much in this and the previous Parliament to highlight some of the problems that we will talk about in this debate. It is also good to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place. I should make it clear that, I will be talking about the criminal injuries compensation scheme as it operates in Great Britain, but I am aware that different arrangements apply in Northern Ireland, and I am glad that that perspective will be represented today.

It is also important at this early stage to pay tribute to the staff of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Nothing in the opening of this debate is intended as a criticism of them. They work within parameters that are broadly set by us in Parliament, and with staffing numbers that have fallen by 19% since the current iteration of the scheme was introduced in 2012. The civil service people survey reveals that they take pride and find purpose in their jobs, and I am grateful to them.

The question of how the victims of serious physical and mental criminal injury may be fairly compensated has occupied this House for many decades. We are, to the month, at the 60th anniversary of the introduction for the first full year of the original, non-statutory scheme, which was introduced in recognition of the fact that there will always be cases in which the perpetrators of serious violence cannot be identified or awards cannot be recovered from their assets or incomes.

In preparation for this debate, I was delighted to learn of a local connection: the guiding and determined force behind the original scheme was the Birmingham magistrate and first secretary of the Howard League for Penal Reform, Margery Fry, who up to her death was a tireless campaigner for better support for the victims of crime and for the principle that perpetrators must, wherever possible, pay the cost of restitution. Those are principles that I am sure Members on both sides of the House will endorse today.

However, there is another, unhappy point of emerging agreement on the criminal injuries compensation scheme: it does not adequately serve the people it is meant to aid. As the Victims’ Commissioner put it in 2019, victims of violent crime reported

“delays, uncertainty about next steps and poor communication. To many, fairly or unfairly, the Scheme seemed calculated to frustrate and alienate.”

Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling an incredibly important debate. I came upon this issue recently in dealing with the case of a 10-year-old boy in my constituency who was shot in a quiet residential street. It has taken five years to get him compensated for the injuries that he suffered, which will be lifelong. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the sheer length of time that it takes to get victims compensated, the bureaucratic and sometimes impersonal approach, and the inadequacy of the sums being received by people, particularly children, who have received lifelong injury?

Laurence Turner

The hon. Member raises what sounds like a truly shocking case. All my sympathies are with that child and his family. I agree wholeheartedly with the point she makes about timelines and the nature of communication through the scheme, which I—and, I am sure, other Members—will come on to in the course of this debate.

At the time, the Victims’ Commissioner further recommended that the Ministry of Justice

“examine the Scheme with a view to making it simpler and accessible to victims wishing to apply on their own behalf, reducing the reliance on legal representatives.”

Also in the last Parliament, the all-party parliamentary group for adult survivors of child sexual abuse reported that “almost all survivors” who contributed to its inquiry

“had a negative experience of applying to CICA for compensation.”

I recognise that some progress has been made in the last six years, which must be welcomed. The last Government retrospectively removed the “under the same roof” rule for crimes committed between 1964 and 1979. It had long been recognised that the rule prevented the awarding of fair compensation to victims of historical domestic abuse and childhood sexual abuse during that period. Progress has also been made more recently on reducing the paper-bound nature of the scheme.

However, we cannot reassure ourselves that the scheme is in good health. As has been said, victims of violent crime can face long delays before they access compensation. For residents in Birmingham, the average time between application and award is still more than a year. That average can be dragged upwards by the most complex cases, but even apparently simple cases can take many months to resolve. Applicants to the scheme are not effectively signposted to wider support or assisted to navigate the processes for accessing services, such as the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder through the NHS.

The reasoning that underpins the tariff system is hard to understand, and the apparently arbitrary limits to the scheme can produce outcomes that are, to the layperson’s eye, perverse. The two-year normal claim limit is out of line with the three-year limit for civil claims for injury.

Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is totally inconsistent to have a time limit of three years for ordinary personal injury claims, but a time limit of only two years for Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority claims? There is a reason why there are time limits—memories fade and evidence becomes less reliable—but does he agree that there should be consistency here?

Laurence Turner

My hon. Friend is very learned and experienced in these matters, and I wholeheartedly agree. The discrepancy is hard to explain, especially as the pre-1996 non-statutory scheme explicitly aligned the criminal injuries time limit with that for civil claims.

There is some evidence that victims who have legal representation often receive greater compensation than they would have done had they acted alone. That is not a desirable outcome, especially when people with more limited means are more likely to become the victims of crime. The scheme’s tariff has not been updated since 2012, and its upper and lower bounds had been frozen for many years before that, despite inflation. Indeed, the lowest tariff of £1,000 has remained frozen since 1992—a real-terms erosion of 54%.

The process can feel cold and impersonal. As one member of the public with recent experience of the scheme who wrote to me in advance of this debate put it, the lack of “timelines or guidelines” means that

“victims are continually left in limbo and retraumatised by a process that is meant to help.”

Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for the way he is setting out the problems with the scheme, which is something of a Cinderella service. As he said, the tariffs have not changed, and the upper limit has not changed for almost 30 years. What gives away the situation even more is the fact that, although the average sum awarded in the last year is about £8,000, the amount increased sixfold on appeal. That, and the fact that only 3% of injured victims of crime actually receive compensation, suggests that there are things wrong with the scheme.

Laurence Turner

My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, makes an important point. We must also consider the number of victims of crime who are so exhausted by the process that they choose not to appeal, even though they may have grounds to do so. His scrutiny in this area is very welcome.

Changes made to the scheme have an unhappy history in this House. Some Members may recall the very contentious changes made to it in 2012, with the express intent of reducing expenditure by between £40 million and £60 million a year. At the time, in the face of sustained scrutiny, including from Members on the then Government Benches, the Minister of the day, the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), announced:

“a hardship fund of £500,000 per year which will provide relief from hardship for very low-paid workers in England and Wales who are temporarily unable to work as a result of being a victim of a crime of violence.” —[Official Report, 27 November 2012; Vol. , c. 14WS.]

That concession secured support for the relevant secondary legislation. The fund is still in existence, but its criteria are too tightly drawn. An applicant must be paid no more than £5,700 a year, the equivalent of statutory sick pay, and they must apply to seek it not within two years of an injury, but within two months of an injury, in order to qualify.

Far from the fund supporting low-paid victims of crime by £500,000 a year, the Ministry of Justice told me recently that only £4,100 has ever been paid out of it, and no payments at all were made in the seven years to 2023-24. I suspect that the very few workers who were eligible to apply were unaware that it exists. The hardship fund is a dead letter; it would be better to scrap it than to claim that special support is available to low-paid workers when, in practice, it is not.

Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)

My hon. Friend refers to low-paid workers; we know that retail staff are among the victims who experience a really shocking amount of violent crime within the workplace. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers for the work it is doing to ensure that its members who are victims of violent crime in the workplace can access the CICA scheme?

Laurence Turner

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I agree with her. USDAW’s Freedom From Fear campaign, which has been running for many years and covers a number of important issues, including the importance of fair access to compensation, is to be welcomed, and USDAW should be congratulated on the changes that it has already secured in this House.

Another high-profile change was the tightening of the criteria, so that the scheme only applied to injuries caused by deliberate violence inflicted by a person. That change excluded most dangerous dog attacks, and in practice compensation for such attacks can only be secured if it can be shown that a dog was directed to attack by its owner. It seems to me a serious flaw that a child or postal worker might be mauled by a dog and left with life-changing injuries, and the keeping of that dog may itself be an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but there would be no route for the victim to claim compensation, especially if the owner of the dog cannot be identified.

The Communication Workers Union continues to campaign on this issue; ahead of this debate, it drew attention to figures showing that each year 200 Royal Mail workers lose a finger or part of a finger after a dog attack. I encourage Ministers to look again at this issue, especially in light of the growing number of animals belonging to new, and now-banned, breeds such as the XL bully since 2012.

As has already been said, compensation for criminal injuries is an important issue for workers in public-facing roles more generally, and I am grateful to USDAW, GMB and Unison, as well as the CWU, for their work to draw attention to the risk of violent assault to their members. And for the avoidance of doubt, I draw attention to the support provided to my constituency party by GMB and Unison.

The changes to the scheme that I have referred to were made under the previous Government, but I wish to press the Minister on two further and more recent points. First, shortly before Easter the Ministry of Justice published its response to the consultations undertaken between 2020 and 2023. In that response, the MOJ said that there would be no immediate changes to the scheme, in part because of resource constraints.

The decision not to accept recommendation 18 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse has understandably caused disappointment and reignited wider criticism of the scheme. The Government cited two factors: protection of universality, which means treating all applicants in the same way, and cost. If the scheme is not to be amended to provide different criteria for victims of childhood sexual abuse, what other steps will the Ministry now take, such as the provision of enhanced guidelines on the circumstances under which an out-of-time application would be accepted, taking into account our modern understanding of the lifelong effects of this horrendous crime?

On resourcing, will the Minister accept that although the nature of the scheme means that expenditure varies year on year, the cost of compensation has actually fallen on average—that is the trend—after inflation is taken into account. Although the number of applications has risen, that appears to have been driven by an increased number of ineligible claimants. The scheme overall costs less than it did before 2012—less in cash terms, I believe, than under the pre-statutory scheme—and, as mentioned, CICA’s headcount has fallen.

Reforms are needed, but I am concerned that we seem to be talking again about protecting the sustainability of the scheme. I know the Minister has a strong personal commitment to this issue and to enhancing support for victims of crime more generally. I hope she will be able to reassure us that any future reforms of CICA will seek to improve victim support, including in its compensation elements.

Our constituents expect us to bring our knowledge, our judgment and the benefit of our experiences to this place. Like some other Members of this House, my interest in this matter arises partly through my direct experience of the scheme. By their nature, such matters are difficult to talk about; if I stumble, I ask for Members’ patience.

Some six years ago I was on the wrong end of an attempted robbery. I was left concussed, my arm was dislocated and one of the joints in my right hand was shattered. I was physically unable to leave the house for a month, and I had a frozen shoulder for a year. There are long-term physical effects: I have premature arthritis and permanent loss of movement on my right-hand side. By any common-sense judgment they are serious and blameless injuries, arising from violence, but with one minor exception: annex E of the scheme does not recognise them as such.

There was—and is—also a psychological effect. An event of that kind changes a person. I am changed in ways that I still find difficult to talk about. I have learned that recovery is not some happy state that is one day achieved: it is a process that follows its own timetable at an uneven pace, towards a destination that can never be fully reached. In my case, the perpetrators were never identified. I incurred substantial costs because the assault happened almost on my doorstep. Although I would be unlikely to recognise the perpetrators, they would have recognised me.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the police referred me to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. My experience of the scheme is typical of the delays and impersonal contact that have already been described, and does not require repeating. What I will say is that when a person is compelled to relive their experiences, within a system that they feel they have to fight against, the original injustice is continually visited anew.

At the conclusion of the process I received the lowest tariff award of £1,000. That was given because there was some post-surgical scarring—the only injury that qualified under the scheme. In truth, that aspect was the least consequential effect of the assault. The criteria felt—and still feel—arbitrary. I received an apologetic letter from one of the administrators of the scheme, and I remain grateful for that human touch. The award did not, as it does not for many, cover the costs of travel and accommodation for surgery or physiotherapy—but, three years on from the assault, I was just glad to have some official recognition and did not pursue an appeal.

I do not say any of this to attract attention or sympathy, or to suggest that my experience was in any way exceptional. The point is that it was not. Like many victims of crime, my hope now is that some good might come from adverse experience. In that respect, I agree with the Minister when she wrote:

“The clear message to me is that we need change, and I will be considering how Government can best provide the support that victims need and deserve.”

I hope we will hear more about those plans today.

I am encouraged by the Prime Minister’s clear and personal statement of support for victims of crime in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North last week. I am glad to have the opportunity next Tuesday to introduce to the House a ten-minute rule Bill that aims to secure the wholesale review of CICA and the scheme that the Victims’ Commissioner called for in 2019. The victims of violent crime deserve better, and I hope the Bill will secure cross-party support.

May 4, 2025
Monica Harding – 2025 Speech on Unauthorised Moorings on the River Thames

The speech made by Monica Harding, the Liberal Democrat MP for Esher and Walton, in the House of Commons on 29 April 2025.

No issue in my constituency demonstrates more the inertia and failure of the previous political leadership than the problem of overstayed, wrecked and abandoned boats that have been left to proliferate along the banks of the Thames for the last decade. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to bring this issue to the attention of the House and the Minister.

Esher and Walton is a river community. The Thames forms our boundary with London; its waters have brought Vikings to raid Walton and kings to live in Hampton Court, and it is loved by my constituents. We have rowing clubs in Molesey and Walton that generate home-grown Olympians, the Ajax and Viking sea scouts, and wild swimming groups. We have riverside businesses that contribute to our local economy and provide residents and tourists with access to the most famous river in our land. All these activities have been impacted by the sunken, wrecked and abandoned boats, alongside unlicensed overstay boats. They line the entire length of my constituency, from the Dittons through Molesey and down into Walton-on-Thames.

There are wrecked vessels, half sunk and rusting, on the banks opposite Hampton Court Palace, visible to the hundreds of thousands of tourists who visit. Next door, there are overstay boats which one constituent described as a “small village”; it is Dickensian. The overstay boats are almost always unregistered. They turn up, moor, and then stay for months, sometimes years. In addition to this impunity, they generate litter and waste. Some boats apparently operate as Airbnbs. Others have erected fences: they have fenced off public land on the towpath, put up “Keep out” and “Private” signs, and intimidated residents. Stretches of land—our riverbank, enjoyed for centuries by my constituents—have become no-go areas characterised by drug use and antisocial behaviour.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

I commend the hon. Lady for introducing this debate. I spoke to her beforehand to hear her thoughts on what she hopes to achieve. I represent a constituency that is equally as nice as hers, and I can well understand the desire to stay and take advantage of the lovely locations on the River Thames. However, the people she describes are taking advantage and preventing others from having enjoyment that is meant for all. Does she agree that we must have regulations in place that allow for reasonable enjoyment, without people taking advantage?

Monica Harding

The hon. Gentleman makes the main point that I want to make today: I will speak about regulations and who is accountable.

One resident told me:

“In the past few years, my neighbours and I have been subjected to constant harassment, including threats of physical harm, theft of property, firing of catapults, fly-tipping, dog fouling and antisocial behaviour.”

That is profoundly unfair on my constituents. Residents who pay their taxes have lost the river as they know it.

Rowing clubs and boat hire and paddle board companies are unable to launch. Residents with boats who want to take them out and moor alongside riverside restaurants and cafés are unable to do so. The Molesey regatta, which has been a fixture of my community since 1867 and in which I declare an interest as an honorary president, has been required to alter the course of its race.

In October, a single clean-up of one stretch of riverbank populated by these boats yielded more than 1 tonne of waste. The Environment Agency has failed to get to grips with the situation over a period of years, meaning that the number of such boats in Elmbridge has risen steadily. At the last count, the tally was approaching 250.

Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)

In Maidenhead, the local authority and generous individuals have taken matters into their own hands and have been able to get rid of many sunken boats along our stretch of the Thames. The EA has regarded owners of land as being responsible, but lots of riverbank owners are not known—we do not know who lots of the mooring owners are—and that causes significant delays and costs. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for the Environment Agency to step up and take responsibly? It should be supporting our community, rather than trying to pass on responsibility to unknown landowners.

Monica Harding

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In my constituency, the sense of frustration and disappointment with the Environment Agency is palpable. When a highly visible problem goes unaddressed year after year, as it has for a decade, and when a situation is allowed to deteriorate, it creates a deep sense of disappointment and frustration, and it undermines the faith that people have in the Government to deal with the things that affect people’s day-to-day lives.

David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)

I recognise the frustrations and problems that my hon. Friend is having getting the relevant supervisory authorities to pay heed. In Brecon, we have a similar issue: the canal might run dry following Welsh Water’s decision to start charging the Canal & River Trust for the water it extracts, yet none of the relevant authorities have responded to our request for a meeting. Does my hon. Friend agree that in instances like that, it would be helpful for the Minister whose Department is implicated to pay attention? They should come to Brecon and help us to find a solution.

Monica Harding

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I would like the Minister to come to Esher and Walton first, although I appreciate his desire for her to visit his constituency as well.

My predecessor in Esher and Walton, a previous Deputy Prime Minister, brought the former Environment Secretary to see the problem for herself. They committed to the permanent removal of these boats, but nothing happened: yet another broken Conservative promise. Either my predecessor was uninterested or he was ineffective. Like many, I had hope that the new Government would bring change. I wrote to the newly appointed Secretary of State and the chief executive of the Environment Agency as soon as I was elected, asking for action. At that point, there were 180 boats. I was pleased with the Minister’s reply, which acknowledged that the EA, as the navigation authority along the non-tidal Thames, was committed to managing the situation and to delivering a detailed action plan laying out clear steps for enforcement. I was assured that EA officials wished to regain the trust of the community.

As a result of that letter, the EA towed away two of the largest and longest staying boats during an enforcement day—hooray! Elmbridge borough council housing department joined the operation and modelled a joined-up approach with the police and the Environment Agency to respond to any homelessness issues. My local council is ready and willing to play its part, but it is frustrated that the EA is not playing its part.

The enforcement success in the autumn should have marked the beginning of renewed energy and action, with a long-term plan to finally get to grips with the problem. Instead, it was followed up with almost nothing, and the situation has since deteriorated.

That is despite months and months of advocacy and regular meetings with the EA, in which I have heard again and again about its intention to clear the boats. It has consistently overpromised and underdelivered.

I was promised a survey of abandoned vessels before comprehensive removals and a long-term strategic enforcement plan as a prelude to making progress in the spring. Well, it is spring now, but both documents were endlessly delayed. Last month, the EA finally produced the survey, but it was presented so confusingly that the council found it almost useless, and I am now told that the EA cannot resource any of it. When the plan came, it was manifestly insufficient.

In today’s letter, the Minister referenced that document—the Thames waterways compliance and enforcement plan for Elmbridge—which I have read. It runs for 10 pages and makes one minor mention of taking action to reduce the number of unauthorised and unregistered boats, which should have been the central focus. As one of its tactical objectives, the plan promises to develop a clear and tactical plan. We have yet another promise, but no plan.

All in all, the document marked a dramatic roll- back of previous ambitions. It has an almost complete lack of measurable targets, metrics and accountability mechanisms. In other words, there is no way to assess the progress of the EA in delivering outcomes against agreed objectives or on key concerns, such as the number of boats removed, the number of registration offences or the rubbish cleared. In fact, at our last meeting, the area manager suggested that the problem had become so big that it was too expensive to fix.

Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way—rivers have two banks, and we share one of them. I congratulate Spelthorne borough council, the EA and the police on doing such a good job on the Spelthorne side. I offer my support to the hon. Member in her endeavour to make her side of the river better. If we can give any assistance, we will of course do so.

Monica Harding

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour. I would love to work with him, the Environment Agency, our relevant borough councils and the police in order to fix this problem.

Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way in such an important debate. I entirely share her frustrations about progress with these boats. This issue affects many of my constituents not just in Weybridge, but across my constituency. I am sure that she will come on to this point. Given the nature of rivers, does she agree that a positive step forward would be working with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) and the Minister to try to get a group together so that rather than pushing the boats on, we can tackle the issue once and for all?

Monica Harding

I thank the hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, for that point. I have no intention at all of pushing the boats down to his constituency: I want them gone. There can be nothing more powerful for our constituents than us working across parties in order to fix this problem.

The BBC picked up on this story this morning. The EA gave a statement to BBC Radio Surrey in which it claimed to be taking

“firm, lawful and proportionate action”.

That is manifestly not the case: the action is not firm or proportionate. It also said that the current situation highlights the need for a “more sustainable, systemic response” and pledged a “longer-term approach”. This is the same hot air that we have heard for years and years, waffling on about the need for long-term plans while the situation deteriorates.

All in all, this is a sad indictment of the poverty of ambition, application and competence in a body charged by taxpayers with protecting our waterways. Indeed, it is hard to overstate the disappointment of my constituents at the seeming inability of the Environment Agency to deliver results, even against objectives that it or the Secretary of State has set. This is the endless cycle: the most basic promises made to residents, the council or me are jettisoned after months of prevarication; the goals that remain are without measurement or accountability.

I worry from the Minister’s letter to me this afternoon that, regrettably, nothing will change, apart from her very kind ask of the Environment Agency to review its enforcement approach and her commitment to strengthening the EA’s approach. I am keen to hear how she intends to follow up on those points. I was deeply frustrated that much of the letter repeated what I, my residents and the council have being hearing from the EA for months and years: promises of new plans and more joined-up working, and recognition of past disappointments and the need for change. The Environment Agency says that it wants to regain the trust of my constituents. That trust is at rock bottom. What is needed now is far greater oversight—ministerial if necessary —and accountability against specific and deliverable goals.

I recently attended a public meeting with residents of Hurst Park and Molesey on a Friday night that was packed to the rafters with constituents deeply upset and justifiably angry with the situation. The essence of what people call broken Britain is the sense that the public realm is incapable of solving problems, even the most egregious and obvious ones—those that people and businesses see and feel every single day. The Prime Minister and members of the Government have spoken repeatedly about the need to rebuild trust in the state, rebuild its capacity, and show the people that systems can work and achieve things. Something that my residents and I have found particularly frustrating is the difficulty of attaching any accountability at all to anyone at any point, despite failure after failure. A failure to act deprives these people who I am privileged to represent—those who play by the rules and pay for public services—of the land, peace and natural beauty that they have always enjoyed.

I ask the Minister to give this matter her personal attention, and to work with me to solve it as a matter of priority. I would like her to work with me to show the people of Esher and Walton that good politics makes things better. Boats listed by the Environment Agency as wrecked or abandoned can, and should, be cleared immediately. Doing so quickly and forcefully, rather than piecemeal, removes one of the permanent risks of those boats—namely, that a change in river conditions could dislodge vessels and transform them into immediate hazards. Clearing overstayed boats requires taking legal steps, and it is vital that this work is consistently and properly resourced. Taking a start-and-stop approach is not an option, because many enforcement mechanisms unlocked by serving initial notices on boats must be completed within a certain period of time. Letting opportunities disappear sets everything back to square one.

The local police and the local council are ready and eager to help, and have put resources aside to do their part. As such, will the Minister commit personally to driving forward meaningful action on this issue through the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; to providing the necessary energy and resources; and to giving me a point of contact with officials in her department to co-ordinate our work? Will she also commit to meeting me, either in this place or in my constituency—where the problem can be seen and believed—to discuss the progress that we can make together? The problem of overstayed and sunken boats should not be intractable; everyone can see the problem, and the solution is obvious. It is time to show that collectively, we can deliver.

May 4, 2025
Priti Patel – 2025 Speech on the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Visit

The speech made by Priti Patel, the Conservative MP for Witham, in the House of Commons on 29 April 2025.

I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The Government’s MOU fails to stand up to credible scrutiny, as it fails to outline in any way how it will help to achieve a meaningful end to the conflict. The MOU says that the PA are the “only legitimate governing entity” across the west bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza and that the UK Government want to see the PA running all three. There clearly cannot be any future for Hamas—we completely agree with that—but how will the Minister and the Government bring this about without a strategy for the removal of the terrorist Hamas regime in Gaza? I have asked this question many times from the Dispatch Box, but the Government simply have no answers.

There is a commitment in the MOU that the Palestinian Authority will hold presidential and parliamentary elections in “the shortest feasible timeframe”. What is that timeframe? Who is dictating that timetable? What mechanisms are being put in place for elections, and has this been supported by Arab partners and neighbours who are signatories to the Cairo plan to rebuild Gaza? Does the Minister believe that the Palestinian Authority, in their current form, are capable of holding free and fair elections? If not, is it the Government’s intention to provide election assistance? How would the Government rule out Hamas being able to run in those elections? There is nothing explicit in the MOU about a plan to ensure that terrorist infrastructure in Gaza is dismantled once and for all, which is inexplicable. What dialogue has taken place with key middle eastern allies since the Cairo plan for Gaza was published?

On the question of recognition of a Palestinian state, the Government’s approach is incoherent, and the MOU provides no clarity on the long-term intentions, conditions or timing of this happening. Does the Minister agree that we are not at the point of recognition, and that recognition cannot be the start of the process?

There is no mention anywhere in the MOU of efforts to build upon the Abraham accords as a way of achieving regional stability, despite the accords providing the framework to support and finance a new future for Palestine and support a two-state solution. Were efforts to expand the accords discussed with the Palestinian Authority leadership yesterday?

On the economic front, the MOU talks about boosting trade, but what kind of increases are we looking at in value terms, given all the instability in the region? In which sectors are the Government now pursuing trade, and will this involve the UK Government spending money on trade promotion measures?

Why is there no mention of welfare reform in PA-controlled territory, which we know is in dire need of urgent attention? Meanwhile, the reference to education is extremely vague and unsatisfactory. It needs to be much clearer and set proper parameters, so that there are clear plans for educating and upskilling a whole generation who have been poorly served by their political leaders for too long. Can the Minister confirm whether he held discussions with the PA about the urgent need for them to do everything in their powers to banish antisemitism from Palestinian school textbooks? Can he provide any detail on the opaque commitment to

“education, scientific and cultural exchanges”?

What form will those take?

Can the Minister clarify what exactly the £101 million he announced yesterday will go towards? Which organisations will be entrusted with the money and whether UNRWA—the United Nations Relief and Works Agency—will receive any of it? What specific programmes will it fund? The entire document contains only a brief mention of the need to tackle corruption, which is inadequate. What is his assessment of the current corruption levels and the PA leadership’s efforts to deal with it? What is his definition of progress?

The section on security co-operation also needs unpacking and more accountability. Exactly how will security co-operation be enhanced, and which “global challenges and threats” does the Minister envisage jointly countering with the Palestinian Authority?

The MOU also states:

“The Participants commit to action to uphold the rights of women and minority groups and prevent the targeting of individuals in these categories.”

Does the Minister believe that these rights are being sufficiently upheld in the west bank at present? Indeed, the question of full civil liberties, including freedom of expression and media freedom, needs serious attention. The PA have their work cut out to prove their credibility.

There is a section on climate change in the MOU. Can the Minister tell us exactly what is the best practice he is seeking to learn from the Palestinian Authority when it comes to tackling climate change? On the current conflict, what have this Government done since the House last met on this issue to support international efforts to secure the release of those poor hostages who remain in such cruel captivity in Gaza?

Finally, I turn to Iran. If we are serious about sustainable peace, we must address the root causes of this terrible suffering. We still have no clarity from the Government about how they see the UK working with the US Administration, so I will give the Minister another opportunity to answer that question. Will he furnish us with the Government’s official response on the legal attempt here in the UK to challenge the proscription of Hamas?

Mr Falconer

The shadow Foreign Secretary asked many questions. Let me be clear: the British Government see the Palestinian Authority as a vital partner, and they are a vital partner that must go through reform. The new Prime Minister has shown leadership on that reform agenda and has made progress on a range of issues. The right hon. Lady raises a number of important issues. One is the content of textbooks, an issue on which we have discussions with the Palestinian Authority and which I have discussed with other parties who have strong views, understandably, on the importance of ensuring that both communities are raised with a belief in co-existence rather than hatred.

There are a range of other very important reform questions that are at issue. One of them, on which the Prime Minister has shown real leadership, is the so-called “pay to slay” arrangements. Progress has been made on that, and we must encourage the Palestinian Authority in those reform efforts. The memorandum of understanding is intended to provide a framework to upgrade that co-operation, because the Palestinian Authority are the vital partner for peace.

The right hon. Lady rightly asked what we will do to ensure that Hamas leave the Gaza strip and do not play a governance role. One of the most important things we can do is ensure that there is a serious and credible alternative to Hamas, and that must be the Palestinian Authority, which is what our efforts are aimed at.

The right hon. Lady asked two important questions about the UK Government’s position in relation to Iran. We welcome the talks between the United States of America and Iran. I was in Oman after the first stage of the talks and the Foreign Secretary has been there recently. We are talking to all parties and we want to see a diplomatic solution to the nuclear weapon threat that Iran poses not just to the region but to the world. We hope that these talks will prove successful.

The right hon. Lady asked, reasonably, about the allocation of the £101 million. I am not in a position to give a full breakdown of exactly where the money will go, though I will provide the House with that breakdown. I would anticipate that funding is directed to UNRWA and the Palestinian Authority directly, but once we have full programmatic details, we will return to the House with that breakdown. We are talking to partners about those allocations and I am happy to come back in writing on some of the more detailed questions.

Lastly, we support the Abraham accords. I was very pleased, while the right hon. Lady was there, to sign the UK up to an agreement with Bahrain and the US which includes explicit reference to the Abraham accords. We are supporting the Abraham accords not just in our words but in our actions.

May 4, 2025
Hamish Falconer – 2025 Speech on the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Visit

The speech made by Hamish Falconer, the Foreign Office Minister, in the House of Commons on 29 April 2025.

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the inward visit of Prime Minister Mustafa.

Yesterday, at the invitation of the Government, the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister, Dr Mohammad Mustafa, visited the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Mustafa was accompanied by Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Varsen Aghabekian and Minister of Health Dr Maged Abu Ramadan. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary both held meetings with Prime Minister Mustafa yesterday, and I was delighted to meet him again this morning. This visit reflects the UK’s steadfast support for the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people at this critical juncture in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

During the visit, we reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to advancing a two-state solution as the only pathway to achieving just and lasting peace in the middle east, where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace, dignity and security. We are clear that the Palestinian people have an inalienable right of self-determination, including to independent statehood. The Government are committed to strengthening our bilateral relations with the Palestinian Authority. The PA are the only legitimate governing entity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and it is important that Gaza and the west bank are reunified under their authority. The UK is clear that the PA must have a central role in the next phase in Gaza. There can be no role for Hamas in the future of Gaza. We have been clear: Hamas must immediately release the hostages and relinquish control of Gaza. Israelis must be able to live in security next to their Palestinian neighbours, and 7 October must never be repeated.

The Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister Mustafa signed a landmark memorandum of understanding to enhance the bilateral partnership between our two Governments. The memorandum of understanding established a new framework to guide and enhance the strategic partnership, and high-level dialogue across areas of mutual interest and benefit, including economic development and institutional reform. As part of our meetings with Prime Minister Mustafa, we discussed the gravity of the situation in Gaza, the west bank and East Jerusalem. We condemned the appalling suffering of civilians in Gaza and agreed on the urgent need for a return to a ceasefire in Gaza with the release of hostages and unblocking of aid. Aid workers need protection. Only diplomacy, not more bloodshed, will achieve long-term peace.

We also shared our alarm at the heightened tension in the west bank. We reiterated our clear condemnation of Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law and harm the prospect of a future Palestinian state. We called for an end to settlement expansion and settler violence. We are also clear that Israel must release frozen Palestinian Authority funds.

Prime Minister Mustafa outlined the essential reforms that the Palestinian Authority are currently undertaking. We fully support the implementation of those much-needed reforms, including through providing technical assistance. The reforms will strengthen financial sustainability and economic development, enhance the transparency and efficiency of governance and service delivery, and promote peaceful co-existence with neighbouring countries. As part of our MOU, the Palestinian Authority underlined their commitment to delivering their reform agenda in full as a matter of priority. As part of the visit, we also announced a £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It will be directed at humanitarian relief, support for Palestinian economic development and strengthening Palestinian Authority governance and reform.

As the Foreign Secretary made clear, we will not give up on the two-state solution, with a Palestinian state and Israel living side by side in peace, dignity and security. The visit is a significant step in strengthening our relationship with the Palestinian Authority—a key partner for peace in the middle east—at this critical moment. I commend this statement to the House.

May 4, 2025
Dan Jarvis – 2025 Statement on Irish Republican Alleged Incitement by Kneecap

The statement made by Dan Jarvis, the Minister for Security, in the House of Commons on 29 April 2025.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his urgent question. Let us never forget that we lost two Members of this House, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, in tragic circumstances. Both Jo and Sir David were passionate advocates for their constituents, and they cared deeply about a range of issues and embodied the finest democratic qualities, traditions and values of this House. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with their families today and every day.

I want to reiterate the Home Secretary’s words and fully condemn the comments that have been made. Such remarks are dangerous and irresponsible, and this Government utterly reject the views expressed by this group. Let me be crystal clear: political intimidation and abuse have no place in our society.

I know that the House will want immediate answers on this issue, but as the Minister of State for Policing and Crime Prevention said yesterday, in relation to the urgent question on the Headingley case, the desire for immediate answers is often constrained by the obligation that we have, as Ministers and as Members of this House, not to do or say anything that would interfere in what is a live police investigation.

As Members know, the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences are matters for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to determine, and they are operationally independent of the Government. It is important that the police are allowed to carry out their ongoing investigations free from political interference.

However, for the benefit of the House, let me recap what the Metropolitan police have themselves said about these reports. They said:

“We have been made aware of the video and it has been referred to the counter-terrorism internet referral unit for assessment and to determine whether any further police investigation may be required.”

Although I will not comment further on this specific case, the safety and security of Members of this House, and all those who serve in elected office, is an issue to which I attach the utmost seriousness, as does the Home Secretary and as do you, Mr Speaker.

Elected representatives at all levels and across all parties must be able to perform their duties safely and without fear, and, through the defending democracy taskforce, we are driving a whole-of-government effort to ensure that that is the case. The taskforce has recently agreed a programme of work to tackle the harassment and intimidation of elected Members. The taskforce is also supporting the Speaker’s Conference that is addressing these issues.

Those of us who attend this place are all too aware of the devastating consequences of violence against our colleagues and friends. We may not always agree, but if there is one universal truth to which we would all subscribe it is surely that our politics is better when it is conducted respectfully and safely. I hope and trust that that will have the support of Members right across the House.

The Home Secretary and I condemn the comments that have been made and we will work tirelessly to ensure the safety and security of all those who step forward to serve in public office.

May 4, 2025
Hamish Falconer – 2025 Statement on Kashmir

The statement made by Hamish Falconer, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, in the House of Commons on 29 April 2025.

The horrific terrorist attack in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir on 22 April was devastating. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker

Order. Members must sit down, because the Minister is on his feet replying.

Mr Falconer

Our thoughts are with those affected, their loved ones and, of course, the people of India. This attack left 26 people dead, most of whom, we understand, were tourists travelling to the region. Following the attack, India has announced a number of diplomatic measures against Pakistan, and Pakistan has reciprocated. The official UK travel advice for Indian-administered Kashmir continues to advise against all travel to Jammu and Kashmir, except for travel by air to the city of Jammu, travel within the city, and travel within the union territory of Ladakh.

This is a very sensitive situation, with real risks to regional and wider stability. Understandably, there has been huge interest within UK communities. Kashmir has been a flashpoint for conflict between India and Pakistan many times over previous decades. The Prime Minister spoke to Prime Minister Modi on 25 April to express his condolences on behalf of the British people. The UK condemns all forms of terrorism and the extremism that sustains it, wherever it occurs. The Foreign Secretary spoke to India’s External Affairs Minister Jaishankar on 27 April to pass on the UK’s condolences and to express the UK Government’s support to the Indian people at this difficult time. The Foreign Secretary has also spoken over the weekend to Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar.

Heightened tensions between India and Pakistan inevitably raise concerns about escalation. Effective channels of engagement to safeguard stability in the region are essential. The UK supported the UN Security Council press statement on 25 April, which condemned the attack and reaffirmed that acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable. The long-standing position of the UK is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution. We will continue to monitor the situation closely through our high commissioners in New Delhi and Islamabad.

Gurinder Singh Josan

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this question, and I thank the Minister for his statement. I have three further points.

First, this is a terrorist attack of the utmost barbarity, and it deserves to be condemned by all. My thoughts are with the families of those killed. The killing took place in a popular tourist location, and most victims were tourists. Among the victims was a man married only the week before, who was honeymooning with his wife. The manner of the selection of the victims was particularly horrific, with the killers actively seeking out non-Muslims before killing them in cold blood. The Minister will be aware that the Kashmir region has been the scene of previous terrorist attacks that have claimed many innocent lives, including in Chittisinghpura, where 35 Sikhs were killed in 2000. What support can the UK provide to ensure that the terrorists are found and brought to justice, and to ensure that their networks of support are dismantled?

Secondly, there has been a significant escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan, including the measures that the Minister has outlined. India and Pakistan have engaged in large-scale military hostilities in the past in the region, and there is a real risk that the nations could revert to a military conflict again. What can the UK do to encourage a de-escalation of tensions, while ensuring the eradication of the terrorist organisations and their support networks wherever they exist?

Finally, the Minister will be aware that there have been protests in the UK outside India and Pakistan’s high commissions. Those protests have been characterised by provocative language and gestures, including what appears to be a throat-slitting motion by an alleged Pakistan official. Windows have been smashed at Pakistan’s high commission in London, and an individual has been arrested and charged. Does the Minister recognise the importance of proactive work with communities across the UK to ensure that we do not see a downturn in community relations here?

Mr Falconer

I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement on these questions. I am sure that the whole House shares his horror at the details of this incident—the targeting of the victims and the way in which it was carried out.

First, I will address the scenes on UK streets. We are aware of reports of the video that my hon. Friend refers to; the Metropolitan police are investigating, so I will not provide any further commentary on that particular incident, but it is obviously concerning. We take seriously our responsibility for the security of all embassies and high commissions under the Vienna convention, so both the Pakistani and Indian high commissions will receive all the support of the UK state to ensure that they stay safe. As my hon. Friend has said, and as I know many in this House feel, these issues have long been discussed with passion on British streets. We call on all sides, all community leaders and all involved to call for calm at a time of tension in the region.

May 4, 2025
Harriet Cross – 2025 Speech on Licences and Licensing

The speech made by Harriet Cross, the Conservative MP for Gordon and Buchan, in the House of Commons on 30 April 2025.

I hope it will be apparent that all Members of the House strongly support this motion. Certainly those of us on the Opposition Benches welcome the opportunity for pubs and other licensed venues across the country to stay open late to commemorate VE day without incurring any cost to extend their licences.

As time passes and those with direct memories of this momentous day grow older, it is critical that we continue to commemorate and remember the experiences of those who sacrificed so much and who in so many cases gave everything for our nation and for others’ freedom. We must celebrate the fact that their sacrifice was not in vain, but led to a great achievement, and recognise the efforts and endurance that overcame immense struggle. I hope I speak for all Members when I say that we are incredibly honoured to represent those who served in world war two and their family, friends and loved ones who survive to this day.

VE day is rightly a day for us all to share in celebration. As Churchill said on 8 May 1945,

“My dear friends, this is your hour. This is not a victory of a party or of any class. It’s a victory for the great British nation as a whole.”

It is only appropriate that we continue to reflect the evergreen truth and celebrate VE day as we should: unified as a country, proud of our history of determination and of sacrifice.

The motion to extend licensing hours appears exceptionally appropriate. Not only was a national holiday declared in Britain on 8 May 1945, but it is said that on that morning, Churchill—with his focus very much on the real priorities—gained assurances from the Ministry of Food that there would be sufficient beer available in the capital. Meanwhile, the Board of Trade announced that people could purchase red, white and blue bunting without using ration coupons. We share that same spirit today by approving this motion, which I hope will allow people to fully and memorably commemorate this truly historic day.

April 30, 2025
Diana Johnson – 2025 Speech on Licences and Licensing

The speeches made by Diana Johnson, the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, in the House of Commons on 30 April 2025.

I beg to move,

That the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Victory in Europe Day Licensing Hours) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 23 April, be approved.

Next week marks the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day, which was of course a hugely significant and consequential moment in our country’s history. After more than five long years, during the first of which we stood alone, on 8 May 1945 Prime Minister Churchill proclaimed to cheering crowds in Whitehall, just a few hundred yards from this Chamber:

“This is your victory. It is the victory of the cause of freedom in every land.”

As the 75th anniversary commemorations involving public gatherings were, sadly, cancelled in 2020 due to the covid outbreak, the upcoming milestone is a precious chance to pay tribute to that greatest generation and hear the stories of those who lived through the war. At this point, I want to refer to my father, Eric Johnson, who served in the Royal Navy in the second world war, and my mother, Ruth Johnson, who worked in munitions factories.

Many people will want to come together with friends and family to mark the occasion, and to raise a glass to those who fought for our freedoms—the soldiers, sailors and airmen from the United Kingdom and across the Commonwealth, as well as our allies in Europe, and also those who contributed to the war effort at home, including civilians working in the emergency services, transport, the home guard, the wardens and those working in factories and on the land. Twenty three Members of this House and 20 Members of the other place gave their lives in world war two, and I know that Mr Speaker is working to mark that. We should celebrate the role of this place and our wartime coalition in saving democracy beyond our shores from what Winston Churchill called

“the abyss of a new dark age”.—[Official Report, 18 June 1940; Vol. 362, c. 60.]

Commemorative events will be held in many locations during the anniversary week, including: a military procession from Whitehall to Buckingham Palace; street parties across the country on the bank holiday; evensong at Manchester cathedral, followed by a celebratory ringing of bells; a celebratory picnic at Cardiff castle; a living history event at Sterling castle in Scotland; a series of commemoration events at Belfast city hall; and a service at Westminster Abbey, which will serve as both an act of shared remembrance and a celebration of the end of the war.

VE Day falls within the annual Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s War Graves Week, and the commission is marking the 80th anniversary of VE Day with the “For Evermore” tour, a mobile exhibition travelling the UK sharing stories of those who died in world war two. The commission is also holding a special VE Day concert on 2 May at the historic Coventry cathedral, which was rebuilt after being destroyed by bombing in 1940. A concert will also take place at Horse Guards Parade to mark the end of commemorations on 8 May.

As a Member of Parliament who represents Kingston upon Hull, a city that was routinely referred to anonymously in the second world war as a “north-east coastal town” despite bombing comparable to the east end of London, Hull’s celebrations for VE Day will be accompanied by a desire to see greater national recognition of the effects of the blitz on my city than we have had over the course of the past 80 years. Hull will have a memorial service at Hull cenotaph; the Hull History Centre will show free screenings of archive footage from VE Day in 1945 of the celebrations that took place in Hull; and in Cottingham there will be a 1940s music singalong at Cottingham civic hall.

It promises to be a special atmosphere in many communities and the order will allow people to celebrate for longer, should they so wish. Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to make a licensing hours order to allow licensed premises to open for specified, extended hours on occasions of exceptional international, national or local significance. By way of background, past occasions where the then Home Secretary has exercised this power to extend licensing hours have included: the King’s coronation; Her late Majesty the Queen’s platinum and diamond jubilee celebrations; the royal weddings in 2011 and 2018; and, most recently, the semi-final and final of the men’s UEFA European championship last year. The Government consider the 80th anniversary of VE Day to be an occasion of national significance and, as such, worthy of the proposed extension before the House today.

Turning to the practical details, the order makes provision to relax licensing arrangements in England and Wales, and allow licensed premises to extend their opening hours on Thursday the 8 May for a further two hours, from 11pm until 1am the following morning. A truncated consultation was conducted with key stakeholders who were supportive of the extension, and we take the view that the order will not bring about any significant crime and disorder due to the nature of the events. However, we recognise that there may be implications for police resourcing, and we will continue to work with stakeholders to mitigate any concerns around the impact.

As well as enabling celebrations, the extension has the added potential benefit of providing a welcome boost to the hospitality sector. I hope that Members across the House will agree that this order represents an appropriate use of the powers conferred on the Home Secretary by the Licensing Act 2003.

To conclude, this extension reflects our commitment to remembering what was a truly momentous event—our finest hour—and to celebrating those who defended our country, liberated Europe and secured peace. With that, I commend this order to the House.

April 30, 2025
Richard Foord – 2025 Speech on UK-USA Trade Agreements

The speech made by Richard Foord, the Liberal Democrat MP for Honiton and Sidmouth, in the House of Commons on 30 April 2025.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament any trade agreement between the UK and the USA which the Government proposes to implement; to prohibit the implementation of such an agreement without the approval by resolution of each House; to make provision for the amendment of such agreements by Parliament; and for connected purposes.

Let us cast our minds back four years to the spring of 2021. Liz Truss was the Secretary of State for International Trade. Boris Johnson was Prime Minister. The export of British goods to the EU had fallen sharply in January of that year, and the end of the Brexit transition period was nigh. The Government were in a hurry. Boris Johnson sat down for dinner with the Australian Prime Minister here in Westminster. After three hours of small talk, a little negotiation and plenty of Australian red wine, Johnson agreed to remove tariffs on over 99% of Australian products entering the UK, including beef. The Government knew that such a deal would harm the UK agriculture and food industries. The Government’s own analysis predicted that the deal could leave the UK agriculture and food sectors £278 million worse off.

The Australian high commissioner, who had been sitting at the table, moved quickly. Scribbling down Johnson’s generous pledge, he excused himself to go to the toilet and handed a note to an aide as he did so. Within minutes it was scanned, turned into a formal trade document, printed and slipped into an official-looking folder. The high commissioner then casually walked back into the dinner carrying the so-called deal. That was all it took to sell out the UK’s farmers: a wine-soaked dinner, a hastily scribbled note and a signature from a Prime Minister prepared to ignore the good advice of his own trade negotiators.

Without proper parliamentary scrutiny and a vote on any deal with the United States, we risk adding to the pressure on our already struggling farmers, stripping away safeguards on British citizens’ data and sidelining democratic scrutiny itself. Currently, parliamentary scrutiny of international treaties in the UK is woefully inadequate. The Government can negotiate and sign a treaty with another country—even one as significant as the US—using prerogative powers, without having to put it to a vote in Parliament. Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, known as CRaG, signed treaties must be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days. Parliament can raise objections but it cannot propose amendments and there is no requirement for a vote. Recommendations born of scrutiny are advisory, and not in the least bit binding.

Evidence was provided to the International Agreements Committee in the other place last year. It showed just how outdated the UK’s treaty scrutiny system is, set against how trade arrangements have evolved and become more complicated. Modern trade deals now reach deep into domestic policy: they shape our food standards, our data rights and even the regulation of artificial intelligence. If Back-Bench MPs are shut out of the process, so too are the people we represent.

Parliamentary scrutiny was demonstrably weak in the wake of the UK’s trade deals with Australia and New Zealand. The International Trade Committee condemned the Government’s approach, saying that it had “undermined” scrutiny. The Johnson Government did this by triggering the 21-sitting-day statutory period before Committees had received evidence or completed reports on the trade deal. This meant that Parliament had little information with which to assess the agreements. When the Australia deal was signed, Labour—then in opposition—rightly demanded a parliamentary vote. Now in government, it would do well to heed its own previous calls for proper scrutiny.

In east and mid-Devon, farmers who I represent have been hit hard by the poorly negotiated trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, which come on top of the planned changes to inheritance tax and the peremptory closure of the sustainable farming incentive. Even if a future UK-US trade deal upholds our food standards, west country farmers and others could still be undermined. The Government offer assurances about shutting out hormone-treated beef and chlorinated chicken, but concerns remain that the US could still flood the UK market with beef that is not hormone treated. The Government have assured us that there will be no compromise on environmental and animal welfare standards in the UK, but again, these assurances count for little if imports from overseas are not produced to the same environmental standards or with the same requirements for high animal welfare standards.

The UK is already too reliant on imported food. Imports made up around 40% of the UK’s food supply in 2023. UK food self-sufficiency has already fallen sharply, from 78% in 1984 to just 60% today. There are those who say that some sectors will always fall victim to trade negotiations, because the Government must balance the demands of various industries, but some of the factors currently being discussed by our trade negotiators are cross-cutting, and that includes matters of digital trade and data.

The US wants a digital-first deal. That would mean locking in rules that protect the interests of silicon valley, not the British public. It has already been speculated that the Government are considering reducing or scrapping the digital services tax, which would cut taxes for some of the wealthiest and most powerful American companies in the world at the expense of public service users in the UK. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasted that the tax raised £700 million in 2024-25—revenue that the Treasury can ill afford to forfeit at this time.

Vice President J. D. Vance alleged in a speech at the Munich security conference that

“old, entrenched interests”

are

“hiding behind ugly, Soviet-era words like ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation,’”.

That brand of free speech pays little heed to facts. Vance may be representing some not altogether transparent interests himself. The US is pushing to overcome data localisation. That could allow US-based tech firms to centralise their data operations in the United States and rule out data storage in the UK. If that came about, it would weaken the protection for British citizens’ data, making it difficult to enforce UK privacy laws.

Take as an example the contract that Palantir agreed with the NHS in 2023 to install its federated data system. If a US-UK trade deal restricted data localisation, it could allow NHS medical records to be exported to the US, handing Palantir the power to exploit the enormous commercial value of British citizens’ data. Although Palantir claims that it will only act as a processor of data, its business model is rooted in extracting value from data for commercial ends. With access to one of the world’s richest health datasets, Palantir could package insights and sell predictive analytic services to private healthcare providers, insurers and pharmaceutical companies. Palantir’s co-founder Peter Thiel has called the NHS a system that “makes people sick”. He claims that freedom and democracy are no longer compatible. Parliament should have the means to ensure that Thiel’s understanding of freedom cannot bypass British democracy.

This is not just about trade; it is about trust. The Leader of the Opposition should know: the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) was the Secretary of State for International Trade in 2023 when the Australia and New Zealand trade deals came into effect. Farming paid the price last time, and it could happen again—our digital freedoms could pay the price, too.

My Bill is simple: it does not block a US deal or tie the Government’s hands; it requires that Parliament has a greater say. That is what democracy demands, and that is what the public expects.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Tim Farron, Calum Miller, Helen Morgan, Sarah Olney, Edward Morello and Richard Foord present the Bill.

Richard Foord accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 May, and to be printed (Bill 228).

April 30, 2025
Andrew Bowie – 2025 Speech on Energy Grid Resilience

The speech made by Andrew Bowie, the Shadow Energy Minister, in the House of Commons on 30 April 2025.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and echo his comments; of course, the Conservatives’ thoughts are with all those affected by the blackouts in Spain, Portugal and more widely.

The Minister rightly addresses concerns about the security of our grid in the context of the shutdown witnessed on the Iberian peninsula, and I am glad that he can confirm that he is carrying on implementing the recommendations from Exercise Mighty Oak, in which I was involved, on the action that would be required if such an event took place in GB. The primary responsibility of the Minister’s Department is to keep the lights on in this country. The images from Spain and Portugal are a sombre reminder of what happens when the grid fails. Extended blackouts are devastating, and it is a relief that power was restored to 99% of customers by 6 o’clock yesterday morning. The grid collapse in Iberia has demonstrated the fragility of the complex, interconnected systems that support modern life, and the very real impacts on human life of such a collapse.

It is the Minister’s responsibility to ensure that the same thing does not happen in Great Britain, as the price for our economy and for communities across this country would be catastrophic. We cannot get away from the fact that this Government’s plans to rush ahead to build a grid that is entirely dependent on the wind and the sun in just five years’ time will make our electricity grid significantly less reliable.

The stability of our electricity grid depends on what is called inertia, which is the ability for the system to resist destabilising fluctuations in frequency. It is the reason our grid has been so secure and resilient over the decades the Minister references. This inertia is provided by turbines, like those found in nuclear, hydro or, crucially, gas power stations, but it is not provided by solar or wind farms. If the grid does not have enough inertia to resist sudden changes in frequency, it can become destabilised, and cascading grid failure can occur. That means blackouts. As the Spanish NESO said in its latest annual report, the closure of conventional generation plants, such as coal, gas and nuclear, has reduced the firm power and balancing capacities of its grid, as well as its strength and inertia. This has also happened here in Great Britain. Data from NESO shows that the inertia in our grid has been steadily decreasing over time, as gas and coal have come off the system, to be replaced by wind and solar. This comes with a hefty price tag, which is the problem with so much of the Labour Government’s approach to energy security. Their imposed targets are saddling the British people with mountains of extra costs, as the Government rush ahead towards a power system that depends on the weather, rather than on firm, reliable baseload.

Tens of billions of pounds are spent subsidising wind farms, expanding the grid, and providing back-up from reliable gas plants. The Government set their 2030 target, and now they are trying to work out how they can achieve it, but they refuse to be honest with the British people. They refuse to do an open and honest assessment of the costs and risks that come with this approach. It is no wonder that even Tony Blair has said that the present policy solutions are inadequate and doomed to fail.

The Conservatives believe in a system that delivers secure, affordable and clean energy for the UK. A cyber-attack has been ruled out by the Spanish Government as a cause of their grid collapse, but we know that the threat of interference from hostile states is constant. Will the Minister update the House on the action he is taking to protect the grid from hostile activity? When will he finally tell us which single Minister is responsible for the safety and security of our offshore energy infrastructure?

The lessons from the incident on the Iberian Peninsula are abundantly clear. We must retain inertia in our grid to keep it stable and resilient. Nuclear power provides vital baseload power generation, along with inertia, which would have helped to mitigate a cascading failure like the one earlier this week. Will the Minister give the nuclear industry the certainty that it is asking for, and commit to 24 GW of nuclear power, as the previous Government did? Will he ask NESO to provide this House with a full, transparent update on the role of inertia in our power system, on the consequences of declining inertia, on the impact that has on grid stability, and on the costs associated with it?

Finally, the Minister has said that Great Britain has never experienced a complete shutdown such as that seen on the continent. What assurances can he offer this House that work is being undertaken, so that NESO and the National Grid are prepared for a black start, if ever that is needed?

Michael Shanks

I shall start with the more serious of the hon. Gentleman’s questions, and then, in reply to some of his other questions, I might gently remind him who was in office not that long ago. On a serious note, I agree entirely with him on his opening point: the first priority of my Department and the Government is to ensure our energy security. The past few days in Spain and Portugal have brought to light just how much of our day-to-day lives are dependent on a functioning electricity system, so he is right to make that point, and we are very aware of it.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not recognise the work that the previous Government did on building the renewable system, and on introducing inertia into the system, because that all started a number of years ago. We have a resilient grid in this country, and it is important to continue to have that. That means building new grid infrastructure, which he and a number of his colleagues quite often oppose. It is important to build that grid infrastructure and to invest in it. We will continue to work with NESO and others to understand the full causes of this outage. I will not be drawn into speculation on what may have caused it, because clearly the first priority of the Spanish and Portuguese Governments has been restoring power, but they will carry out investigations to find out the cause, and we will implement any lessons from that.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman was right to reflect on Operation Mighty Oak, which was carried out under the previous Government. We have been taking forward those recommendations right across government. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is looking at resilience across Government. These are all important points. However, I say gently that energy security is an absolute priority for this Government, which means building the energy infrastructure that this country needs, and not opposing it at every turn.

April 30, 2025