UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Julian Lewis – 2025 Speech on Access to NHS Dentistry

    Julian Lewis – 2025 Speech on Access to NHS Dentistry

    The speech made by Julian Lewis, the Conservative MP for New Forest East, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2025.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that no-pressure introduction. I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) on her speech and I agree with every part of it. I was hoping to quote from individual cases raised by constituents and from the local Women’s Institute, but all that will have to go by the board.

    I have a wonderful briefing from the British Dental Association and, in the remaining two and a half minutes, I would like to make one pertinent observation, from which everything else flows. Dentistry is a highly skilled profession in which practitioners can charge colossal sums of money in private practice, which gives them a financial incentive to steer clear of working for the NHS. That is the root of the problem.

    On 13 March, I put a question to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about a point made by the Darzi report, last September, which says:

    “There are enough dentists in England, just not enough dentists willing to do enough NHS work, which impacts provision for the poorest in society.”

    I was pleasantly surprised when his reply was:

    “NHS dentistry is in a terrible state and, in fact, in many parts of the country it barely exists. There are lots of reasons for that, and it is a source of constant astonishment to me that the dentistry budget was underspent year after year despite that situation.”—[Official Report, 13 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 1298.]

    In reality, as the BDA points out, the reason why that budget is underspent is not because of the lack of demand, but because NHS practices cannot fill vacancies and are unable to meet contractual commitments. Therefore, those who do work with and for the NHS are having to deliver dental care at a loss. There is a fundamental requirement for a rewritten constitution and contract by which it becomes worthwhile for people to practice dentistry in the NHS, because otherwise we will see a two-tier society, in which only the rich can get the dental care that people so desperately need.

  • Melanie Onn – 2025 Speech on Access to NHS Dentistry

    Melanie Onn – 2025 Speech on Access to NHS Dentistry

    The speech made by Melanie Onn, the Labour MP for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2025.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered access to NHS dentistry.

    I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate and the colleagues who supported that application. I am pleased that many Members want to speak and am aware of the limitations on time, so I will keep my remarks brief.

    During the general election, Labour promised to tackle the lack of NHS dental services, and I welcome the progress already made in the Labour Government’s first 10 months. After 14 years of neglect we are finally starting to see action to address the crisis in NHS dental care, including the launch of 700,000 extra urgent dental appointments, with my own integrated care board in Humber and North Yorkshire delivering 27,196 of them across the region.

    This Government are rightly focusing on prevention by rolling out much-needed supervised tooth-brushing schemes in schools. That is a small intervention with long-term benefits, particularly for children growing up in areas like mine where levels of tooth decay are among the highest in England. Currently, one in three five-year-olds in deprived areas experience tooth decay—a shocking statistic that simply must be addressed.

    Over 260,000 people have signed a petition led by the British Dental Association, the Women’s Institute and the Daily Mirror calling on the Government to urgently deliver on their promise to reform NHS dentistry, and the demand could not be more urgent. Catherine, one of many constituents who has written to me about dental provision, had been with her dentist for over a decade but during the pandemic a missed appointment—a simple missed appointment that was cancelled by the surgery itself—saw her removed from her regular appointments, and she has since been unable to join another practice, being told that waiting lists would take at least two years. In the meantime she suffered devastating deterioration to her oral health, losing all of her back teeth, suffering with an infected crown and bridge, and facing the real fear of losing her top teeth too; and Catherine is only in her 40s. She was quoted £14,000 privately for treatment. She simply cannot afford that. She has had to endure constant pain that no one should be left to bear.

    Constituents regularly tell me that they cannot find an NHS dentist taking new patients. They are calling every single practice listed on the NHS website and they are getting nowhere. People are living in pain, they are missing work and their mental health is suffering. Some people are even attempting their own dental work, and we cannot allow that to become the norm.

    The desire for action is also supported by dental practices in my constituency. One of them told me:

    “We’re seeing high-need patients we’ve never treated before, often for complex work—but we’re doing this using the same budget we’ve had for years.”

    In fact, some of the new urgent care and schools-based initiatives are not additionally funded. The BDA’s most recent figures show that dentists in England are delivering the least NHS care of all four UK nations: only 39% of dentists in England are spending most of their time on NHS work, compared with nearly 60% in Scotland. Practices are delivering NHS treatments at a loss: they lose over £42 for every denture fitted and nearly £8 for every new patient they see.

    This Labour Government pledged to reform the dental contract: it was in our manifesto; it was part of the plan that we were elected on. I welcome the early signs of recovery, but when we say that we want to go further, faster, it is precisely on issues like this that the public are looking to Government to deliver.

    In Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes and across the nation we are privileged to have so many dedicated dental professionals. Tomorrow I am visiting Dental Design Studio to celebrate its 20 years of high-quality dental care provision in Cleethorpes. It is a real credit to the team there who have delivered consistent care to local people, often under increasing strain. And our young people are not forgotten locally: thanks to the commitment of Dr Jatinder Ubhi from Dentology, multiple young people in my constituency have received essential dental support.

    We must not let dentistry become a luxury service only for those who can afford to go private. We need a new approach that is fair, that funds dentists properly, and that delivers accessible care to everyone who needs it.

  • Peter Swallow – 2025 Speech on the Mental Health Bill and Legislative Scrutiny

    Peter Swallow – 2025 Speech on the Mental Health Bill and Legislative Scrutiny

    The speech made by Peter Swallow, the Labour MP for Bracknell, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2025.

    It is an honour to present to the House the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report into the Mental Health Bill. As Members will know, the Joint Committee is a cross-party body of both Houses, chaired by Lord Alton of Liverpool, whose remit is to examine matters relating to human rights within the UK, including through legislative scrutiny.

    Over the course of our inquiry into the Bill, we have examined legal frameworks and witness submissions and, crucially, heard from those with direct experience of the mental health system. As part of our inquiry, the Committee convened a roundtable with individuals who had experienced detention under the Mental Health Act 1983. Their testimonies were powerful, candid and often harrowing. They spoke of the trauma of being sectioned, the overuse of medication and restraint, and the disempowerment from being detained in facilities that too often felt isolating rather than therapeutic.

    Participants have since shared with us

    “how important this visibility was to them, to see their evidence truly listened to and shared publicly”.

    Hearing directly from people with lived experience was not just informative; it was essential. These conversations grounded our scrutiny in the realities faced by patients and families. The insights shared at that roundtable shaped our thinking and sharpened our final recommendations. As one participant told us:

    “lived experience matters. Using it to inform policy should be the standard, not a shock.”

    I take this opportunity to thank all those who contributed to the roundtable, often at the cost of revisiting past trauma. The Committee is also grateful for the expert work of the Committee’s legal counsel, particularly Alex Gask who led on this work, as well as Thiago Simoes Froio and Hafsa Saeed who led on the delivery of the roundtable event.

    It became clear over the course of our scrutiny just how overdue the Mental Health Bill had become. It will introduce substantial changes to the Mental Health Act, which provides the legal framework for the detention and compulsory treatment of people with “mental disorders”—an outdated term, but one that remains part of our law. The changes introduced by the Bill will bring our mental health legislation into the 21st century, strengthen patient rights and help end practices that bring more harm than good.

    When people hear about detention under the Mental Health Act, many instinctively think of those who have committed the most serious and violent crimes. They picture high-security hospitals such as Broadmoor, which happens to be located in my constituency. I have had the opportunity to visit Broadmoor. The work they do there is outstanding; it is vital, world-leading work that deals with some of the most complex and challenging cases in psychiatric medicine.

    Let us be clear, though: the reality of detention under the Mental Health Act is not limited to high-security hospitals or individuals convicted of serious crimes. Many people detained under the Act are not criminals. Many of them are children, young people and adults with autism or learning disabilities who are detained not because they pose a danger to others, but because the support they need in their communities simply is not there. This is not just inefficient, it can often be deeply traumatising and raises significant human rights concerns.

    That is why the Committee welcomes the major changes introduced by the Government’s Bill. It will end the detention of individuals under section 3 of the Mental Health Act solely on the basis that they are autistic or have a learning disability; tighten the criteria for detention and require decision makers to consider the nature, degree and likelihood of harm before deciding to detain; introduce the concept of a nominated person to replace the outdated nearest relative system; and remove police stations and prisons as places of safety for individuals in crisis. As stated in the evidence we received from witnesses, those are important, welcomed and long-awaited reforms. They reflect the breadth of the Government’s consultations and prove that the Government listened to the information they received.

    While welcoming the Bill’s direction of travel, the Committee believes that there are areas where the Government could go even further to provide enhanced protections for human rights. That is why, based on the evidence we received during the inquiry, we have recommended a few key amendments. First, we recommend a new clause to ensure that children detained under the Mental Health Act are accommodated on adult wards only when that is demonstrably in their best interests.

    Secondly, we recommend an amendment to clause 1 to include equity as a fifth guiding principle under the Act. This would refer specifically to addressing inequalities in treatments and outcomes on racial grounds in particular, and I welcome the Health Secretary saying on Second Reading of the Bill on Monday:

    “People from ethnic minority communities, especially black African and Caribbean men, are more than three times as likely to be sectioned.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 783.]

    In our report, we find that adding equity as a guiding principle would do more to address racial disparities.

    Thirdly, we recommend an amendment to clause 32 to shorten the review periods for restricted patients who are discharged into conditions amounting to the deprivation of liberty. The first review will be required within six months, rather than 12, and subsequent reviews will take place annually, rather than every two years.

    Those key amendments come amid a range of other recommendations. Recent case law shows that mental health patients in state-commissioned and funded but privately provided care do not come within the protection of the Human Rights Act. That loophole must be closed, and we recommend that the Government do just that.

    We also heard evidence that the question of when the Mental Health Act and when the Mental Capacity Act should govern a patient’s deprivation of liberty and treatment is far too complex and raises human rights concerns, not least because depriving a person of their liberty on any ground can be justified only if the legal basis is clear. We therefore recommend that the Government carry out an urgent review and provide the clarity that is currently lacking on this question.

    Another crucial area the Bill covers is the rights of children, who are particularly vulnerable when assessed or treated under the Mental Health Act. Many of the proposed changes to the law will be positive for children, including the introduction of an opt-out approach to receiving a report from independent mental health advocates, but we recommend that the Government consult on introducing a statutory test for assessing whether under-16s are competent to consent or to refuse consent to treatment—a cornerstone of compliance with a child’s human rights.

    The Committee also deems it vital that prisoners whose mental health makes holding them in prison unsuitable are transferred promptly to an appropriate setting. Keeping them in prison may result in human rights breaches. In our report, we welcome the introduction in the Bill of a statutory 28-day timeframe for hospital transfer. Relevant data should be collected and made available to monitor and help to ensure compliance with that standard.

    The Committee welcomes changes to restriction orders placed on a small number of offenders detained under a hospital order, but the Government should consider introducing more prompt and regular reviews by the mental health tribunal, to ensure that any loss of liberty is justified. Witnesses told us that, in the absence of effective support in the community, autistic people and people with learning disabilities could still end up in unjustified detention on other legal bases. The Government have stated that the change in the Bill will come into force only where there are strong community services in place, but it is vital that this does not delay the much-needed reform. We therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to provide a written ministerial statement annually to both Houses of Parliament setting out progress to date on implementation. On what more the Bill could do to improve the prospects of patients receiving timely care in the community, we also ask the Government to consider introducing an English equivalent to the right to a mental health assessment that applies in Wales.

    The report makes it clear that much more is needed to fix the broken mental health system in this country, and I know the Government recognise that as well. This is a small, targeted Bill, which will not change everything, but the changes it will introduce are significant and long overdue. The Government have committed to introducing mental health experts in every school, to set up Young Futures hubs and to recruit 8,500 more mental health staff. By focusing on community-based interventions and driving down waiting lists for mental health support alongside the welcome changes in the Bill, we can turn the tide and fix our broken mental health system, so that the human rights of all those with mental health needs are properly protected and they can get the support they need.

    I commend this report to the House.

  • Lisa Nandy – 2025 Speech at the Evening Reception of UK National Day at World Expo Osaka

    Lisa Nandy – 2025 Speech at the Evening Reception of UK National Day at World Expo Osaka

    The speech made by Lisa Nandy, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on 22 May 2025.

    Good evening everyone. Konbanwa .

    It’s a pleasure to welcome you all to the UK’s Pavilion to celebrate our National Day at the Expo 2025 Osaka Kansai. I would especially like to extend a warm welcome to Her Imperial Highness Princess Akiko of Mikasa and former Prime Minister Kishida, both good friends of the United Kingdom.

    The UK and Japan bilateral relationship is the strongest it has been in decades, underpinned by our common values, shared view of the world and our close people-to-people links. From security to economic growth and working together to tackle global challenges, our partnership is going from strength to strength. This step-up in collaboration was launched under the 2023 Hiroshima Accord – with thanks to former Prime Minister Kishida – and last year Prime Ministers Starmer and Ishiba agreed to build on it even further. The State Visit to the UK by Their Majesties the Emperor and Empress of Japan in June last year celebrated the depth and breadth of our partnership – as His Majesty the Emperor said, ‘we are friends like no other’.

    I have seen this partnership first-hand here in Japan. And if you have had a chance to go through our visitor experience today, you will have seen the power of UK and Japanese collaboration. We can achieve so much more when we harness our shared creativity and innovation. In this spirit, the National Ballet of Japan makes their European debut at the Royal Opera House in London with their production of “Giselle” in July, under the artistic direction of Yoshida Miyako, who made her career as the first Japanese Principal ballerina in the UK’s Royal Ballet.

    Ours is a partnership that is more relevant than ever. With growing uncertainty and instability around the world, there is so much that the UK and Japan can do together to ‘design future society for our lives’. This is, I believe, the defining challenge of our lives – to empower people the world over to build a world that works for us, and us for it.

    So, I am delighted to be launching Musubi: a flagship new initiative that will foster meaningful people-to-people connections between the UK and Japan and build the shared leadership to tackle the challenges and opportunities ahead of us.

    That includes championing our young people and building a pool of international talent. And today we are announcing:

    • A new Musubi Scholarship with University College London, supported by Amano Enzyme Inc.;
    • A Youth Offshore Wind Scholarship Programme with SSE Pacifico to foster future talent in this dynamic sector; and * The Robert Walters career development programme to help our brightest young people reach their full potential.
    • It includes drawing on the power of sport to build connections and enrich lives. Where:
    • 2025 Premier League winners Liverpool Football Club’s International Academy in Kawasaki is developing young players and providing opportunities to build leadership qualities.
    • And the UK Ekiden – inspired of course by Japan’s famous relay race – is bringing teams together in a celebration of teamwork, connection and friendship.

    And it includes building the leadership of the future.  Later this summer at this Pavilion the UK and Japan will host an event focused on promoting female leadership in business, building on the fact that our agreement with Japan was the first UK trade agreement to include a chapter on women’s economic empowerment.

    All of this will be championed by our Musubi Friendship Ambassador – Hello Kitty, presented by Sanrio.

    This is the most ambitious initiative of its kind between the UK and Japan – but it is also just the beginning. Over the years to come, this initiative will continue to grow – building a lasting legacy of connections and opportunity for our countries. Thank you to all our Pioneer Partners – and I hope to see many other companies and organisations joining us on this journey! I am now delighted to introduce a congratulatory message from The Princess Royal in her capacity as Chancellor of the University of London.

    Finally, this event and indeed our pavilion itself would not have been possible without our key sponsors and contributors: I would especially like to thank AstraZeneca, Aston Martin, IHG Hotels & Resorts, Diageo’s Johnnie Walker, Robert Walters, Liberty, the governments of Scotland and Wales, Ampetronic, Brompton and last but certainly not least, BBC Studios.

    Finally, I would like to thank everyone here this evening – I’m delighted that we have been able to gather so many of the UK’s closest friends in Japan, and I know with your support the UK-Japan partnership will continue to flourish. Arigato gozaimasu!

  • Lisa Nandy – 2025 Speech at the National Day Official Ceremony at World Expo Osaka

    Lisa Nandy – 2025 Speech at the National Day Official Ceremony at World Expo Osaka

    The speech made by Lisa Nandy, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on 22 May 2025.

    Your Imperial Highness, your excellency and esteemed guests. It is a great honour to be hosting the UK’s National Day celebrations here at Expo 2025 Osaka Kansai

    Let me start by offering my congratulations to the Government of Japan, the Expo Association and everyone involved in organising Expo 2025. In today’s world where many want to focus on differences and divisions, it is no mean feat to bring together over 150 countries with a shared goal of “designing future society for our lives.” I am very much looking forward to seeing more of this amazing Expo site in the course of today.

    Expo 2025 is very much about a global conversation, and within that global conversation, the UK and Japan have a particularly strong partnership. Our bilateral relationship is the strongest it has been in decades, underpinned by our common values, shared view of the world and our close people-to-people links. As His Majesty the Emperor said on his State Visit to the UK in June last year, we are ‘friends like no other’.

    The UK has a long history with Expos – going back to 1851 when the first ever EXPO was held in London – and a long history with Japan, from the arrival of William Adams/Miura-Anjin in 1600 to the Choshu 5 travelling to Britain in the mid-19th century to learn about the Industrial Revolution which was transforming my country and the world.

    The Japanese pioneers who travelled to Britain learnt much about our industrial prowess, bringing that technology back to Japan helping to transform Japan into the thriving, technologically advanced nation it is today. It is especially pertinent to reflect that one of those pioneers who ventured as far as Manchester went on to found the Osaka Chamber of Commerce, giving rise to Osaka’s tremendous growth. So our links are long and very relevant to this region. I am personally delighted as someone who was born in Manchester to see those links between Manchester and Osaka grow ever stronger.

    It was the sharing of technology and ideas which drove the UK-Japan relationship then, and still drives it now. And it is that belief in the power of ideas to build the future that lies at the heart of the UK pavilion at Expo. The UK’s theme at Expo 2025 is Come Build The Future. It is about the power of small ideas to come together, as children do with building blocks, to create something magical and potentially world-changing.

    We are a country of ideas that thrives on diversity, on a special mix of tradition and modernity. Our ancient universities drive world leading research, our whiskies and gins are still made to centuries old recipes, produced using cutting edge technology by a new generation of female distillers, our historic playhouses showcase the newest creative talents; and our small island is home to people from every country on the globe and has a capital city where over 300 languages are spoken.

    Today our National Day offers a snapshot of that, underlining the message of partnership: the Edinburgh Military Tattoo will perform with taiko drummers, later today the BBC Planet Earth Live III concert will be performed by the Osaka based Century orchestra with a renowned UK conductor, and musicians from across the four nations of the UK will connect with new Japanese audiences.

    I said earlier that the UK-Japan partnership is stronger than ever. This is evident from our ever-deepening economic and trade ties, through CPTPP, our collaboration on the green agenda, in defence, security, and digital technologies. But today I want to draw attention to the powerful cultural and people-to-people connections between our countries which underpin that partnership. I want to salute the power of the creative industries, of our story-tellers, to bring people together to entertain and delight, and to cross divides of language and culture.

    Later today, as part of our National Day, we are bringing the Japanese premiere of BBC’s Planet Earth III Live in concert to the Expo Hall. The BBC will be well known to all of you – it has an average global reach of 450 million people across the world, bringing both independent news you can trust and award-winning television – both drama and documentary. Their BBC Earth natural world documentaries have been seen by a quarter of a billion people and have inspired positive environmental change across the world. Planet Earth, by transforming abstract climate data into personal, emotional experiences, has motivated viewers to care and take action to help shape a sustainable future.  Again, well aligned with our UK pavilion theme and that of Expo 2025.

    For a partnership to flourish you need to bring not only ideas but also people together. That is why later today I shall be announcing a new form of UK-Japan partnership which focuses on that very idea of connection, of bringing people together. The UK and Japan have been connecting for hundreds of years. We want to make sure we continue to do that into the future too. We hope young – and old – visiting Expo 2025 and our pavilion will be inspired to connect globally and to seek out new ideas and new partners.

    To make progress towards the SDGs and tackle the global challenges we all face, we need to come together to share our ideas, to use them as the building blocks of a better future. The UK is committed to doing that, to doing that in partnership with others and is delighted to be here at Expo 2025 to take that partnership still further.

  • Keir Starmer – 2025 Remarks at Press Conference on Diego Garcia

    Keir Starmer – 2025 Remarks at Press Conference on Diego Garcia

    The remarks made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, at the Permanent Joint HQ in Northwood on 22 May 2025.

    A few moments ago…

    I signed a deal…

    To secure the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia.

    This is absolutely vital…

    For our defence and intelligence…

    And therefore –

    For the safety and security of the British people.

    The full assessment of why this is so important is highly classified.

    But I want to speak as frankly as I can.

    The strategic location of this base is of the utmost significance to Britain.

    From deploying aircraft to defeat terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan…

    To anticipating threats in the Red Sea and the Indo-Pacific…

    The base is right at the foundation of our security and safety at home.

    It has helped us to…

    Disrupt threats to the UK…

    Support counter terror operations against Islamic State…

    And to reduce the risk to brave British and American servicemen and servicewomen.

    The base will help protect the safe passage of our Carrier Strike Group as it goes through the Middle East.

    It enables rapid deployment across the Middle East, East Africa, and South Asia…

    It helps combat some of the most challenging threats we face,

    Including from terrorism and hostile states…

    And its location creates real military advantage across the Indo-Pacific.

    The base gives the UK and the US access to unique and vital capabilities – which benefit us directly.

    Many of these capabilities are secret, but they include…

    Airfield and deep-water port facilities…

    Facilities that support the worldwide operation of GPS…

    And the monitoring of objects in the earth’s orbit…

    And equipment to monitor the nuclear test ban treaty.

    The base is one of the most significant contributions we make to our security relationship with the United States –

    Which is critical for keeping Britain safe.

    Almost everything we do from the base is in partnership with the US.

    President Trump has welcomed the deal –

    Along with other allies.

    Because they see the strategic importance of this base –

    And that we cannot cede this ground to others who would seek to do us harm.

    And let me be clear –

    We had to act now…

    Because the base was under threat.

    The courts have already made decisions which undermine our position.

    And if Mauritius takes us to court again…

    The UK’s longstanding legal view…

    Is that we would not have a realistic prospect of success…

    And would likely face a Provisional Measures Order within a matter of weeks.

    But this is not just about international law.

    This is about the operation of the base.

    Even if we chose to ignore judgments made against us…

    International organisations and other countries would act on them.

    And that would undermine the operation of the base –

    Causing us to lose this unique capability.

    One example of this is the electromagnetic spectrum.

    Countries have the right to manage this spectrum as they wish within their borders…

    A right that’s recognised in regulations…

    And overseen in the International Telecommunication Union.

    The use of spectrum is key to understand and anticipate those who seek to do us harm.

    If our right to control it is put into doubt…

    We would lose the first line of defence against other countries who wish to interfere and disrupt this capability…

    Rendering it practically useless.

    In addition – if we do not agree this deal…

    The legal situation would mean that…

    We would not be able to prevent China…

    Or any other nation…

    Setting up their own bases on the outer islands,

    Or carrying out joint exercises near our base.

    We would have to explain to you – the British people –

    And to our allies…

    That we had lost control of this vital asset.

    No responsible government could let that happen.

    So there is no alternative –

    But to act –

    In Britain’s national interest.

    By agreeing to this deal now – on our terms –

    We are securing strong protections, including from malign influence…

    That will allow the base to operate well into the next century…

    Helping to keep us safe for generations to come.

    Other approaches to secure the base have been tried over the years –

    And they have failed.

    Now there is obviously a cost to maintaining such a valuable asset.

    We pay for our other military bases.

    Allies like the US and France do the same.

    This cost is part and parcel of using Britain’s global reach to keep us safe at home…

    And it will be less than cost of running one aircraft carrier for a year.

    Today’s agreement is the only way to maintain the base in the long term.

    There is no alternative.

    We will never gamble with national security.

    So we have acted –

    To secure our national interest…

    To strengthen our national security –

    And to protect the British people for many years to come.

    Thank you.

  • John Healey – 2025 Statement on the Chagos Islands Deal

    John Healey – 2025 Statement on the Chagos Islands Deal

    The statement made by John Healey, the Secretary of State for Defence, on 22 May 2025.

    Thank you, Prime Minister.

    As the world becomes more dangerous, the Diego Garcia military base becomes more important.

    But I want to underline the urgency and uncertainty over the future control of this UK base.

    Within weeks, we faced new legal rulings which would weaken the UK’s full operational sovereignty over this base, and within just a few years, this irreplaceable military and intelligence base would become inoperable.

    That’s why we have taken action today.

    That is why the Prime Minister has signed this treaty today, securing this base for the next 99 years and beyond.

    Our allied nations are right behind us and behind this deal – the US, Australia, New Zealand, India, Canada.

    Others want to see this base closed. They want to see this deal collapse – China, Russia, Iran.

    The value of this deal is beyond doubt.

    Full control of Diego Garcia for the next 99 years and beyond.

    Full control and protection of the electromagnetic spectrum that priceless intelligence; communications, sensors; radar; a strengthened buffer zone so we can control the seas and the skies immediately around Diego Garcia and wider islands up to 100 miles – an effective veto over any developments or hostile activities.

    And with the base in jeopardy, no action was no option, and anyone who would argue to abandon this deal would abandon this base.  So let me be clear, the British people and our British forces are safer today and into the future because of this deal.

    Thank you.

  • Liam Byrne – 2025 Speech on the UK-EU Summit

    Liam Byrne – 2025 Speech on the UK-EU Summit

    The speech made by Liam Byrne, the Labour MP for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2025.

    I rise to speak to the House today on behalf of the Business and Trade Committee on our sixth report—a road map for the EU reset. I hope you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for using this moment to share my profound thanks to the members of the Committee, who are both diligent and hard-working.

    From our earliest days together as a Committee, it was clear to us all that our relationship with the European Union had been trapped in the logic of the past, and that although not all of that past was bitter, the present was clearly unsatisfactory, and the future could be richer if we collectively chose to reset that relationship with more ambition. That, we sensed, was also the analysis of His Majesty’s Government. We asked ourselves what could be done to move this relationship forward—not distracted by fantasy, but informed with a real, hard-headed and pragmatic focus.

    We travelled to Brussels, Belfast and Geneva. We listened to businesses, trade unions, diplomats and officials in the European Commission. We looked at border posts, trade barriers and, I am afraid to say, an awful lot of lost opportunities. We asked one simple question: how can we make these arrangements better? We sought not to reopen old wounds, but to open new doors.

    What surprised us was that it was not difficult to find 21 different ways in which our relationship with the European Union could be reset in a manner that would make our country richer—with steps that would support our security, deepen our energy ties, and cut the red tape that is throttling trade with the EU. These were not abstract aspirations. They were grounded, practical and deliverable, and they were supported by an overwhelming coalition of business groups that we met. In short, the proposals we presented were backed by business, because they were good for business and therefore good for our country.

    We divided the work into three ambitions: first, to defend our prosperity; secondly, to defend and advance energy co-operation; and, thirdly, to cut the red tape strangling trade at the border.

    On security, we proposed a bold new partnership: a joint defence industrial policy, a framework for protecting critical national infrastructure and stronger co-ordination to tackle economic crime. We called for closer co-operation at the World Trade Organisation, including UK participation in the new dispute resolution procedures, because a rules-based order is not just idealism; for us it is insurance. On energy, we saw something extraordinary: an opportunity to unlock the potential of the North sea as the world’s biggest green energy power station. That vision demanded that we come together with the EU to create a single carbon border adjustment mechanism and to connect, again, electricity trading and emissions trading. That could add up to a faster and cheaper path to net zero for both us and our European neighbours.

    On trade, we welcomed the Government’s ambition for a deep sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and, indeed, a fair fisheries deal, but we pressed for some specifics: mutual recognition of alternative economic operator schemes; bilateral waivers for safety and security declarations; co-operation around roll-on, roll-off ferries; rejoining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention; mutual recognition of conformity assessments; and a long-term road map for compatible regulation.

    On services, we urged His Majesty’s Government to strike a new data adequacy agreement, pursue deeper co-operation on financial services, ensure UK access to Horizon Europe framework programme 10, sort out a new road map for mutual recognition of professional qualifications, reduce the barriers for touring artists, and implement a visa-based, number-capped, age-capped youth experience scheme.

    We published our draft report to test it. The response was overwhelming, with support levels of between 80% and 90% for the measures that we proposed. Businesses said, “This is what we need, because it will unlock growth, create jobs and raise wages.”

    On Monday, we saw some signs that the Government had listened. We were glad to see progress on security, defence, electricity trading and emissions alignment. There was a new security and defence pact. There was useful language on critical national infrastructure. There was a welcome step towards joining electricity and carbon markets together. There was, however, also much left in the to-do pile. There was no iron-clad commitment to a shared defence industrial policy and there was too little progress on law enforcement co-operation. There was silence on WTO co-operation, although I acknowledge that may come in the trade strategy when it is published. We also thought that there could have been more on financial services co-operation, data adequacy and mutual recognition of conformity assessments.

    This is a deal without a date—a handshake, but not yet a contract. None the less, it was an important start. After years of drift and division, this was the first time since Brexit that, collectively, we had the chance to stop digging ditches of grievance and start rebuilding some bridges of co-operation. This was a step forward, but it was only a step. What comes next must be really clear. We must now have a timetable for drawing up, finalising and implementing these agreements. There should be action to take forward the unfinished business, which we have set out in this report. Crucially, we think there should be a bigger role for Parliament, because Parliament should not be a bystander while our future is forged.

    Let us not retreat into nostalgia. Let us work pragmatically together in the national interest, because that is how futures are built. We are at our best in this Parliament when we choose to lead, and that is exactly what this relationship now needs. I commend to the House this report and its call to action.

    Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that consistency and clarity are exactly what businesses require to grow and thrive? That is why the Government should consider the report’s recommendation to consult with industry on rejoining the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. PEM membership could support tariff-free trade, simplify rules of origin and reduce trade barriers for key sectors such as automotive, manufacturing, chemicals and food production. By joining PEM, British business would expand its preferential market access to 25 countries, thereby strengthening supply chains and boosting the competitiveness of British exports.

    Liam Byrne

    My hon. Friend made that point repeatedly during the Committee’s deliberations. What has been especially welcome is how she consistently brings the perspective of local businesses in her Dudley constituency —the home of the industrial revolution, as we all know. She is right that, subject to consultation, in particular around the implications for the electric vehicle industry, rejoining the PEM convention could deliver us some rules of origin that would radically cut red tape for many businesses in her constituency and across our country. Frankly, it would also lower costs at a time when that is much needed.

    Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee for their extensive piece of work and for the report he has presented today. He mentions the wide range of different asks that the UK Government had and that he recommended that they pursue. Does he agree that it is disappointing that out of the areas that the UK wanted to achieve agreement on, movement for touring artists and participation in EU defence spending are left unagreed, while the UK Government seem to have agreed on and traded one of our most valuable areas in the negotiation: access to our fishing grounds?

    Liam Byrne

    The hon. Lady will know, as I do, that although fisheries and the fishing industry constitutes quite a small part of our economy—about 0.04% of GDP—for many coastal communities it is a vital industry. Nevertheless, we felt—I certainly did—that the prize of an SPS agreement, which could be worth a huge boost of up to £3 billion to £4 billion a year according to Aston University and that allows for shellfish exports to the European market, was potentially a prize was worth having.

    However, the hon. Lady is right to say that the biggest concern that we should have had was defence industrial co-operation. We cannot defend Europe in the way that we should, and we cannot spend the increases in our defence spending in the way that we should, unless we reorganise Europe’s fragmented defence industrial base. We cannot be stronger together unless we build that shared defence base together. I very much hope that we will hear of progress on that in the strategic defence review and the national security review when those strategies are presented to Parliament before the summer recess.

    Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)

    Our Committee’s report covered how we can help agrifood businesses export to the EU, and I was delighted to see Salmon Scotland and the National Farmers Union Scotland come out in support of the deal this week. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was baffling to see the SNP stand with Reform and the Tories in opposition to the deal?

    Liam Byrne

    The consensus when we published the draft of our report was overwhelming, and the measures we proposed were backed by an enormous majority of business groups across the country, including groups across Scotland. What business saw was a practical, hard-headed, common-sense set of recommendations that should be supported by not only the Government but those in public life across our country.

    Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)

    I thank the right hon. Member for his leadership and hard work on the Committee. I welcome the move this week, and the set of aspirational statements of intent that go in the right direction. That is great, but does he agree that we should focus on the big stuff? Proportionately, the deal with India will get us 0.1% of GDP growth by 2040 and the American pact takes us to a position that is worse than where we were six months ago, so Europe is where it is at. Europe represents 45% of our trade versus 12% with the US, but of the beneficial 21 recommendations that the Committee set out, maybe five or six have been hit. The key thing is to go for the big stuff, such as being back inside the customs union. That would make a big difference.

    Liam Byrne

    The report could not have been as well written or as strong and robust in its recommendations without the hon. Member’s input. We are grateful for the hard work he put into getting the report right. As he knows, a bespoke customs union was not a proposal we made, perhaps because it would not necessarily have swept up the Committee in unanimity. What is striking is that the measures set out in the report would have been significant enough to offset the economic damage we will suffer because of the tariffs introduced by President Trump. The hon. Member is right that in economic matters it is always wise to focus on the big numbers, and the big numbers in trade come from a better, closer, stronger relationship with the European Union.

    Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)

    I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his report and his stewardship of the Committee. My inbox was full of emails from local businesses in Redditch, relieved that after years of hesitation and no progress we are finally in a dialogue with the EU about improving access for businesses. Does he agree that, as the report states, by continuously speaking to the EU we can finally start getting rid of the red tape, as was promised to businesses by many on the pro-Brexit side, and get proper access to the markets that world-leading companies in Redditch really should be able to access freely?

    Liam Byrne

    My hon. Friend has consistently been a strong voice for the business community in Redditch since he joined us in the House. He is right that what has been lacking for a long time in the relationship with the European Union is the kinetic energy required to drive any bureaucracy forward.

    A number of working groups were set up because of the trade and co-operation agreement. In a cross-party spirit, I should say it is important to note that the mood in Brussels changed significantly under the last Prime Minister, with the progress made in the Windsor framework. However, unless significant amounts of political attention and energy are invested, things will not move forward, and there is still a long way to go. The Committee has set out in the report where some of that progress still needs to happen, but ultimately politics is what changes things. I hope that the political energy that went into Monday can be sustained for the future.

    John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman, whose tremendously adroit chairmanship of the Committee has allowed a lot of cross-party working, which has been really refreshing and very good. This is a moment of regret: the Committee did flag up how fragile coastal communities could be damaged badly by a multi-year deal on fishing, and the 12-year deal is beyond anything anybody imagined. It will hammer fragile communities right across Britain, and particularly in Scotland; that is unfortunate. Does he agree that achieving an SPS deal must be balanced with the deals with India, America and so forth that are coming down the tracks—I am sure the Committee will look at this—and that we must have due care for ensuring that the Brexit freedoms that allow us to strike those deals are not damaged?

    Liam Byrne

    The hon. Gentleman is right. As we were composing the report for the House over the last few weeks, he consistently underlined the risks that coastal communities would confront if the deal were to go the wrong way. We are all incredibly grateful to him for the voice he provided

    We must ensure that we enshrine certain standards that allow us to draw closer to Europe without compromising the alliances already coming into place and those that we still need to strike in order to restore our role as the great free trading nation on this planet. The way in which the Government seek to tessellate the agreement with the trade deal with the United States, with our leadership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, with the deal with India and with the deals that are still to come with the Gulf Co-operation Council, Korea and Switzerland needs to be very carefully balanced. It looks like the Government have just about got it right. However, I know that the hon. Gentleman, like me, will want our Committee to keep an extremely close eye on that as the trade talks proceed.

    James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)

    I thank my right hon. Friend for this excellent report that is rooted in pragmatism and practical steps, which I know my constituents welcome. He has highlighted a gap—as he sees it, it is a first step —and there is a lot more to do. Will his Committee undertake to monitor the gap between what the Government have committed to and where he would like the Government to be, and will he and his Committee continue to make recommendations to the Government?

    Liam Byrne

    My hon. Friend is right to point that out. The good news for the Minister is that he now has the scrutiny framework in front of him that the Committee will use to judge the progress that he makes over the course of this Parliament. There is a moment that is still to come for this Parliament, however. At some point—we are not quite sure when—scrubbed treaties will need to be laid in this House. This House will then enjoy the grand total of 21 days during the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process in which to scrutinise them. That is not very long. The Committee has therefore decided this week that we will open inquiries on the EU, India and United States deals. We will seek to hold hearings on each of those trade deals before the summer so that the House can be as well informed as possible when the CRaG process begins, and we can zero in on the issues that are at stake for our constituents.

    Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)

    I am grateful to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee for this thorough set of proposals, and especially for the call for a greater role for Parliament. The Committee red, amber and green-rated its 20 proposals and marked as green the UK-EU security pact. Yet the Prime Minister’s spokesman admitted:

    “This is a first step towards UK participation in Europe’s defence investment progression”

    and went on to say that it merely

    “opens the door towards joint procurement.”

    Will the Committee Chair acknowledge how much more there is to do before this amounts to a shared defence industrial base?

    Liam Byrne

    The hon. Member is absolutely right. He knows, because of the extraordinary record of service that he brings to this House, that there is an immense amount of work that we still need to do to conquer the inefficiencies and fragmentation of the European defence industrial base. We cannot spend the money that we propose to spend on defence wisely unless we change the way that we procure military equipment. On the one hand, that will provide greater certainty and long-term contracts to defence suppliers and, on the other, it will help ensure that we are building an innovative ecosystem of funding to help smaller, innovative, nimble and agile suppliers of weaponry to come forward in the way that they can to ensure that the lessons that we have learned on the battlefields of Ukraine inform our military strategy in future.

    If there is one lesson that we have learned, it is that any warfighting capability depends on the strength of our defence industrial base. Quite obviously, today’s defence industrial base in Europe is not in the right place, and together with our partners we have to work hard on that. I hope that the strategic defence review will set out some practical steps for how we will do that together with our allies in Europe.

    Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)

    I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his statement and on the work of his Committee. Clearly, renewable energy is an important part of our relationship with the European Union. What opportunity did his Committee have to examine that and the trade of energy between the UK and the European Union, particularly in the light of the possibility in the near future of an interconnector between Morocco and the UK by way of the UK-Morocco Power Project, or Xlinks? He may know that if the UK does not greenlight that in the near future, other European countries certainly will.

    Liam Byrne

    The right hon. Member is absolutely right to say that Morocco is a country that we should work more closely with. Xlinks is an exciting proposal. As a stable, long-term partner to Europe, Morocco is a country with which we have a shared interest in the future.

    The perspective that we brought to the question was on how we can ensure a faster, cheaper and less risky path to net zero for us and for Europe. We heard striking evidence from many in the electricity and energy sectors about almost the thoughtless way that we had been disconnected from electricity trading schemes. What really worried us in the near term was that, given different carbon prices in the UK and Europe, if Europe introduced a carbon border adjustment mechanism, and we did a little later on, almost a tariff wall would be created.

    We think the Government have done well in seizing that win-win, but that is not to take anything away from the logic and force of the hon. Member’s remarks. Ultimately, we will need several big infrastructure initiatives if we are to do what we all know needs to be done in this country: to drive down industrial electricity prices.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2025 Speech on the Independent Sentencing Review

    Robert Jenrick – 2025 Speech on the Independent Sentencing Review

    The speech made by Robert Jenrick, the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2025.

    Today is about one question: should violent and prolific criminals be on the streets or behind bars? I think they should be behind bars. For all the Justice Secretary’s rhetoric, the substance of her statement could not be clearer: she is okay and her party is okay with criminals terrorising our streets and tormenting our country. The truth is this: any Government—[Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    Order. I thought people had come to listen to the statement and I expect them to listen. I expected the Opposition Front Bench to be quiet; I certainly expect better from the Government Front Bench.

    Robert Jenrick

    Mr Speaker, the truth is this: any Government serious about keeping violent criminals behind bars, any Government willing to do whatever it took, could obviously find and build the prison cells required to negate the need for these disastrous changes. What do the changes amount to? [Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    Order. Mr Swallow, you are getting very excited. You were telling me how good a schoolteacher you were; this is a very bad example of that.

    Robert Jenrick

    What do these changes amount to? They are a “get out of jail free” card for dangerous criminals. Has the Justice Secretary even gone through a court listing recently? Pick one from anywhere in our country: those currently going to jail for 12 months or less are not angels. They are Adam Gregory in Calne, who got 12 months for sexually assaulting his partner; Vinnie Nolan, who got 12 months for breaking someone’s jaw; Shaun Yardley, 10 months for beating his partner; or Paul Morris, who got six and a half months for shoplifting 36 times. Her plan is to let precisely these criminals loose. It is a recipe for a crime wave.

    What about the Justice Secretary’s plan for most criminals going to jail to serve just one third of their prison sentence there and for her slashing of sentences across the board—discounts so big they would make Aldi and Lidl blush? I would call it a joke if the consequences for the public were not so terrifying. In fact it gets worse, because criminals who plead guilty—and most do—already get a third cut in their sentence, so under her scheme a burglar who pleads guilty to an 18-month headline term would spend just one fifth of that term in jail—barely 11 weeks. Eleven weeks for smashing through a family’s door and storming through a child’s bedroom looking for valuables, leaving them traumatised for life. Is that the Justice Secretary’s idea of justice for victims? The least she could do is here and now guarantee that violent criminals, domestic abusers, stalkers and sexual assaulters will not be eligible for any discount in their sentence. Will she commit to that?

    If not prison, what is the plan to punish these criminals and to keep the public safe? Well, the Justice Secretary says it is digital prisons—as she puts it, prison outside of prison, words that lead most people in this country to conclude that the Justice Secretary is out of her mind. I am all for technology but tags are not iron bars—they cannot stop your child being stabbed on their walk home from school, or a shop being ransacked time and again, or a domestic abuser returning to their victim’s front door.

    Mr Speaker

    Order. I do not think that “out of her mind” is language that should be used. I am sure the shadow Secretary of State would like to reflect on that.

    Robert Jenrick

    Of course, Mr Speaker.

    The Ministry of Justice’s own pilot scheme found that 71% of tagged offenders breached their curfew. When it comes to stopping reoffending, tags are about as useful as smoke alarms are at putting out bonfires. What is the Justice Secretary going to say when she meets the victims of offenders that she let off? How is she going to look them in the eye and say with a straight face, “I’m sorry—we are looking into how this criminal escaped from their digital prison cell.” Her reforms are a recipe for carnage.

    I urge the Justice Secretary to change course and to make different choices—yes, choices—from the ones that we knew the Government would make from the day that the Prime Minister hand-picked Lord Timpson as Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, a man who is on record as saying that

    “a lot of people in prison…shouldn’t be there”—

    two thirds of them in fact, he said—

    “and they are there for far too long”.

    The Labour party is clearly ideologically opposed to prison and that is why the Government are letting criminals off with a “get out of jail free” card, rather than deporting the 10,800 foreign national offenders in our prisons—one in every eight cells—a figure that is rising under the Justice Secretary’s watch. If she is actually serious about keeping violent criminals off our streets and finding the cells that are needed, will she bring forward legislation, tomorrow, and disapply the Human Rights Act 1998, which is stopping us from swiftly deporting foreign national offenders?

    Some 17,800 prisoners are on remand awaiting trial—another figure that has risen under the Justice Secretary. In fact, her own Department’s figures forecast that it could rise to as many as 23,600. If she is serious, will she commit to taking up the Lady Chief Justice’s request for extra court sitting days to hear those cases and free up prison spaces? Will she commit, here and now, to building more than the meagre 250 rapid deployment cells her prison capacity strategy says she is planning to build this year? They have been built in seven months before, and they can be built even faster.

    If the Justice Secretary were serious, she would commit to striking deals with the 14 European countries with spare prison capacity, renting their cells from them at an affordable price, as Denmark is doing with Kosovo. Between 1993 and 1996, her beloved Texas, the state on which she modelled these reforms—a state that, by the way, has an incarceration rate five times higher than that of the United Kingdom—built 75,000 extra cells. If the Government were serious, why can they not build 10,000 over a similar time period?

    Labour is not serious about keeping hyper-prolific offenders behind bars. In fact, there is nothing in the Justice Secretary’s statement on locking them up or cutting crime, because the Labour party does not believe in punishing criminals and it does not really believe in prison. The radical, terrible changes made today are cloaked in necessity, but their root is Labour’s ideology. It is the public who will be paying the price for her weakness.

    Shabana Mahmood

    The shadow Secretary of State talks about serious Government—if the Government that he was a part of had ever been serious, they would have built more than 500 prison places in 14 years in office—[Interruption.] He is a new convert to the prison-building cause. He and his party have never stood up in this Chamber and apologised for adding only 500 places—

    Mr Speaker

    Order. I want the same respect from Members on the Opposition Front Bench. [Interruption.] Do we understand each other?

    Robert Jenrick indicated assent.

    Shabana Mahmood

    Mr Speaker, if I were waiting for respect from Opposition Members, I would be waiting for a long time, so it is a good job that I do not need it.

    The shadow Secretary of State talks about “iron bars”, but he was part of a Government that did not build the prison places that this country needs. Unlike him, I take responsibility, and it has fallen to me to clean up the mess that he and his party left behind. In case there is any confusion, let me spell out what happens when he and his party leave our prison system on the brink of collapse, which is exactly what they did, and set out the prospect that faced me on day one, when I walked into the Justice Department. When prisons are on the verge of collapse, we basically have only two choices left at our disposal: either we shut the front door, or we have to open the back door. The right hon. Gentleman’s party knew that that was the situation it was confronted with, but did it make any decisions? No, it just decided to call an election instead and did a runner.

    The public put the Conservatives in their current position. If they ever want to get out of that position, I suggest that they start by reckoning with the reality of their own track record in office. In any other reality, they should have started already with an apology. Conservative Members have had many chances to apologise to the country for leaving our prisons on the point of absolute collapse, but they have never taken them. Frankly, that tells us everything that anyone needs to know about the modern Conservative party.

  • Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Independent Sentencing Review

    Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Independent Sentencing Review

    The statement made by Shabana Mahmood, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2025.

    With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on sentencing in England and Wales. As the House will be aware, the independent sentencing review was published today. It was chaired by David Gauke and his panel comprised experts, including a former Lord Chief Justice, and representatives from the police, prisons, probation and victims’ rights organisations. The Government are grateful for the review’s recommendations, and I will ensure that a copy is deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Today, I will set out our in-principle response.

    First, however, it is essential that we set the review in its proper context. A year ago today, the Conservative party called an election. They did so because they were confronted by the prospect of prisons about to collapse. Rather than confront their failure, they chose to hide it and hoodwink the public into re-electing them. It did not work, but their legacy lives on.

    Our prisons are, once again, running out of space and it is vital that the implications are understood. If our prisons collapse, courts are forced to suspend trials, the police must halt their arrests, crime goes unpunished, criminals run amok and chaos reigns. We face the breakdown of law and order in this country. It is shameful that, in this day and age, we are confronted by this crisis once more. The reasons are clear. The last Government added just 500 places to our prison estate, while at the same time, sentence lengths rose. As a result, the prison population is now rising by 3,000 each year and we are heading back towards zero capacity. It now falls to this Government to end this cycle of crisis. That starts by building prisons.

    Since taking office, we have opened 2,400 places. Last week, I announced an additional £4.7 billion for prison building, putting us on track to hit 14,000 places by 2031, in the largest expansion since the Victorian era. That investment is necessary, but not sufficient. We cannot build our way out of this crisis. Despite building as quickly as we can, demand for places will outstrip supply by 9,500 in early 2028, and that is why I commissioned the sentencing review. Its task was clear: this country must never run out of prison places again. There must always be space for dangerous offenders.

    At the same time, the review was tasked with addressing the fact that our prisons too often create better criminals, not better citizens. Instead of cutting crime, they are breeding grounds for it. The reviewers have followed the evidence and example of countries across the world. Today I present an initial response, with further detail to follow once legislation is placed before the House.

    Let me start with the report’s central recommendation: the move to a three-part sentence called the earned progression model, which the Government accept in principle. Under the model, an offender will not necessarily leave prison at an automatic point. Instead, their release date will be determined by their behaviour. If they follow prison rules, they will earn earlier release; if they do not, they will be locked up for longer. That echoes the model I witnessed in Texas earlier this year, which cut crime and brought their prison population under control.

    Under the new model, offenders serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release of 40% or 50% will now earn their release. The earliest possible release will be one third, with additional days added for bad behaviour. The review suggests a new maximum of 50%, but for those who behave excessively badly, I will not place an upper limit. For those currently serving standard determinate sentences with an automatic release point of 67%, their earliest possible release will be 50%. Again, for those who behave excessively badly, I will not place an upper limit.

    David Gauke also suggests that those serving extended determinate sentences should also earn an earlier release. This we will not accept. Judges give extended sentences to those they consider dangerous, with no Parole Board hearing until two thirds of time served, and I will not change that. I can also confirm that no sentences being served for terror offences will be eligible for earlier release from prison.

    In the second part of the progression model, offenders will enter a period of intensive supervision. That will see more offenders tagged and close management from probation. The Government will therefore significantly increase funding: by the final year of the spending review period, an annual £1.6 billion will rise by up to £700 million, allowing us to tag and monitor tens of thousands more offenders. If offenders do not comply with the conditions of their release, the sentencing review has suggested that recall to prison should be capped at 56 days. We have agreed to this policy in principle, though the precise details will be placed before the House when we legislate. In the final stage of the three-part sentence, offenders could still be recalled if a new offence is committed, and I will also ensure that the most serious offenders continue to be subject to strict conditions.

    The review also recommends a reduction in short prison sentences. A compelling case for doing so has been proposed in this House many times. In the most recent data, nearly 60% of those receiving a 12-month sentence reoffended within a year. With reoffending rates for community punishment consistently lower, we must ask ourselves whether alternative forms of punishment would make the public safer. It is important, however, to note that the review recommends a reduction in short sentences, not abolition. It is right that judges retain the discretion to hand them down in exceptional circumstances. In considering exceptional circumstances, we will continue to ensure that courts have access to thorough risk assessments for domestic abuse and stalking cases, and breaches of protective orders linked to violence against women and girls will be excluded.

    The review also recommends an extension of suspended sentences from two to three years. In this period, the prospect of prison time hangs over an offender should they break any conditions imposed upon them, and we accept that recommendation.

    The recommendations set out above will see more community punishment. For that reason, it is essential that it works. The review recommends a series of measures to make community punishment tougher and force offenders to pay back to those they have harmed. We will consider new financial penalties, which could see offenders’ assets seized, even if they are not knowingly linked to crime, and expanded use of punishments such as travel and driving bans that would curtail offenders’ liberty.

    We accept a recommendation to expand intensive supervision courts. Those impose tough conditions, including treatment requirements, that tackle the root causes of prolific offending. Offenders are brought before a judge regularly to monitor compliance, and the prospect of prison hangs over them like the sword of Damocles.

    However, I believe community punishment must be tougher still. Unpaid work must pay back, so I will shortly bring together business leaders to explore a model whereby offenders work for them, and the salary is paid not to the offender but towards the good of victims. I will also work with local authorities to determine how unpaid work teams could give back to their communities, whether by filling potholes or cleaning up rubbish.

    I invited David Gauke to consider cohorts of offenders who this Government believe require particular focus. I welcome his recommendations on female offenders. Approximately two thirds of female offenders receive short sentences. Around the same number are victims of domestic abusers. I am pleased to say that the review’s recommendation on short, deferred and suspended sentences will reduce the number of women in prison.

    I asked David Gauke to consider how we tackle foreign national offenders. Today, our deportation rate is ahead of the last Government’s. I welcome the recommendations to make it quicker and easier to deport foreign criminals. Under the existing scheme, they are sent back to their country of origin after serving 50% of the custodial sentence. We will bring that down to 30%. We will also conduct further work with the Home Office on how we can deport foreign prisoners serving less than three years as soon as possible after their sentencing.

    I also asked the review to consider how we manage sex offenders. The review has recommended we continue a pilot of so-called medication to manage problematic sexual arousal. I will go further, with a national roll-out beginning in two regions, covering 20 prisons. I am exploring whether mandating the approach is possible. Of course, it is vital that this approach is taken alongside psychological interventions that target other causes of offending, such as asserting power and control.

    When discussing sentencing, it is too easy to focus on how we punish offenders when we should talk more about victims. Everything I am announcing today is in pursuit of a justice system that serves victims. If our prisons collapse, it is victims who pay the price. By cutting reoffending, we will have fewer victims in future, but there is more we must do to support victims today. The review recommends a number of important measures, including better identifying domestic abusers at sentencing, so that we can monitor and manage them more effectively. I pay tribute to those who have campaigned on this, particularly the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). I also welcome the recommendation to expand the use of specialist domestic abuse courts, where trained staff support victims. To improve transparency in the system, we will extend a pilot of free sentencing transcripts for victims of rape and serious sexual offences.

    I want to go further than the review recommends to better support victims. Exclusion zones are an important tool, preventing offenders from entering areas their victims might be in, but these place greater limits on victims than on offenders. I want to change that, locking offenders down to specific locations so that victims know they are safe wherever else they want to go.

    This review sets out major reform. I know its recommendations will not be welcomed by all. By appointing David Gauke, a former Conservative Lord Chancellor, I hoped to show that two politicians from different traditions can agree on the reforms our justice system requires. I do not expect Conservative Members to join me to solve this crisis. In fact, I can hear their soundbites already. “Just build faster,” they will say. Well, we are building faster than they did: we have already added 2,400 places, and we are now investing £4.7 billion more. “Just deport more foreign criminals,” they will say. Well, we are ahead of where they were, and today we have accepted major reform to go further and faster. “Clear the courts backlog,” they will say despite having created it themselves. Well, we are investing more in our courts than they ever did, and we are ready to embrace once-in-a-generation reform to deliver swifter justice for victims.

    While we are doing more on each of these areas than they ever did, these are not solutions that rise to the scale of the crisis that they left behind. We must build prisons on an historic scale, deport foreign national offenders faster than ever, and speed up our courts; and yet still, despite all that, we must reform sentencing too. So, more in hope than expectation, and despite, not because of, experience, by appealing to the better angels of their nature—if they have any—I end by inviting those opposite to help us fix the crisis that they left behind. I commend this statement to the House.