UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2025

  • PRESS RELEASE : Landmark sentencing reforms to ensure prisons never run out of space again [May 2025]

    PRESS RELEASE : Landmark sentencing reforms to ensure prisons never run out of space again [May 2025]

    The press release issued by the Ministry of Justice on 22 May 2025.

    Landmark reforms that will end the prison crisis have been announced by the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood.

    • Prisoners made to earn their way to release through good behaviour – or face longer behind bars
    • No early automatic release for badly behaved offenders
    • A massive expansion in the surveillance of offenders through increased use of tagging – backed by around 45% increase in probation funding of up to £700 million
    • Reforms follow confirmation of a further £4.7 billion prison building investment – backing the largest expansion since the Victorians

    Landmark reforms that will end the prison crisis the government inherited, which threatens the complete breakdown of law and order on Britain’s streets, have been announced by the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood.

    The sweeping review, published today by former Justice Secretary David Gauke, recommends comprehensively overhaul sentencing – ensuring jails never run out of space again and dangerous offenders can be kept off the streets. The majority of the recommendations have been accepted today in principle – with a Sentencing Bill due in the coming months.

    The reforms will put public protection and cutting crime at the heart of the justice system and ensure the public is never put at risk again from the threat of prisons running out of space and police unable to make arrests.

    In the past 14 years just 500 extra places were added to the prison estate, despite the prison population nearly doubling over the last 30 years. To put an end to this crisis, the government confirmed plans last week to invest £4.7 billion more in prison building, putting the government on track to open 14,000 places by 2031. It will be the largest prison expansion since the Victorian era, and 2,400 places have already been opened since July 2024.

    Despite this unprecedented construction, the prison population is soaring – with the latest projections showing the country’s jails will be bust within months and 9,500 places short by early 2028 without further action. The government is taking the decisive action needed so we can protect the public and never allow the country to face the breakdown of our justice system again.

    Making the case before Parliament today, the Lord Chancellor said:

    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.

    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….This 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.

    Reforms accepted today will once and for all put prisons on a sustainable footing while protecting the public from dangerous criminals.

    One key change will be a new “earned progression model” that will see prisoners earn their way to release through good behaviour or face longer in jail. There will be no automatic release for prisoners who misbehave.

    The changes mean:

    • A prisoner’s release date will now be more dependent on their behaviour. We want to reduce violence in prison and make sure more prisoners engage with activities like education and employment that will reduce crime.
    • All offenders on standard determinate sentences will spend at least one-third of their sentence behind bars and have to earn their release at this point or face longer behind bars for bad behaviour.
    • While we expect most offenders on these sentences to be released between 33 and 50 per cent – there is no upper limit and the very worst behaved offenders could spend longer in prison.
    • Those serving standard determinate sentences for more serious offences will serve at least half in prison.

    While David Gauke has suggested maximums of 50 and 67 percent in custody, respectively, for these sentences, the government has decided not to impose these.

    In addition, the government has rejected the review’s recommendation to cut the minimum prison term for extended determinate sentences to 50%. The serious violent and sexual offenders serving these sentences will have to serve at least two-thirds of their sentence and their release will continue to be down to the Parole Board.

    To enforce this approach, the government will introduce a tougher adjudication regime so that bad behaviour in prisons is properly punished.

    When released, offenders will enter a new period of “intensive supervision” which will see tens of thousands more offenders tagged and many more placed under home detention.

    To support the Probation Service, the government will significantly increase its funding – by around 45% by the final year of the spending review period. This means the annual budget of around £1.6 billion today will rise by up to £700m by 2028/29.

    Other major changes include:

    • Earlier deportation of foreign national offenders who are blocking up jails – removing foreign prisoners who have already served 30% of their custodial term, down from 50%. The Government will also work up plans to remove foreign prisoners serving less than three years as soon as possible after their sentencing. This builds on the government’s work to surge removals of foreign national offenders, with 4,436 foreign national offenders removed since July 2024 – a 14% increase compared to the same period 12 months prior.
    • A presumption against custodial sentences of less than a year – in favour of tough community sentences that better punish offenders and stop them reoffending. Currently, almost 60 percent of those receiving a prison sentence of 12 months or less reoffended within a year. Judges will still retain the power to hand down sentences of 12 months or less to offenders who have breached a court order, including restraining orders and Domestic Abuse Protection Orders, and in exceptional circumstances.

    The government will expand tough punishments outside jail to force offenders to pay back the victims and communities they have harmed. This includes:

    • Greater use of curfews and exclusion zones to deliver tougher supervision than ever on criminals.
    • Exploring wider powers for judges to punish offenders by blocking them from attending football matches, banning them from driving or travelling abroad through an expansion of ‘ancillary orders’.
    • More Intensive Supervision Courts to tackle the root causes of crime such as alcohol and drug abuse – forcing repeat offenders to take part in tough treatment programmes or face prison.

    The Justice Secretary will also go further than the Review’s recommendations:

    • Developing new ways in which offenders can undertake tough, unpaid work, including doing a job for a private sector company with payment going to support victims. This could also include working closely with councils to find the jobs that need doing, including street cleaning and filling in potholes, and assigning an unpaid work team to complete them.
    • Expanding the use of ‘medicines which manage problematic sexual arousal’, often referred to as chemical suppressants, on sex offenders following a pilot in south-west England to two additional regions, as part of a nationwide rollout, while exploring making this mandatory.

    The Lord Chancellor added:

    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 and by cutting reoffending, we will have fewer victims in future.

    As part of the government’s safer streets mission and to make sure victims see justice done, the Lord Chancellor has also accepted recommendations to:

    • Increase tagging for VAWG perpetrators – enabling the closer monitoring of cowardly abusers to reassure victims, remove the onus from them to prove breaches had occurred.
    • Identify perpetrators of domestic abuse at sentencing – requiring judges to flag domestic abuse at sentencing so prisons, probation and police can better identify and manage abusers.
    • Expand Specialist Domestic Abuse Courts – bolstering support for victims and ensuring their abusers are properly supervised and rehabilitated.
    • Bolster transparency for victims at sentencing – including the provision of free copies of judges’ sentencing remarks for victims of rape and other sexual offences, and ensuring they receive the information and support they need to navigate the criminal justice system.

    Currently offenders can be given exclusion zones, preventing offenders from entering areas their victims might be. Going beyond the Review’s recommendations, the government will explore changes so some offenders are instead locked into specific ‘restriction zones’ monitored by GPS tags so victims can feel safe everywhere else.

  • PRESS RELEASE : DWP blocks £1 billion in incorrect payments in drive to protect people from falling into debt [May 2025]

    PRESS RELEASE : DWP blocks £1 billion in incorrect payments in drive to protect people from falling into debt [May 2025]

    The press release issued by the Department for Work and Pensions on 22 May 2025.

    More than £1 billion in incorrect Universal Credit (UC) payments have been blocked by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in a drive to stop people falling into financial difficulties.

    • Over £1 billion of incorrect Universal Credit payments stopped by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) – and set to reach £13.6 billion by 2030.
    • Drive to block incorrect payments significantly ramped up by Government since last summer.
    • Government efforts continue to protect taxpayers’ money from fraud, error and waste to reinvest in public services as part of its Plan for Change.

    The milestone was reached after a programme to review payments was ramped up last summer, with more than one million cases now looked at.

    Overpayments can ultimately lead to financial difficulties for claimants by causing them to fall into debt.

    The ‘Targeted Case Review’ was introduced in 2022 to detect incorrect payments, with around 25,000 claims reviewed in the first year.

    Since July 2024, DWP has nearly doubled the number of people working in its UC Targeted Case Review team.

    This significant increase in staff has boosted the number of existing claims reviewed to over one million, saving £1 billion in incorrect payments by detecting historic errors and preventing future overpayments that can result in debts accruing.

    The number of claim reviews will continue to ramp up now the department has reached its staff target, with nearly 6,000 staff to review claims with forecasted savings of £13.6 billion by 2030.

    Minister for Transformation, Andrew Western, said:

    This target could not have been reached without this significant boost to staffing numbers – meaning we now have forecasted savings of £13.6 billion by 2030.

    This is a vital programme not only ensuring overpayments are corrected but also makes certain people who are being underpaid receive the money they are entitled to.

    We will not tolerate fraud, error or waste and are committed to safeguard taxpayers’ money so it can be invested in the public services we all deserve.

    The ‘Targeted Case Review’ team reviews payments  to prevent customers falling into or accumulating further debt, identify unreported changes in circumstances, correct claims retrospectively, and refer suspected cases of fraud for investigation.

    Reviews verify claimants’ eligibility for the benefits they receive by sending a notification to their online account to request proof of identity and other documentation.

    In the Autumn Budget, the government committed to the continuation of Targeted Case Review activity for a further two years, with learnings used to prevent error from entering the welfare system in the first place. This will help provide a fair, high-quality service that ensures customers receive their full entitlement and avoid unnecessary debt.

    These major milestones come as the government outlines further plans to strengthen our ability to reduce fraud and error through the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill. This is alongside its work to support people into work and become less reliant on the benefit system to drive productivity and unlock growth as part of its Plan for Change.

    Additional Information

    • A breakdown of Targeted Case Review programme performance can be found on GOV.UK: Targeted Case Review Management Information – GOV.UK
    • Targeted Case Review (TCR) was an initiative announced in May 2022 in the former Government’s publication, Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System and is delivered by the Universal Credit Claim Review (UCR) team.
    • Universal Credit (UC) Claim Reviews are not fraud investigations and are not designed to detect attempts to deceive. As part of a claim review, evidence is requested to enable any unreported changes in circumstances to be detected and correct claims where needed. This can include finding over and under payments. Like any other benefit review undertaken by the department, it can lead to a referral to the Counter Fraud Team should fraud be suspected.
    • A diligent approach has been maintained to ensure the customer is supported throughout the review process with the expectation that the service be adapted to address any early signs of failings. The programme has been encouraged by the number of examples of agents able to assist customers more broadly than checking claim correctness. For example, signposting to wider support to provide vital help when needed and identifying customers not receiving the right level of Universal Credit.
    • Since July 2024, the DWP has significantly increased the number of people working in the UC Targeted Case Review team – recruiting a further 2,500 staff by February 2025 to reach the target of 5,930.
  • PRESS RELEASE : Russia’s war must end without delay, and the way it ends should matter to us all – UK statement to the OSCE [May 2025]

    PRESS RELEASE : Russia’s war must end without delay, and the way it ends should matter to us all – UK statement to the OSCE [May 2025]

    The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 22 May 2025.

    Ambassador Holland corrects Russia’s claims that the UK wishes to prolong the war in Ukraine. He calls for it to end without delay but explains why the way in which it ends should matter to all OSCE participating States.

    Thank you, Mister Chair.  Last week I felt the need to reply to allegations made by our Russian colleagues in this forum that the UK was somehow invested in prolonging their war against Ukraine. I did so because that is genuinely incorrect and I wanted to correct the misrepresentation.  Let me explain in more detail.

    The UK does not want this war to continue.  This has been a truly awful conflict. We have seen death, injury and destruction on a scale not witnessed in Europe for eighty years.  I shouldn’t have to repeat this after more than three long years of regularly demanding an end to this war repeatedly in this forum but let me say it again: the UK wants this war to end without delay.  But the way in which it ends should matter to us all. And none of us need a history lesson to know why.

    Russia believes it is entitled to a sphere of influence in its neighbourhood, a belief that runs against the letter and spirit of the Helsinki Final Act. It has a long track record of establishing frozen conflicts on its periphery which it uses as  tools to manipulate and control by dialling up and down the temperature to increase or decrease the levels of political and military instability.  This has to stop. It cannot be allowed to repeat this in Ukraine; both because Russia has no right to do so, but also because it almost guarantees a return to war at some point in the future.

    The best insurance against further bloodshed is a peace that offers Ukraine the prospect of genuine security, deters Russia from further aggression and that respects the UN Charter and the commitments we all made in the Helsinki Final Act.  To allow anything else would be to encourage aggression elsewhere. And an erosion of these laws and norms risks instability for us all.  None of us would truly benefit from this outcome, including Russia, even if they fail to see this now.

    This is not an attempt to deliver a “strategic defeat” on Russia:  it is neither UK policy nor strategy to seek regime change in Russia.  It is not the UK who launched little green men into Crimea in 2014.  It is not the UK who launched a full-scale invasion of its neighbour. And it is not the UK who talks peace but wages war. And just to be really clear, it is not “rabid Russophobia”: we take no issue with the Russian people whose sons and daughters are paying the ultimate price in shockingly high numbers.  This is about supporting Ukraine’s self-defence against an unprovoked attack and about defending the commitments that, if respected, are there to keep us all safe.

    We welcome the important contributions that the US and Türkiye have made in moving us towards a just and lasting peace.  The direct talks in Istanbul on 16 May were a first step, and we welcome the agreement between Russia and Ukraine to exchange one thousand prisoners of war each.  But to create space for serious talks, and to bring an end to the killing as quickly as possible, we urge Russia to agree to an immediate, complete and unconditional 30-day ceasefire, just as Ukraine has done. If Russia does not engage seriously with this process, we are prepared to ratchet up the pressure on Russia with new sanctions, building on our package earlier this week. Not because we want to delay peace, but because we want to pressure Russia to choose peace. For after all, it is Russia’s choice.

    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.

  • Catherine McKinnell – 2025 Statement on Teacher’s Pay

    Catherine McKinnell – 2025 Statement on Teacher’s Pay

    The statement made by Catherine McKinnell, the Minister for School Standards, in the House of Commons on 22 May 2025.

    May I start by thanking our teachers, school leaders and school staff for all they are doing right now to ensure a successful exam season for students, and indeed for all their hard work throughout the year?

    Rather than scaremongering with fantasy statistics, the Government are getting on and delivering. We are already seeing positive signs that our plan for change is working. Teacher recruitment is up, with 2,000 more people in training than last year. Teacher retention is up, with thousands more teachers forecast to stay in the profession over the next three years. This Labour Government are getting on and delivering. Unlike the Opposition, who last year sat on the STRB report, hid from their responsibility and left it to Labour to sort out, this afternoon we will announce the teachers’ pay award, which will be the earliest announcement for a decade.

    We understand the importance of giving schools certainty, giving them time to plan their budgets, and ensuring that they can recruit and retain the expert teachers our children need. The Secretary of State’s written ministerial statement will be coming out this afternoon—[Interruption.] It will show once again that this Labour Government—

    Mr Speaker

    Order. I have granted the urgent question, so please will Members on the Opposition Front Bench wait for the Minister to finish her answer. I do not want you, Ms Trott and Mr O’Brien, to be a bad example of this school class.

    Catherine McKinnell

    The written ministerial statement is laid before the House and will be coming out this afternoon, showing once again that this Labour Government are getting on and delivering on our plan for change.

    Mr Speaker

    I call the shadow Secretary of State.

    Laura Trott

    Mr Speaker, this is absolutely outrageous. It is astonishing that we have had to summon the Government to the House today, but the Minister cannot even tell us what pay rise teachers will get and whether it is going to be funded. That does not allow us to scrutinise the matter in this House.

    The Government said that they would tax private schools to fund 6,500 more teachers, but the reality is that state schools have not got any of that money. Instead, we have had broken promises on compensating schools for the jobs tax, confirmation from the Department for Education itself that there will be a shortfall in teacher pay funding, which we are not allowed to discuss here today in this urgent question, and uncertainty as to what the actual pay rise for teachers will be. That is a disgrace, and it is the opposite of what people who voted for Labour expected.

    All that is in the final two weeks when headteachers up and down the country have to decide whether to make teachers redundant in time for September—in fact, sadly, many schools will already have made the difficult decision to let good teachers go. These are job losses on the Minister’s watch, due to her inability to provide schools with the clarity that they need. Do not just take my word for it. Dan Moynihan, from the Harris Federation, says that it proposes to make 40 to 45 teachers redundant. Jon Coles, the chief executive of United Learning, which runs 90 state sector academies, said that the trust has been left with £10.5 million a year of unfunded costs. He said:

    “It’s no good Treasury waving their hands and saying ‘efficiency’—that would be 400 job losses. Sector wide, that would extrapolate to ruinous harm in the one well-functioning public service: tens of thousands of redundancies.”

    Simon Pink, the finance director at the Elliot Foundation, which has 36 primaries, said:

    “This is the toughest budget…in a generation.”

    One secondary school headteacher has already had to cut two teaching assistant posts and a teacher role due to rising national insurance and anticipated wage rises.

    What is the pay rise that the Government recommend for teachers? The Prime Minister’s spokesman said on 28 April:

    “There’ll be no additional funding for pay.”

    Yesterday, the Government started to U-turn on the winter fuel allowance. Will the Minister now fully U-turn and fund the national insurance rise and agree to fully fund the pay increases, whatever they are?

    Catherine McKinnell

    Neither I nor any Minister in this Government will take lessons from Conservative Members, who, after 14 long years in power, had still not restored real-terms spending in our schools to the level that they inherited. The brass neck of the Opposition is quite extraordinary. Conservative Members would also do well to remember the difficult decisions that this Government have had to take because of the utter mess that they left behind. The right hon. Lady was in the Treasury, creating the mess—she knows very well what happened.

    Recruiting, retaining and supporting expert teachers is central to our vision for delivering high and rising standards in our schools. Despite the challenging financial context and years of missed recruitment targets under the previous Government, this Administration are prioritising education and ensuring that every child has access to a high-quality teacher. We are working at pace to ensure excellence for every child. That is why we remain committed to our manifesto pledge for 6,500 teachers and to ensuring that it responds to the demand in secondary schools, special schools and further education.

    We know that high-quality teaching is the in-school factor that has the biggest positive impact on a child’s outcomes, breaking down barriers to opportunity for every child, so recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers is clearly absolutely central to our vision for delivering high and rising standards. That is why, despite the challenging financial context and years of missed recruitment targets, we are getting on and delivering on our plan for change. The right hon. Lady will have to wait, like everybody else, for the statement that she knows is coming this afternoon.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Major £1.5 billion defence contract with British firm ensures world-class equipment testing for UK forces and secures 1,200 jobs [May 2025]

    PRESS RELEASE : Major £1.5 billion defence contract with British firm ensures world-class equipment testing for UK forces and secures 1,200 jobs [May 2025]

    The press release issued by the Ministry of Defence on 22 May 2025.

    UK Armed Forces will benefit from world-class equipment training and testing under a contract which supports more than 1,200 skilled jobs across the UK.

    The five-year £1.5 billion contract extension with British defence firm QinetiQ provides test, trial, training and evaluation of defence equipment and capabilities at 16 Ministry of Defence sites. This includes missile firings, test pilot training and delivering live-threat scenarios.

    The Long-Term Partnering Agreement will sustain 1,200 UK jobs, including more than 200 in Scotland and 200 in Wales, delivering on the government’s Plan for Change by boosting jobs and prosperity for working people, while keeping the nation safe.

    The investment supports an extensive supply chain of 825 companies, including 590 small-to-medium enterprises – demonstrating the government’s commitment to small businesses and their access to the defence market and ensuring defence is an engine for growth in every region and nation of the UK.

    The contract will ensure UK Armed Forces equipment remains combat-ready and will support the delivery of future capabilities, including the Global Combat Air Programme’s next-generation combat aircraft.

    The Agreement has supported key moments for UK capabilities, including the first launch of a ballistic rocket into space from the UK, the first firing of a high-power laser directed energy weapon – DragonFire – against aerial targets and Europe’s first successful demonstration of teaming a piloted aircraft with an autonomous air vehicle.

    Defence Secretary John Healey MP said:

    Rigorously tested equipment and the trialling of emerging technologies are key to ensuring our Armed Forces are using combat-ready capabilities on the frontline.

    The contract will help keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad, as we drive forward innovation to bolster our national security and support skilled jobs across the UK.

    With hundreds of British businesses supported by this investment through QinetiQ’s supply chain, we are demonstrating how defence is an engine for growth across the UK, and delivering on our Plan for Change.

    Under the agreement, QinetiQ will invest in modernising the UK’s equipment testing capabilities to keep pace with operational needs. The contract will also support around 30 early careers professionals, providing development opportunities such as digital training in modelling and simulation for engineers.

    Earlier this month, QinetiQ hosted Formidable Shield, a NATO joint strike exercise, at the Hebrides range in Scotland – one of the 16 Ministry of Defence sites managed under the Long-Term Partnering Agreement, which was first signed in 2003.

    Steve Wadey, Group Chief Executive Officer at QinetiQ, said:

    Through the LTPA, we play a vital role helping to protect and enhance the UK’s defence and security. The extension of our partnership with MOD enables us to continue investing to deliver the transformational change in test and evaluation that’s required to ensure our armed forces have operational advantage over disruptive technologies.

    We’re seeing increased demand for our services from NATO countries and this LTPA extension positions the UK as a leading centre for T3E, and facilitates the delivery of major equipment platforms as well as future upgrade programmes.

  • PRESS RELEASE : New funding for regulators to cut red tape, like speeding up clinical trials through AI and trialling drones for medical emergencies [May 2025]

    PRESS RELEASE : New funding for regulators to cut red tape, like speeding up clinical trials through AI and trialling drones for medical emergencies [May 2025]

    The press release issued by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on 22 May 2025.

    Funding announced for new round of the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund.

    • Fourth round of the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund opens today to help bring innovations in critical sectors such as healthcare and transport to market quicker
    • Builds on the success of 24 projects already backed – including AI to boost clinical trials, drones for emergency medical deliveries, and first-of-its-kind regulatory guidance to speed-up access to innovative medicines and treatments
    • Supports delivery of our Plan for Change, speeding up access to new technologies that will deliver better services for the public

    New technologies, like drones for delivering vital supplies to smarter medical software using AI to help doctors spot diseases earlier, could reach the public faster through new funding to cut unnecessary red tape and keep pace with innovation (Thursday 22 May).

    The Regulators’ Pioneer Fund supports regulators to trial new, more efficient ways of working that allow businesses to bring their innovations to market faster, in turn supporting the economic growth at the centre of our Plan for Change.

    The launch of the fourth round – worth £5.5 million in total – builds on its previous phase, which supported 24 pioneering projects across the country unlocking new opportunities in sectors like health, transport, and energy.

    Supported projects include exploring safer ways for drones to fly in the same skies as other aircraft – which could contribute £45 billion to the UK economy at its highest potential. These trials have laid the groundwork for future drone deliveries, and helped regulators keep up with new technologies while making sure people are protected and rules are clear and fair. Other projects include using realistic, computer-generated data to speed up results of clinical trials, which could in future help get new medical treatments out sooner.

    The fourth round of Regulators’ Pioneer Fund is open to regulators and local authorities across the UK and will include projects in key growth areas such as AI in healthcare, engineering biology, space, and connected and autonomous vehicles. Projects might include smarter ways to test new treatments, manage the use of airspace for drones, or support technologies like lab-grown foods – helping ensure the rules are fit for purpose to bring innovations to market.

    This latest round – delivered by the Regulatory Innovation Office – is now open to regulators and local authorities across the UK. It will support bold ideas that back some of the UK’s most promising growth sectors – including AI to support the NHS, engineered biology to improve food security, satellite tech to improve farming and climate tracking, and self-driving vehicles. It’s part of the government’s Plan for Change to make the UK the best place to test and grow new ideas, while making life better for the public.

    Science Minister Lord Vallance said:

    Smarter, more agile regulation is key to businesses bringing ideas to market faster, while giving the public confidence in new technologies.

    These projects show how regulators can work with industry to unlock breakthroughs – from autonomous drones improving emergency services, to AI that cuts the cost and time spent on clinical trials.

    By backing this kind of innovation, we’re helping to make the UK the best place in the world to launch, test and scale new ideas, and drive the economic growth we need to improve lives and deliver our Plan for Change.

    Some of the innovative work delivered through the previous round (RPF3) includes:

    • In Milton Keynes, funding helped local authorities trial drone deliveries for urgent medical supplies and environmental monitoring. This included exploring new ways such as carrying out low-risk test flights and sensors to track the drones’ path to safely test and approve these services – helping emergency responders and healthcare providers get what they need faster, while reducing emissions and traffic congestion. The project is also laying the foundations for a future UK-wide drone economy, predicted to be worth up to £45 billion by 2030.
    • At the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), funding was used to explore the use of synthetic data in clinical trials – specifically through synthetic control arms, which use computer-generated data to replace some of the participants who would normally receive a placebo. This approach can make trials quicker, cheaper, and more inclusive, while still ensuring safety and effectiveness. Patients could benefit from faster access to new treatments, supporting efforts to improve health outcomes and reduce pressure on our NHS.
    • The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) supported the aviation industry to reduce regulatory challenges on the safe introduction of hydrogen as an aviation fuel at a commercial scale and making progress towards bringing zero-emission flight to UK skies. Their work will position the UK as a global leader in sustainable aviation, supporting job creation and contributing to net zero goals.

    All projects receive tailored support from the Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO), which helps regulators coordinate efforts and safely trial new approaches.

    Notes to editors

    Dr Puja Myles, Director of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink at the MHRA, said:

    The RPF grant has given us a better understanding of the scenarios when synthetic data could be used to boost sample sizes of clinical trials.

    This project is part of the MHRA’s work to promote innovation and embrace emerging technologies in clinical trials, to help get new treatments to patients faster.

    Tim Johnson, Director of Policy at the UK Civil Aviation Authority, said:

    The Regulators’ Pioneer Fund has been instrumental in helping the UK Civil Aviation Authority explore how it can enable innovators to develop new products and services, including the safe introduction of hydrogen as an aviation fuel.

    This support has helped us engage early with those who are researching and developing this technology, understand key regulatory challenges, and starting to lay the groundwork for zero-emission flight in the UK.

    Cabinet Member for Planning and Placemaking and Milton Keynes City Council, Councillor Shanika Mahendran, said:

    Thanks to the RPF, we’ve been able to start building the groundwork for using drones to make services more efficient. It’s given us a chance to explore what safety checks and rules we need to follow so we can move from just testing drones to using them in the long-term.

  • PRESS RELEASE : British Ambassador Visits Lebanon’s Eastern Borders with Syria [May 2025]

    PRESS RELEASE : British Ambassador Visits Lebanon’s Eastern Borders with Syria [May 2025]

    The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 22 May 2025.

    The visit underscores the UK’s commitment to strengthening Lebanese Army capabilities in extending state authority over its border with Syria.

    The British Ambassador to Lebanon Hamish Cowell visited Lebanon’s eastern borders with Syria to see first hand the UK’s efforts to support the Lebanese Armed Forces’ (LAF) enhanced border security capabilities.

    This visit underscores the UK’s commitment to strengthening LAF capabilities in extending state authority over its border with Syria, countering smuggling activities, and safeguarding local communities.

    During the visit, Ambassador Cowell met with military and local officials. The Ambassador and the Mokhtar of Yanta Riad Saab and other local citizens visited a solar-powered water pumping station as part of initiatives aimed at strengthening civil-military cooperation, within areas of operation for the Land Border Regiments (LBRs).

    Following his visit Ambassador Cowell said:

    The United Kingdom remains steadfast in its support for Lebanon’s sovereignty and security. Our partnership with the Lebanese Armed Forces is crucial in helping to maintain stability across Lebanon, and protecting the livelihoods of those living near the border.

    I am proud of our support and the UK’s role as a key partner to the LAF; through the UK Integrated Security Fund we have supported the establishment of the Land Border Regiments (LBRs) on the border with Syria since 2013 and have provided over £115m worth of assistance to the LAF.

    The Land Border Regiments have helped reinforce the security of this border and the authority of the Lebanese State’s authority over these areas.

    In Yanta, I was impressed to see the solar-powered water pumping station project benefiting hundreds in the area. This project delivers a sustainable, environmentally friendly solution to the water supply needs of the Yanta community. An excellent example of the LAF and communities coming together.