debates/debates2025-04-30a conversation_15
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-04-30)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-04-30a conversation_15

Alex Ballinger:I welcome the Government’s decision this month to secure British Steel. At a time when European security is critical, defence manufacturers in the Black Country, like Somers Forge in Halesowen and B.B. Price in Cradley Heath, will be using that steel to make the military equipment that our defence needs. Will the Prime Minister commit to make manufacturing investment in the Black Country a national priority so that we can live up to our industrial heritage and create the high-quality defence jobs that our region so desperately needs? \p Keir Starmer: I pay tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend for his service to his country. He understands that our national security and economic security go hand in hand. It is vital that defence investment creates more jobs, apprenticeships and opportunities in the Black Country and across the United Kingdom. That is why we have launched a new hub to give up to 12,000 small firms better access to defence contracts. We are raising defence spending, with the highest sustained increase since the cold war—something that the Conservatives failed to do in 14 years in office. \p John Healey: I wish to make a statement to update the House on the action we took last night against a Houthi military target. We did so in collective self-defence and to uphold the freedom of navigation, as Britain has always done.

Yesterday, UK forces conducted a joint operation with US allies against a Houthi military facility in Yemen. Our intelligence analysis identified a cluster of buildings 15 miles south of Sanaa used by the Houthis to manufacture drones of the type used to attack ships in the Red sea and in the gulf of Aden. Royal Air Force Typhoon FGR4s, with air refuelling support from RAF Voyager tankers, struck a number of those buildings with Paveway IV precision bombs last night. This action was limited, targeted and devised to minimise the risk to civilian life. Everyone involved in the UK operation has returned to base safely. On behalf of the House, I thank all members of our armed forces involved in this operation and pay tribute to them for their total professionalism and courage.

Yesterday’s operation was carried out alongside the US, our closest security ally. It was conducted in line with both the UN charter and the established UK policy of this Government and the last; you will remember, Mr Speaker, that when Labour was in opposition, it backed the Government when they conducted five separate strikes with the US against Houthi targets.

Yesterday’s attack aligns with four broad objectives. The first is to restore freedom of navigation in the Red sea and the gulf of Aden, the second is to degrade Houthi capability and prevent future attacks, the third is to reinforce regional security alongside allies and partners, and the fourth is to protect our economic security at home. First thing this morning, the Government briefed the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge); the Speakers of both Houses; the Liberal Democrats’ defence spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire); and the Chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). I can now tell the House that our initial assessment is that the planned targets were all successfully hit, and we have seen no evidence of civilian casualties.

Since November 2023, the Houthis have been waging a campaign of aggression against international shipping in the Red sea. To date, there have been over 320 attacks; those attacks are illegal and deadly, and we totally condemn them. Maritime routes have been disrupted, sailors have been killed, and commercial ships have been hit and sunk. The Houthis have even targeted aid vessels destined for Yemen itself, as well as military vessels of our allies and partners. Both the Royal Navy and the US navy have been forced into action in the Red sea—last September, I met the crew of HMS Diamond, who shot down a ballistic missile and multiple drones in self-defence during their deployment in the Red sea.

Make no mistake: the Houthis act as an agent of instability across the region. They continue to receive both military and financial backing from Iran, and even Russia has attempted to support the Houthi operations. The aggression in the Red sea and the gulf of Aden is yet another example of how our adversaries are increasingly  working together against our interests. As such, I want to be clear that this Government reject any Houthi claims that attacking ships in the Red sea is somehow supporting Gaza. The Houthis were targeting tankers and seizing ships well before the war in Gaza began, and their attacks since have targeted vessels of all nations, so hear me when I say that these attacks do absolutely nothing for the Palestinian people or the push for a lasting peace.

An estimated 12% of global trade and 30% of container traffic passes through the Red sea every year, but the Houthi threat has led to a drastic fall. Levels are down by 55% on what they were in November 2023; the majority of ships now take a 5,000-mile diversion around the Cape of Good Hope, adding a full fortnight to a journey between Asia and Europe and pushing up prices for the goods that British people and others rely on. This cannot continue.

In opposition, I argued that, for what is now 80 years,

“the lion’s share of the responsibility for protecting international freedom of navigation in the Red sea is being shouldered by the Americans, just as the US has been doing across the world”—[Official Report, 24 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 355.]

Since last month, the US has been conducting a sustained campaign, targeting the Houthis in Yemen to restore freedom of navigation. It moved two carriers into the region, and its recent strikes have destroyed multiple command and control centres, air defence systems, advanced weapons manufacturing sites and advanced weapons storage sites. The US military says that its operations have now degraded the effectiveness of the Houthi attack, reporting that ballistic missile launches have dropped by 69% and one-way drone attacks are down by 55%.

The US continues to be the UK’s closest security ally. It is stepping up in the Red sea, and we are alongside it. Yesterday’s joint operation builds on the broader support that we have provided to the US in the region in recent months. That includes air-to-air refuelling; the use of our important military base, Diego Garcia, for regional security operations; and RAF Typhoons to support the defence of the US carrier strike group, which has been coming under near-daily attack from Houthi missiles and drones.

This Government will always act in the interests of our national and economic security. The UK is stepping up and encouraging allies to do more to protect our common security, just as we are with the eight-month deployment of our carrier strike group to the Mediterranean and the Indo-Pacific, which started last week. The UK has a long and proud history of taking action to protect freedom of navigation. This illegal Houthi aggression does not just disrupt shipping and destabilise the region; it hits our economy here at home. That is why the Government took this decision. It is why the UK has taken this action to help protect freedom of navigation, reinforce regional stability and strengthen economic security for families across the country. We are determined that we will keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad. \p James Cartlidge: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement and to the Minister for the Armed Forces for the briefing he extended to me and other parliamentarians  earlier today. As far as His Majesty’s Opposition are concerned, the rationale for these actions has not changed since we undertook similar operations in government in the months leading up to the general election, with the support of the then Opposition. We agree that this action is effectively an act of self-defence on behalf of ourselves and our closest allies.

With the main target for RAF Typhoons being a Houthi drone factory, we should remember that drones were used by the Houthis to target our own naval ships, such as the attempted drone attack on HMS Diamond in January last year. While HMS Diamond was able to take effective action in response on that occasion, we know that this capability can be produced in very large numbers and that the threat remains a clear and present danger. Indeed, we understand that the US navy continues to be subject to Houthi aggression, including from drones. In our view, it is therefore entirely legitimate to support the defence of our close ally, the US, and to prevent future potential attacks on our own fleet and international shipping by attacking the Houthi drone threat at source.

The Houthis’ actions are not just a threat to ourselves and our allies; as the Secretary of State said, they are illegal and completely counter to international humanitarian priorities, given that their attacks have imperilled aid deliveries to the Yemeni people, while undermining a crucial shipping route for grain en route to some of the poorest people in the world. The Government therefore have our full support for this latest operation, and the Opposition are grateful to the brave and highly skilled personnel of the Royal Air Force who conducted the mission, including the Typhoon crews and those supporting the air-to-air refuelling mission. In particular, we welcome their safe return and the completion of what appears to be a successful operation in degrading Houthi drone capability.

The US has been undertaking its own self-defence against Houthi attacks, and we very much welcome the close working with US allies, as was the case when we were in government working with the previous Administration in the US. That underlines the continuity of our most important strategic military partnership, and it is right that we work as closely as possible with the US to address threats to freedom of navigation.

That being said, freedom of navigation is vital to the ships of many nations, not just the UK and the US. The whole world benefits from action taken to keep international shipping flowing, which supports the wider economy. Can the Secretary of State update us on what talks he has had with other allies, including NATO members, on providing direct military support against the Houthi threat in future? After all, it is not only a threat to many other nations, but involves other hostile states, notably Iran, with its long-running support not just for the Houthis, but for Hezbollah, Hamas and other armed groups in Iraq and elsewhere. How will the UK dock in to the approach being taken by the new US Administration towards Iran?

The Secretary of State referred to Russian involvement. Can he confirm reports that the Houthis have received targeting assistance with potential ballistic missile attacks from Russia? Does that not show why supporting Ukraine against Russia is about a much wider strategic picture  that directly threatens the United Kingdom? He also referred to the use of our military base, Diego Garcia, for regional security operations, but soon it will not be ours. Does this kind of action not show why surrendering its sovereignty is so reckless?

Let me finally turn to the subject of the strategic defence review. It is very concerning that the permanent secretary to the Ministry of Defence told the Public Accounts Committee on Monday:

“it is a strategic defence review that will need to be translated into a set of specific investment decisions in individual capabilities and projects. That will be work for later in the summer and into the autumn.”

The Secretary of State knows of the need for urgent procurement decisions relating directly to the Houthi threat in the Red sea, not least on upgrades to the Sea Viper system, which we believe must be accelerated. He also knows that procurement is largely on hold, awaiting the publication of the SDR. He promised to publish it in the spring; can he confirm that it will definitely be published in May—which is the last month of spring—and, most importantly, can he confirm that in May we will see the full details of all major individual procurement choices, so that the MOD can get on with them as a matter of the utmost urgency? \p John Healey: I welcome the tone and content of the hon. Gentleman’s response to my statement. Labour backed the last Government’s strikes against the Houthis and, as he pointed out, the rationale then was the same as the rationale now. That was a useful contribution to this discussion. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the clear and present threat that the Houthis pose to all nations, including ours and our closest allies, is also the same.

When I was shadow Defence Secretary and responded to what was said by the last Government, I did so as the hon. Gentleman has responded today, because this is bigger than politics. It is about freedom of navigation, it is about regional stability, and it is about that most important security relationship that the United Kingdom has with the United States.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about specific capabilities. We are now able to plan to provide the best possible kit for our armed forces, because of the historic commitment that the Prime Minister made to the House in February to raise the level of defence spending to 2.5%—three years earlier than the date that was in the hon. Gentleman’s own unfunded plans—and then to raise it to 3% in the next Parliament. He asked about the capabilities on some of our naval ships. When I met the crew of HMS Diamond in the autumn, they demonstrated to me, and described to me in detail, just how exceptional their response to that multiple attack was, and just how effective the weaponry on the ship was at that time. We are upgrading those ships with a number of capabilities, including DragonFire. It was the hon. Gentleman who first talked about that, but we are installing it not on just one ship, as he proposed, but on four; we are installing it sooner than he planned; and we are funding it fully, which he had not done.

The hon. Gentleman asked about discussions with other nations. The importance of regional stability, the Houthi threats and the freedom of navigation in the Red sea were discussed by Foreign Ministers at the G7, and have been discussed by NATO Foreign Ministers in  the last month. The very carrier strike group whose deployment the hon. Gentleman welcomed last week is multinational by design. It is designed to exercise together but also, together, to reassert some of the basic principles that last night’s attacks were designed to support, such as the freedom of navigation of our seas. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee. \p Tan Dhesi: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and to the Minister for the Armed Forces for his in-person briefing beforehand.

I am glad that our brave service personnel who were involved in yesterday’s strike have returned home safely, and that the precision sovereign strike has destroyed the drone factory with no civilian casualties. I agree with the Secretary of State that Houthi attacks since 2023 have tragically killed innocent merchant mariners, led to a shocking 55% drop in shipping through the Red sea costing billions, fuelled regional instability, and exacerbated the cost of living crisis here in the UK and across the globe. However, on the basis of current intelligence, how confident is he that following yesterday’s strike there will be freedom of navigation and that there will be no further loss of life because of the Houthis? \p John Healey: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support for the action that we took overnight. It was part of a sustained campaign—a US campaign that we are working alongside. There is no overnight solution to this, but according to the evidence reported by the US military about this new sustained, intensive campaign, it seems to be having an effect on the pace, the rate, and the threat that the Houthis pose. Our action last night was designed to reinforce that campaign, to support the push for regional stability, and to protect the domestic economy and protect against the impact of the disruption in international shipping and its effect on prices for ordinary people. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Helen Maguire: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and I thank the Minister for the Armed Forces for his briefing earlier today.

The Houthis’ destabilising military campaign in the Red sea has had a chilling effect on trade through that vital waterway, threatening lives while imposing costs on British businesses and consumers. The Houthis cannot be allowed to act with impunity and hold the global economy to ransom by restricting freedom of navigation. It is important that their military capabilities are degraded to ensure that trade can flow freely, which is why the Liberal Democrats support the case for limited strikes. We thank the service personnel involved for their bravery, and we are pleased that they have returned home safely. However, it is vital that we fully understand the operational goals behind the mission, as well as the intelligence planning and co-ordination of the strikes.

Can the Secretary of State explain to the House why the Government have chosen this occasion to join US forces in a joint strike, rather than doing so on previous similar missions? The recent leaks from President Trump’s Cabinet, also pertaining to military action in Yemen  against the Houthis, raise concerning questions about how secure US intelligence is and the possible impact on British service personnel. In the light of those leaks, can the Secretary of State reassure us that intelligence-sharing with the US is completely secure, and can he tell us whether the Government have undertaken an assessment of the security of our intelligence-sharing networks with the US? I was reassured to hear from him that the Government have no evidence of any loss of civilian life, but can he update the House on what steps were taken ahead of the mission in an effort to minimise civilian casualties? \p John Healey: Before I respond to the hon. Lady, may I point out that I neglected to respond to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) on the subject of the SDR? When it is published in the spring, all his questions will be answered.

I welcome the hon. Lady’s recognition of the importance of degrading the military capabilities of the Houthis, and I welcome her support for the action that we took last night. I say to her with confidence and reassurance that our own UK intelligence and communications systems remain secure.

The hon. Lady asked, “Why now?” First, the decision and the action that we took were in line with long-established policy, both UK policy and the United Nations charter. Secondly, it was a reflection of the fact that, as I have reported to the House, the US is stepping up and we, as a close ally, are alongside it in this action. Thirdly, our purpose is to protect our economy at home, because most of the shipping in this busiest of international sea routes makes a big detour that pushes up prices and has a direct impact on not just our security interests but our economic interests in Britain. That is why we are acting. \p Emily Thornberry: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Houthis say that they are shelling international shipping in order to help the Palestinians, but does my right hon. Friend agree that by not just undermining international trade but causing a devastating decline in the use of the Suez canal and crashing the numbers of cruise ships visiting Aqaba, they are actually attacking Egypt and Jordan—two countries which could not be working harder for a future for the Palestinians, which could not be giving more support, whether it is financial, political or diplomatic, and which provide a refuge for so many? Does he agree that if the Houthis really care about the Palestinians, they should simply stop this? \p John Healey: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Jordan and Egypt are doing a lot of the heavy lifting in trying to support the Palestinians, and it is notable that there is no evidence that the Houthis have provided any aid to the Palestinians in Gaza. The action that they are taking, which is causing disruption and the intensification of insecurity in the region, is doing absolutely nothing to help the Palestinians’ cause. \p Oliver Dowden: I welcome this action and join the Defence Secretary in paying tribute to our exemplary armed forces. It is essential that we tackle the tentacles of Iran through all its proxies—whether  it is the Houthis, Hamas or Hezbollah—which do so much damage to Israel and the wider middle east, and not least to the people of Palestine. One fundamental question, as he will know from our discussions when I was Deputy Prime Minister, is about the long-term strategy to eliminate the threat of the Houthis to Red sea shipping. For the benefit of the House, will the Defence Secretary give some further indication of the new Government’s thinking on the long-term strategy to address this threat? \p John Healey: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for going out of his way when he was Deputy Prime Minister, as this Government are doing now, to ensure that we were well briefed on such strikes. He is absolutely right to say that military action against the Houthis can take us only so far. The wider strategy must, therefore, involve the UK doing what we can to work with allies, especially in the region: first, to constrain the Houthis, as our action overnight was designed to do; secondly, to bolster the strength, authority and capability of the Yemeni Government, which is why the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), announced support earlier this year; and thirdly, to pursue the importance of a negotiated settlement that gives Yemen a peaceful way forward, while in the meantime not losing sight of our responsibility as a nation to support the Yemeni people, who are suffering greatly.

The right hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary announced in January an extra £5 million-worth of UK aid for Yemen, which brought the total over the previous 12 months to £144 million. The UK remains the third largest donor to the Yemeni humanitarian programme. \p Derek Twigg: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and echo his words about the courage and professionalism of our service personnel. It is good that everyone has returned safely.

Having a strong and capable military is essential to ensuring our economic security and freedom of trade. Is that not why financial institutions and pension funds should increase their investment in defence industries, and not listen to voices opposed to that? \p John Healey: Quite right. My hon. Friend will be interested to hear about the work that I and the Chancellor have commissioned together on the barriers in the UK that are holding back private sources of investment in our defence and technology industries. An important part of the defence industrial strategy, which we will be able to publish before too long, will be about how we use the big commitment of this Government and this country to invest in defence and make our armed forces fit for the future, and how we can use that to leverage much more investment from private sector sources so that we can do more, more quickly. \p Julian Lewis: It is unusual for a terrorist group engaged in a civil war to invite retaliation of this sort by attacking international shipping so comprehensively. Clearly, the Houthis are acting as an agent of Iran. Can the Secretary of State advise us  what the Government know about the ability of Iran to keep fuelling the attacks in the Red sea? Now that the domestic ability to manufacture drones in Yemen has been degraded, how easy will it be for Iran to supply them directly to the Houthis? \p John Healey: The short answer is that we must do what we can with allies to make it as hard as possible for Iran to maintain both its financial support to the Houthis and its logistical, munitions and military support and supplies. We are working on that with allies and, as I said to the House earlier, the straight military action that we were conducting last night is part of the solution for the long term. It is not the whole solution. \p Michelle Scrogham: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. We have had a long-standing relationship with the US, which is our closest security ally. Does he agree that our continued work on AUKUS will help to deepen and strengthen that for all the nations involved? \p John Healey: It will indeed. The AUKUS programme is a good example of how big defence commitments provide not just long-term deterrent commitments to our own security and that of our allies but an important economic boost, showing how defence can be a driver of economic growth. My hon. Friend, who has the privilege of representing the town of Barrow and its royal shipyard, will know better than anyone how important that combination is. It is hardwired into the approach that this Government take. \p Dave Doogan: The brutal oppression of the Palestinians in Gaza will not be helped one iota by the bombing of merchant shipping and drone strikes against the merchant marine, so we are supportive of the action that has been taken. It seems to be an operation that has the appearance of something which may endure into a more strategic affair. Does the Secretary of State agree that, notwithstanding the general consensus in the Chamber on the action that was taken, a broader debate in Parliament would be desirable—not to discuss operational imperatives, plans or anything of that nature, but to further reinforce the will of the House? While he celebrates the actions of aircrew, will he further acknowledge that the aircrew would not be able to do their tremendous work if it was not for all the other trades that keep them mobilised? \p John Healey: Well said. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that standing behind our armed forces and the ultimate professionalism that they display is a large cadre of civilian and military personnel who make operations successful and possible. He would be wrong to say that this is a sustained campaign. This is the first UK strike on Houthi positions since May last year, and Parliament will be kept informed in the event of any future military interventions like this. \p Calvin Bailey: Freedom of navigation in the Red sea and the gulf of Aden is essential to the global economic system, and anything that impinges on it impacts the global economy, increases the cost to the environment and impacts the poorest people in the world. It is for this reason that I am proud  to be the former commander of the expeditionary air wing whose Typhoons and Voyagers were launched last night to carry out these strikes. Does the Defence Secretary agree that this action forms part of the joined-up international strategy to end the attacks and defend freedom of navigation? \p John Healey: I do indeed. It is part of a longer-term programme to degrade the ability of the Houthis to hit international shipping, to defend and protect freedom of navigation, and to recognise that conflicts in the middle east have a big impact on business and prosperity in this country. The British Chambers of Commerce recently published a survey that said 50% of businesses in Britain report that they have now been impacted by conflicts in the middle east. \p Andrew Murrison: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and congratulate all involved on a very successful joint operation. Matters like this are likely to attract retaliation from Iran and its proxies. What is being done to support our allies in the region against possible attacks? As Carrier Strike Group 25 prepares to transit and exercise in the region on Operation Highmast, will he assure the House—without going into specifics—that all is being done to protect our men and women? \p John Healey: The right hon. Gentleman, who I think served as a Defence Minister under two Administrations, will know that Defence Ministers and Secretaries, including me, give the highest priority to our forces’ protection. My hon. Friend the Armed Forces Minister and I went over that matter in detail with military planners and chiefs before the carrier group set sail, and I was briefed on that again when the Prime Minister and I visited the carrier last week. In general terms, the operation last night was designed to prevent further escalation. It was designed to prevent further Houthi attacks by taking out the major weapons manufacturing site that we struck last night. \p Johanna Baxter: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I pay tribute to the courage and professionalism of all our service personnel who were involved in this successful operation. Does he agree that the whole House should stand together against the Houthi attacks, which challenge freedom of navigation and, if left unaddressed, could lead to a devastating rise in the cost of essential food items not just for my constituents but across the UK and in other countries? \p John Healey: My hon. Friend puts the argument very well. This is a matter of freedom of navigation and a matter of international law, but it is also a matter of economic self-interest for Britain, because the price for the disruption to world shipping on this essential trade route through the Red sea is paid by ordinary people in the food and goods they depend on. That is in part why we took this action last night. \p Monica Harding: I, too, pay tribute to the professionalism of our armed forces, and I am thankful for their safe return. Is the Secretary of State confident about the appropriate security for our military personnel, given that the previous leaks  from the Trump Administration on Signal gave details of such attacks before they happened, and what reassurances has he had from the United States on that? \p John Healey: I am confident. We handle secure communications in secure ways, and we do that consistently here in the UK. \p Clive Efford: I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the armed forces personnel who took part in last night’s action. The fact that it is the UK that is supporting the USA in this action really does emphasise our close relationship. However, this morning’s newspapers suggest that our desire to do a trade deal with America has been pushed back to a second tranche of countries, or maybe even a third. Does he share my disappointment at that decision, and would he ask the Trump Administration to return to that issue and to consider our close relationship in defence and intelligence? \p John Healey: I gently urge my hon. Friend not necessarily to believe everything he reads in the newspapers. He is very experienced and has a very good insight into the political world. Just to reassure him, we are pulling out all the stops behind the scenes to try to settle a trade deal with the US, just as we are to reinforce the special depth of the relationship on security and defence matters between the UK and the US. \p David Mundell: I very much welcome the statement and the action, which I fully support, and I am very pleased to hear of the level of engagement by the US. The Secretary of State will recall that the humanitarian situation in Yemen was the subject of frequent debate and discussion during the previous Parliament, but it appears to have fallen off the agenda, partly because of atrocious conflicts elsewhere. I was pleased to hear what he said about the FCDO’s approach, but as the FCDO has more constrained resources, will he ensure that the humanitarian situation in Yemen remains a priority? \p John Healey: I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has that in mind. He will be conscious, as is the right hon. Gentleman, that the UK acts not just as the third-largest donor to the Yemen humanitarian programme, but as the penholder for Yemen at the United Nations. \p John Slinger: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and associate myself with his words about our brave military personnel. Does he agree that we must reiterate how the Houthi attacks are illegal, are against the UN charter and target the principle of freedom of navigation, which benefits all nations, including our allies in the region? Does he also agree that our action shows that working in concert with our allies internationally can improve regional stability and security, and indeed our security here at home? \p John Healey: I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend. This is a matter of reinforcing regional stability and a matter of defending and protecting freedom of navigation, but it is also a matter of protecting our own economic interests back home, and I make no apology for standing up for British interests and those of our allies. \p Richard Tice: We in Reform fully endorse the Government’s action against the Houthis, and we thank our brave and brilliant military personnel. The Secretary of State referred to the continuing support of the Houthis by Iran, so will he update the House on further sanctions against Iran? Surely now is the time to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation? \p John Healey: The hon. Gentleman has been around long enough to know that I will not comment on the process of proscription. Suffice it to say, the Government have sanctioned a number of major Houthi leaders. I welcome his welcome for the action we took last night, and I hope he will take that action as a sign of a determination to do what we can, alongside our US allies, to degrade their ability to continue to threaten freedom of navigation for international shipping. \p Tahir Ali: The Houthis are acting freely in the absence of a road map for peace. Yemen is facing the worst humanitarian crisis, with 22 million people needing assistance, of whom 11 million are children, and in desperate need of food, water and medical supplies. To defeat the Houthis permanently, will the Secretary of State give a commitment that this Government, along with allies, will do all that is possible to deliver a road map for peace and ensure that this happens now, because otherwise it will be a lost opportunity? \p John Healey: As I said earlier, my responsibility as Defence Secretary is for the military components of the wider approach that must be pursued if we are to help play an important role in securing peace and a settlement to end the civil war in Yemen, and to provide relief to the hundreds of thousands of Yemenis who are suffering so severely. Constraining the Houthi threat is part of that, as is reinforcing and bolstering the Yemeni Government, but working with allies, particularly the leading regional allies, in trying to force the pace of a negotiated settlement and a peace in Yemen is absolutely crucial. \p Greg Smith: I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement, and I add my thanks to, and appreciation for, the Royal Air Force and all those involved in this successful operation. In his statement he said that

“even Russia has attempted to support the Houthi operations.”

However, does it not go a little bit deeper than that? The Wall Street Journal has reported that targeting data provided by Russia has been utilised by the Houthis for their attacks against western shipping, while Iran has arbitrated secret talks between the terror group and the Kremlin. What steps is he taking to disrupt Russia’s deepening ties to Iran and its proxies across the middle east? \p John Healey: I am really not going to disclose in public, or even to this House, the steps that we are taking to deal with some of that covert Russian activity, which goes well beyond Yemen to the wider middle east. Suffice it to say, the hon. Member has made a contribution to the discussion on this statement by bringing that report from The Wall Street Journal to the House. \p Alex Ballinger: I add my words of support for the action the UK took last night. The Houthi group is a terrorist organisation that has been deeply destabilising and it is right that we are playing our role in protecting freedom of navigation. The Halesowen community of Yemenis are really concerned about the desperate humanitarian situation in Yemen. Could the Secretary of State add a few more words on what we are doing to support Yemenis who are so desperate right now, and what we are doing to end the civil war? \p John Healey: Yes. I mentioned the in-year uplift that the Foreign Secretary gave to our contribution to the Yemeni humanitarian assistance plan, which makes us the third-largest donor. Our focus on aid has been especially on food, of which there is a critical shortage and which is a necessity to hundreds of thousands of Yemenis. We calculate that we will have helped almost 900,000 Yemenis with our food support this year. Our support is also in healthcare, supporting over 700 medical centres across the country with medicines, vaccines and some of the basic equipment needed to provide the healthcare that people also so desperately need in that country. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: I share the recognition of the RAF’s role in last night’s operation. Given the existing global commitments of our Typhoon squadrons, should the coalition of the willing provide a military contribution to any post-war force in Ukraine, and therefore a combat air patrol or air policing role in Ukraine, in addition to the Baltic and the high north, how will we continue to facilitate direct action, such as the strikes against the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen, with no plans to purchase a second tranche of F-35Bs? \p John Healey: On Ukraine and a potential role in a coalition of the willing on security guarantees—if a negotiated peace settlement, which we all hope President Trump secures, can be put in place—we are planning at the moment. The consequences of any commitments we make will be fully explained to the House if a decision is made, but that is contingent on a ceasefire and a peace agreement, and that is contingent principally upon Putin doing what he says he wants by seeking an end to the fighting. \p Alison Hume: I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement and pay tribute to all those involved in the successful strike. Does he agree that this Government will always put personnel at the heart of our defence plans? \p John Healey: For too long, I believe, the previous Government overlooked that. They certainly failed to meet their recruitment tests. I am proud to be a Defence Secretary in a Labour Government who was able, last year, to give armed forces personnel the largest pay increase for 20 years, and to be the first Defence Secretary who can stand at the Dispatch Box and say that nobody in uniform will be paid less now than the national living wage. I am also proud to have managed to do a deal to buy back and bring into public control 36,000 family military homes, following what was quite the worst privatisation ever, in 1996 under the previous Tory Government. \p Jeremy Corbyn: In reply to an earlier question, the Secretary of State talked about the devastation in Yemen, with 11 million people in desperate need of help and support, and the civil war conditions that pertain there. On the armed intervention that Britain made yesterday, we all need to know where it will lead, what the end game is, whether we are involved in an internal war in Yemen, and what the long-term implications of our involvement are. Ultimately, there has to be some kind of peace process in Yemen, just as much as there has to be in Gaza and elsewhere in the region. Does this action bring peace nearer, or does it exacerbate the danger of a widening conflict? \p John Healey: The right hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House of the extreme hardship faced by many Yemenis in what has been a war-torn country for years. The strikes last night were designed to reduce and prevent the risk of further Houthi attacks, and they were done because we were able to take out an important facility where the Houthis had been manufacturing the very weapons used to target international shipping and our own. \p Kevin Bonavia: I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement and add my thanks to our service personnel for their action. I would like to talk about what the Houthis have been doing alongside the other terrorist proxies in the middle east, Hamas and Hezbollah, who are controlled by Iran. Therefore, what is this country’s policy on disrupting and containing that network, and attacking the heart of it—namely, Iran itself? \p John Healey: My hon. Friend is right. Iran is a destabilising influence across the region, not just in its own terms but in particular in the way it has developed, sponsored and supplied proxy groups. The Houthis are clearly supplied and supported by Iran. Part of the long-term ability to see a secure and conflict-free middle east has got to be a reconciliation that Iran has: for it to stop using those proxies to threaten its neighbours in the region and the interests of countries such as ours. \p James Wild: US action in recent weeks has considerably degraded ballistic missile and drone attacks, and I welcome these RAF strikes. However, the action will work only if it is sustained. Will the Defence Secretary commit to ongoing UK and RAF direct support to US Operation Rough Rider to strike Houthi terrorists, rather than the ad hoc approach adopted so far, so that we can properly restore freedom of navigation? \p John Healey: Operation Rough Rider is a US military campaign. We took action last night alongside the US. Any future military interventions such as last night’s will be reported to the House. \p Steve Yemm: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I pay tribute to all our armed forces personnel involved in the action overnight. Does he agree with me that the USA has always been, and will remain, our strongest and most steadfast security ally? \p John Healey: I do indeed. The US-UK defence relationship has a special depth that has lasted decades. We do things together as two nations that no other nations do: we train together, we exercise together and at times we have to fight together. \p John Cooper: I am relieved to hear that the strategic defence review is coming in the spring—with a great yellow ball in the sky, I assume that will be fairly soon. In all military operations time is the enemy, and I am concerned about reports that the SDR may only be a broadbrush document—an interim document, as it were—and that the important decisions on specific capabilities and weapons systems may not be taken until autumn. Are we marching on to war? If so, should we not be doing so at the double, rather than at a slow march? \p John Healey: The hon. Gentleman has managed to broaden his question from this specific statement on the overnight strikes. The strategic defence review is a strategic defence review. It will be published in the spring. It has been an unprecedented and externally led process, which has allowed to us to take stock of the threats we face and the capabilities we need, and to do so within the unprecedented increase in defence funding that this Government have now committed to over the next 10 years. \p Graeme Downie: In his statement, the Secretary of State referred to Russian attempts to support Houthi operations. Without compromising any information that he is unable to share, how would he rate the effectiveness of those Russian interventions, as well as the UK response? Does he agree that they show that we must continue to support Ukraine in every way we can to undermine the dictator Vladimir Putin? \p John Healey: It does indeed, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend has been steadfast from the Back Benches as a strong voice for Ukraine, and I welcome his support for the actions the UK Government have offered, and for our leadership. On the effectiveness of Russian action and interventions in Yemen, I am more concerned to ensure that any military action that this Government sanction is effective, and that the outstanding military personnel who are involved return safely. I am happy to report to the House that that was the case last night. \p Richard Foord: On 17 March, I asked the Foreign Secretary why the UK had taken a kinetic role in strikes against the Houthis under the previous US Government, but have not taken an active role in those carried out by this US Government. We have since seen those leaked Signal messages in which the US Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth, lamented the lack of European involvement in the strikes on 15 March. How much has the involvement of British jets in these strikes come as a response to the allegation by Pete Hegseth of European freeloading? \p John Healey: The strikes that we conducted last night were a result of the fact that America, our closest ally, has been coming under near daily attack from the Houthis; that shipping has more than halved through that Red sea route; and that 50% of UK businesses now say that they have been impacted by conflict in the middle east. I make no apology for defending Britain’s interests, and the interests of our allies. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his answers, and for giving us the comprehensive information that we need. I congratulate our armed forces and our allies on a successful strike against this facility—long may those targeted and successful operations continue. What further steps will be taken with our NATO allies—quite simply, we cannot do this without them; we need them—to secure the Red sea and the gulf of Aden, and thereby lower shipping costs and consumer costs for all those who are paying the price for the evil actions of the Houthis? \p John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is right to say this is bigger and more important than just UK or even US action. I reported to the House earlier that the broader challenges that he sets out were discussed by NATO Foreign Ministers, and have been discussed by Foreign Ministers at the G7 within the last month. \p Michael Shanks: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the resilience of the UK’s energy grid in the context of the widespread power outages experienced across the Iberian peninsula over the past two days. My thoughts are with all those affected by the widespread disruption across that peninsula on Monday. I am glad to hear that power has now been fully restored across the region.

I want to reassure the House that Great Britain has a highly resilient energy network, and that the incident in Iberia has not impacted Great Britain. The Secretary of State has been in regular contact with the National Energy System Operator over the past two days, and it has provided reassurance that there is no increase in risk to our energy supplies or system stability from this incident.

My Department was informed on Monday 28 April by NESO that a power outage had occurred across the Iberian peninsula, affecting mainland Spain, Portugal, Andorra and areas of France. While all power was restored to the impacted areas yesterday, Tuesday 29 April, the disruption had cascading impacts on other sectors across the vast majority of Spain and Portugal. The cause of the outage is yet to be confirmed; it is likely to take some time for the Spanish network operator to carry out a thorough investigation to determine the exact cause of the failure. Various independent reviews have been commissioned by Spain, Portugal and the European Commission to understand the cause.

Although GB is not directly connected to Spain and Portugal’s grid, NESO is in close contact with European counterparts, and is offering support where needed. The Government are closely monitoring the situation and are in contact with the Spanish and Portuguese authorities to ensure the safety and wellbeing of any British nationals in the affected regions.

I turn to our grid’s resilience, and our preparedness in the context of recent events on the Iberian peninsula. An event similar in impact in Great Britain would be equivalent to a national power outage—a total loss of power across the whole of GB—which is listed on the national risk register as a high-impact but low-likelihood event. In its 75-year history, Great Britain’s national electricity transmission system has never experienced a complete shutdown, or anything on the scale of what has happened in Spain over the past few days.

Our electricity system is highly resilient. The National Energy System Operator continuously monitors the condition of the electricity system to ensure there are sufficient inertia and reserves in the system to manage large losses and prevent large-scale power outages. NESO has also introduced innovative new approaches to managing system stability, as well as advanced safety systems to help to prevent such events from happening in GB. The system is built, designed and operated to cope with the loss of key circuits or systems without causing customer impacts. There are multiple redundant alternative routes through which power can flow should a fault occur, minimising the risk of a single fault cascading across the entire system to cause a total or partial electricity system shutdown.

However, as a responsible Government, we prepare for all eventualities, no matter how unlikely. I would like to reassure the House that the Government work closely with industry to continually improve and maintain the resilience of energy infrastructure, networks and assets to reduce vulnerabilities. This work includes having robust emergency plans, summarised in the national emergency plan for downstream gas and electricity, and regularly exercising emergency plans with the energy industry and Ofgem. That includes an exercise carried out by the previous Government; we have been taking forward the recommendations from that exercise. This work is ongoing across Government to ensure we are as resilient as possible as a nation in all eventualities.

We have also empowered the independent National Energy System Operator to carry out resilience functions across the electricity and gas systems, and will continue to work with industry and regulators to improve and maintain the resilience of old, new and future energy infrastructure. Switching fossil-fuelled generation for home-grown clean energy from renewables, nuclear and other clean technologies is the route to long-term energy security. I will speak more broadly about the UK’s energy resilience in a debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday.

To conclude, Great Britain has a resilient energy network, and we will ensure that that continues to be the case. I commend this statement to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Andrew Bowie: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and echo his comments; of course, the Conservatives’ thoughts are with all those affected by the blackouts in Spain, Portugal and more widely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, the Minister has said that Great Britain has never experienced a complete shutdown such as that seen on the continent. What assurances can he offer this House that work is being undertaken, so that NESO and the National Grid are prepared for a black start, if ever that is needed? \p Michael Shanks: I shall start with the more serious of the hon. Gentleman’s questions, and then, in reply to some of his other questions, I might gently remind him who was in office not that long ago. On a serious note, I agree entirely with him on his opening point: the first  priority of my Department and the Government is to ensure our energy security. The past few days in Spain and Portugal have brought to light just how much of our day-to-day lives are dependent on a functioning electricity system, so he is right to make that point, and we are very aware of it.

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

Finally, the hon. Gentleman was right to reflect on Operation Mighty Oak, which was carried out under the previous Government. We have been taking forward those recommendations right across government. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is looking at resilience across Government. These are all important points. However, I say gently that energy security is an absolute priority for this Government, which means building the energy infrastructure that this country needs, and not opposing it at every turn. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. \p Bill Esterson: There are some inconvenient truths for those on the Opposition Benches who wish to blame low-carbon energy for what happened in Spain and Portugal. As the Minister has said, the cause of the outage is unknown at this stage. In 2003, when there was a blackout in Switzerland and Italy, and in 2006, when the same happened in Germany, affecting the whole of the continent, there were no renewables in the system. That goes to show that it is far too early to speculate.

Gas sets the price for our electricity 98% of the time in this country. Those who oppose the transition to low-carbon energy generation are opposing energy security for this country. They are opposing lower prices for our constituents and good, well-paid jobs. That is what this agenda is really about. \p Michael Shanks: I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for his question. Let me reiterate the point that he made and that I will, I suspect, make a number of times during this statement. I will not be drawn on unfounded claims and speculation about what the causes might be. It is rightly for the authorities in Spain and Portugal to carry out the investigations, exactly as it would be if any incident happened here, and for them to share that information. Of course we will be in close contact with them about that,  but it is far too early to make any hasty conclusions, particularly when they are based on unfounded claims.

The broader point that my hon. Friend makes is right: constituents right across the country continue to pay too much for their electricity. That is because of the role of gas in setting the price in our system. The more renewables that we build, the more that we push gas off as the marginal price setter, the more that we bring those bills down, and also the more that we make sure that they are not subject to the volatility of the fossil fuel markets as they are at the moment. My hon. Friend is right: this is the right journey for us to be on; it is right for the British economy; and it is right for energy security. The Opposition parties should support that. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Claire Young: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Our thoughts are with all those affected by these power outages, which are a stark reminder of how key our energy security is to our national security. That is why it is vital that the Government learn from this latest incident by acting now to boost our home-grown energy by supporting community-owned projects and increasing supply chain capacity.

Our constituents will be concerned to know about preparations in this country. What conversations has the Minister had across Government to ensure that the UK has robust plans in place in the event of similar situations occurring here? In particular, can he outline what contingency plans are in place to protect our transport network, our hospitals and urgent healthcare settings and our emergency communication capacity? The latter currently relies heavily on the mobile network for our emergency alert system, as well as being the primary way that most people stay up to date. \p Michael Shanks: Let me repeat the point that I made to the shadow Minister. It is absolutely right to point out the widespread cascading impacts of power failure and just the sheer amount of our lives that is now driven by electricity. The hon. Lady also made the same point as the shadow Minister, which I did not respond to at the time, around preparations across Government. I am Minister in the Department responsible for energy resilience and security. The Secretary of State takes a very serious interest in this area. Right across Government, we have a number of meetings that are chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has responsibility for resilience, which includes looking at specific impacts. Most recently, we discussed some of the communications impacts of power cuts caused by storms, to make sure that people can still communicate, particularly via the mobile phone network. These are important points that we are taking forward.

Clearly, the energy system in this country is resilient, but the job of Government is to prepare for all eventualities, however low the chances. We take very seriously not just the preparations in place, but making sure that Government are ready to try out some of these processes and to learn from experiences such as this. There will be things that we can learn from the Spanish and Portuguese Governments, and we stand ready to do that. \p Jessica Morden: SAE Renewables is establishing a new battery storage facility, repurposing an old coal-fired power station in Newport, which, when complete, will have the capacity to be one of the biggest in the UK. As we scale up our renewable energy prediction, battery storage facilities such as this are vital. Will the Minister come and see this for himself and say a bit more about what he is doing with battery energy storage companies to support their work? \p Michael Shanks: Storage will be crucial in the clean-power system that we are building. Batteries will play a critical role in making sure that we can store the clean, cheap energy that we are generating for times when we need it most. We have also announced the first long-duration energy storage in 40 years, building the assets that will allow us to store eight hours of power for when it is needed most. Therefore, storage is key in a system such as this. And finally, I am always happy to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Harriet Cross—and congratulations on your remarkable London marathon time. \p Hon. Members:: Hear, hear! \p Harriet Cross: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I think we can all stop that now.

Centrica operates the Rough gas storage site, which provides about half of the UK’s current gas storage capacity. Centrica stands ready to invest £2 billion of its own capital to redevelop Rough into the largest long-duration energy storage facility in Europe, capable of storing both natural gas and hydrogen, which would improve resilience and protect customers from price spikes. To unlock this £2 billion, the company needs assurances and clarity from the Government, not least over regulatory support and a workable cap and floor mechanism. Will the Minister set out what progress has been made in discussions with Centrica to develop this cap and floor mechanism? Given that the Government can make decisions quickly when they choose to, as we saw with British Steel, why has a decision on this mechanism been allowed to drag on for months? \p Michael Shanks: I congratulated the hon. Lady yesterday on her remarkable marathon; I think she ran it two hours faster than I did, which leaves considerable room for improvement on my part, but congratulations to her again. She is right to raise this point, and I have answered questions on it before. I have met Centrica on several occasions to discuss various things, including that proposal, but it is a commercial matter for Centrica to bring the proposal to us. The Rough storage facility, which we last talked about in this House a few months ago, was mothballed for a number of years under the previous Government. We are looking in the round at the role it could play in energy security and at the value-for-money arguments. We want to ensure that value for money for the public is protected alongside the security of energy. \p Ruth Cadbury: My issue with the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) is that she has knocked me off my place as the second-fastest woman MP marathon runner—but I will be back.

While thousands of airline passengers were impacted by Monday’s outage across Spain and Portugal, only 500 flights were grounded out of a possible 6,000, the rest managing to fly. That is because there were no airport closures. Is there a lesson here for UK airports? \p Michael Shanks: My hon. Friend is perhaps referring to the most recent situation at Heathrow. The Secretary of State commissioned a report after that incident to find out what the causes were, and that report is due. Airports in this country are private businesses, but given that they are clearly critical national infrastructure, the Government have a role in ensuring that they function. If there are any lessons we can learn, it will be invaluable for us to learn them, but I do not want to be drawn on the conclusions of a report that the Government have not yet seen. \p Richard Tice: Just before the Spanish blackouts we had two unexpected outages—one in Lincolnshire and one at the other end of the Viking Link. The NESO was not going to tell us about it, but thanks to a whistleblower we now know. It seems to me that with the ever-increasing reliance on renewables, many are concerned about fluctuations from the voltage and about that becoming a serious risk. While the Minister is confident about the situation, will he confirm to the House that the NESO will tell us and be completely transparent about all future unexpected outages? \p Michael Shanks: While Great Britain’s energy network is incredibly resilient and robust, there are outages for a whole range of reasons. The system continues to function, as it did entirely, without any concern at all, in the instance he raises. While it is not a regular occurrence, outages do happen in any system, particularly in the energy system across the whole of the UK. I will take away the point about whether there can be more transparency, but I suspect that the answer will be that this is the day-to-day operational running of the electricity system, and it is not something to be alarmed about at all. \p Luke Murphy: I welcome the Minister’s statement and the measured way in which he has approached the situation. As he and other Members have said, these kinds of blackouts happen, whether systems are dominated by fossil fuels or renewables. I particularly welcome the Minister’s rejection of the approach of some Opposition Members, including the honourable Inspector Clouseau, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), who has already jumped to blaming renewables. Is it not the case that some on the Opposition Benches want to weaponise this situation because of their ideological obsession against clean energy, which will leave my constituents colder and poorer while they enjoy the warm embrace of Vladimir Putin? \p Michael Shanks: My hon. Friend always makes his point in his particular style—perhaps a more political style than I will use from this Dispatch Box, but Inspector Clouseau is a new one that I will certainly add to my list.

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The broader point here is that we do not know the causes of the outages, and any sensible Member of this House will,  I am sure, await the full response of any investigation that will be carried out by the relevant authorities in this case, rather than just jumping to speculation. As my hon. Friend says, the rush to conclusions betrays the truth of the matter, which is that many hon. Members in this place have an ideological, extreme and damaging opposition to clean energy. That includes Members in the party of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and other parties, including the Conservatives, who defended this for such a long time and now seem to be working together against it. They want to leave us colder, poorer and in the pocket of Putin. We will not accept that. \p Bernard Jenkin: Can the Minister please explain what exactly the Government disagree with in the considered written foreword by Sir Tony Blair to his think-tank report? \p Michael Shanks: I have to apologise to the former Prime Minister, but I have been a little busy over the last few days and have not read all of his report. \p Andrew Bowie: Not even the foreword! \p Michael Shanks: Indeed. I apologise and will prioritise it for my weekend reading. What I did see is that the Tony Blair Institute outlined very clearly its support for clean power as an important transition for this country. The shadow Minister earlier said that this was all about wind and solar, but that has never been the position for this transition. Nuclear will play a critical role, as will carbon capture, usage and storage as well as hydrogen. All of that was outlined in Tony Blair’s report. \p Adam Jogee: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement, particularly his comments on the importance of batteries. He is right that energy security is national security. Technology owned by, run by and based in foreign states is being added to the grid. This technology is smart and, very worryingly, can be operated by third parties. Can the Minister set out what we are doing to protect the grid from the influence of those who wish to do harm to our people and our way of life in Newcastle-under-Lyme and up and down the United Kingdom? \p Michael Shanks: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The issue of cyber-security across our critical national infrastructure becomes more and more important day by day. As our energy system becomes more complex and as smart systems become part of how we all interact with our daily lives, there are increased risks. That is why the Government take cyber-security very seriously and are looking across Government at how we can have processes in place that are as robust as possible.

We do not for a second think that any of the actions we have taken will always be enough. We are constantly looking at how cyber-security develops and changes and how we can do more. But our energy system is resilient. Ofgem has a role to play in making sure that suppliers and individual electricity companies, as well as Government, take this issue very seriously, and it is an issue that I will continue to spend time focusing on. \p Stephen Flynn: The Minister will be aware that Peterhead gas station is Scotland’s only high-power, high-inertia facility and that it has an independent black-start facility. Key to the future of that site is the Acorn project, another thing he will be very familiar with. Can he confirm his Government’s intention to fully fund and license that project as a track 2 project as part of the comprehensive spending review in June? \p Michael Shanks: The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) made a point yesterday about black start, and it is one that the Secretary of State will take away, particularly around black-start capabilities across the whole UK. On the Acorn point, we have said on a number of occasions that it is a really important project. My Department and the Government support the project, but it is a question for the spending review, which will come in June. \p Barry Gardiner: Energy resilience comes from a secure supply of clean and cheap energy. The major cause of the financial crises that the world has experienced over the last 40 years is the insecurity of supply of the fossil fuel markets, with Ukraine being just the latest case. As for cheap, the last Government in answer to a parliamentary question admitted that the levelised cost of gas was £114 per megawatt-hour, whereas offshore wind was £44 per megawatt-hour. As for clean, the House may be aware that wind and solar are not known as great emitters of greenhouse gases. So renewables are clean, cheap and secure. Renewables and resilience go together. \p Michael Shanks: My hon. Friend has been a champion of these issues for a long time, and it will not surprise him or the House to hear that I entirely agree with him; clean, cheap and secure is absolutely right. We know that because when we invited many countries around the world to the energy security summit last week, it was clear that it is not just the UK that is on the transition. The rest of the world is also moving at pace to divest from fossil fuels and invest in the renewables that deliver the secure energy system and remove the volatility that all our constituents continue to pay the price for. It is the only way forward, and the Government are determined to continue with it. \p Roger Gale: The Minister is fully aware of my total opposition to the construction of a 90-foot-high converter station on the Minster marshes in east Kent. National Grid’s sea link project is very vulnerable to physical attack and cyber-attack, and it is largely based on the provision of power from weather-related sources. Is it not time that we revisited all this and looked seriously at speeding up the process of acquiring small nuclear reactors? \p Michael Shanks: I am happy to agree with the right hon. Member on his final point. Small modular reactors will play a really important part and are an exciting proposition that the UK can be at the forefront of. The technology competition will conclude shortly.

On the broader point, we get to the heart of the contradiction. The Conservative party wants to talk about resilience of the network but does not want to  build any new network infrastructure. I am afraid that the two go hand in hand. If we want to have power and a resilient network, we cannot stay in the same place we were 60 years ago. We actually have to build some stuff. \p Pamela Nash: I thank the Minister for giving the statement and congratulate him on the Floor of the House for completing the London marathon on Sunday. Does he share not just my utter disappointment but my concern that Conservative Members have wasted no time at all using the unfortunate events affecting our friends in Spain and Portugal to further their dated opposition to clean power, which risks panic and misinformation at a time when we need patience and clear heads? \p Michael Shanks: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for drawing attention to my appalling time in the marathon. [Interruption.] That is kind of the shadow Secretary of State.

My hon. Friend made an important point. The serious response to an unprecedented incident like this is to take stock of what happened, to introduce some facts into the debate—some people do not like to see facts in these debates—to allow a proper investigation to find out what caused it and, yes, to learn lessons from it. There will be lessons to learn, but I will not rush headlong into an ideological argument that damages our energy security by suggesting that somehow we should go back to the past and then everything will be fine. The clean energy transition is right for climate, right for jobs in the supply chains, right for bringing down bills and right for this country. \p Christine Jardine: I welcome what the Minister has outlined and his reassurances about resilience, particularly to a cyber-attack. However, there is also the danger that if we hand over the on/off switch for vital energy supplies to a foreign country, they can be switched off without our control. What mitigations are the Government considering for projects like the vast wind farm in the North sea for which the Chinese company Mingyang wants to provide the hardware? \p Michael Shanks: I will not be drawn on an individual commercial arrangement that a project may or may not have. As I have outlined, in any investment case the Government will carry out a number of checks, one of which will always be a national security check, so these questions will be looked at. I reject the suggestion that there would somehow be an on/off switch—that is not the position that the Government would take—but we look at all these investment decisions individually, and that is not for me to do on the Floor of the House. \p John Slinger: The role of businesses regarding the grid is important. GE Vernova in my constituency makes rotating stabilisers, from which my hon. Friend the Minister and I probably could have benefited on Sunday while we were running the London marathon. The shadow Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) clearly did not need them; I congratulate them on their superb, very fast times—much quicker than my hon. Friend and I.

Rotating stabilisers are enormous electrical motors that are being deployed around the UK, as part of National Grid’s pathfinder programme, to strengthen vulnerable areas of the grid. GE Vernova tells me that one is operating in Scotland now and has proven that it can prevent more serious grid disturbance, and the company has other projects to deliver the stabilisers across the UK. The Government are investing more than ever in grid upgrades and infrastructure, which is good for the country and good for the economy, and it affects places like Rugby, where we build vital parts, with a knock-on effect on the local supply chain, on skills development and so on. This is a really good thing that should be celebrated. \p Michael Shanks: I thank my hon. Friend for the question. He raises what we are doing to deploy technologies in the clean power system to make it more resilient, and rotating stabilisers in particular. Those technologies were introduced in some cases by the previous Government, so there was recognition of their importance and we will continue to build on that.

My hon. Friend also raised the wider point that the transition to building a clean power system is about not just the generation we get out, but the good, well-paid jobs in the supply chains that deliver it and investing in industry right across the country, including in his constituency. We have committed to driving that forward. That is why the Prime Minister announced £300 million of supply chain investment at the energy security conference last week, and why we will continue to fight for this transition while the Conservative party turns against it. \p David Mundell: I did not run the London marathon and I never will, but I am hugely admiring of all colleagues who did, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) and her incredible time.

The Minister referenced the point I made yesterday about the grid in Scotland and previously expressed concerns about the amount of time it would take to reboot that grid if there was an outage. As we have seen in Spain and Portugal, there is significant disruption if the grid is off for hours, but if it were off for days, that would be very significant and much harder to manage. Will he confirm again that the Department will look specifically at that issue? \p Michael Shanks: I say to the right hon. Gentleman: never say never. I am sure he has it in him.

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. In the news we saw the impact on day-to-day life of what happened in Spain and Portugal, and he is absolutely right that if that was to go on for longer than a few days, there would be quite significant impacts. We look closely at the cascading effects and at what parts of the system we reboot faster than others to deliver priority services, such as in the NHS. We will continue to do that. The point he raised yesterday and again today about how quickly different parts of the UK and Scotland would be rebooted is an important one that I will take away. \p Christopher Vince: With all these marathon runners in the House today, I wonder whether we might be able to generate some kinetic energy rather  than the usual hot air. [Interruption.] I apologise; I did not expect a pylon for that—sorry, another energy joke. My genuine congratulations to all those who did run.

The major concern of residents in my constituency is the ageing grid infrastructure. What work has the Minister done to ensure that we have the infrastructure we need to ensure that constituencies like mine have the power to shine? \p Michael Shanks: Madam Deputy Speaker, I think you need to make a ruling on drawing marathon-related puns in the House to an end, but the subject is a really important one. Of course, that is why we are in this sprint towards building more network infrastructure—[Interruption.] Thank you.

There are two really important things to recognise with our network. First, it cannot stay in the state that it is in forever; it needs upgrading. Secondly, the demand that we fully expect to see—potentially a doubling by 2050, and maybe even more than that—means that we will have to build more grid to bring the power to where it is necessary to deliver economic growth. It is right that we move forward with that, but everyone will need to recognise that, to deliver that system—whether we are delivering clean power or not—the network is necessary, and stuff does have to get built somewhere. The Government are committed to building it and the Conservative party is committed to opposing it. \p Alison Bennett: Will the Minister expand a little on a question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young)? The PSTN, or public switched telephone network, switch-off means that by the end of 2027 all landlines will require an electricity supply. This means that the mobile network becomes ever more vital for people who require their mobile phones for medical care or even to make a 999 call in the event of an emergency. What assessment has been made of the resilience of the mobile network in the event of power outages? What more needs to be done to make sure we are ready for that kind of situation? \p Michael Shanks: I thank the hon. Lady for that important question. I was here after Storm Éowyn, when we discussed that a number of people who no longer had a copper wire line were not able to contact emergency services. It was a really important point.

There is resilience built into the mobile phone network to ensure that masts should be able to operate in circumstances when even the power to them is cut off. It is a question for Ofcom to look at and I have spoken to my colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to make sure that that is happening. There is more that we can do. We are engaging with the Energy Networks Association, which works with distribution network operators, to make sure that all the resilience plans join up and that the practical impact that the hon. Lady rightly raises is taken into account. I will write to her with updates. \p Markus Campbell-Savours: As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) has already highlighted, synthetic inertia technologies are used to simulate the benefits that traditional turbine  technologies provided to an electricity grid now increasingly supplied by renewables. Is the Minister satisfied that we have sufficiently invested in those technologies to provide resilience across the grid? Is there an argument that surge protection devices, which wiring regulations mandate for nearly all new domestic and commercial installations, should be installed in all homes and businesses? \p Michael Shanks: I will take that interesting point on surge protection away and speak to my colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

On the wider point around inertia, as the system changes, there is a constant balancing job for the National Energy System Operator to make sure that we design a system that is resilient. We are deploying technologies to ensure that the system is resilient and there is sufficient inertia by procuring the alternative technologies that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) referenced, but we will keep it under constant review. \p Sammy Wilson: May I assure the House that, not wishing to inflict a by-election on the citizens of East Antrim, I will not be running any marathons—not now or at any other time in future?

The Minister has rightly said that the cause of the outage in Spain is yet to be identified, but the fact is that it is linked to 53% of electricity on that day being generated from renewable sources. That should be a sobering warning to all in this House who have been championing the decarbonisation of electricity and the net zero policy.

I am glad that there is inertia built into the system, but the Minister has already accepted that that increases the cost of electricity every week because we have to build a new network to deal with the spikes in electricity; build battery storage, which increases the cost of electricity; and keep gas generators idling over expensively, the cost of which is added to consumer bills, in order to bring them on grid when the wind drops.

I know that the Minister has to defend the policy of his boss that we will get cheaper electricity, even though there is no evidence of that, but will he accept that building inertia into the system will add considerably to consumers’ bills? \p Michael Shanks: I am afraid that I do not accept anything that the right hon. Gentleman has just said. He said in his first breath that it was right to wait for the outcomes of an investigation and then prejudged that investigation with his own conclusions. I want to wait for some evidence from the authorities on that.

The right hon. Gentleman is also wrong about the cost. People often forget that gas in our electricity system does not just appear out of thin air; it comes with a cost. It comes with the cost of building new gas power stations in the first place, which we would have to do if we did not move gas off the system. It also comes with the volatility of being an internationally traded commodity—all our constituents are still paying the price of the energy crisis of a number of years ago. We will have to build infrastructure. If we were not building clean power infrastructure, the grid would still be critical because we have to get electricity to people’s houses. It is important to say that there are no zero-cost options here. We are investing now in a clean power system that delivers considerably cheaper power in the long term. \p Julian Lewis: I commend what the Minister said at the outset on the need to insure against high-impact, low-probability events. In a non-dogmatic spirit, may I appeal to him to reconsider the way in which the Government are dealing with the question of the two shale gas wells, which they have decided, under normal circumstances, they do not wish to see exploited? Surely those wells should not be sealed so permanently that if we were in a wartime conflict situation they could not be reactivated? \p Michael Shanks: I am not aware of the specific circumstances mentioned at the end of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but I am happy to look into that particular case. The broader point is that we do not see licensing for new oil and gas and fracking as part of our future, and there is a presumption against fracking in other parts of the UK as well. We have a resilient energy system that does not require that. I will, however, take away the point he raises and write to him. \p Dave Doogan: The Minister has left himself exposed to the climate deniers in this Chamber because he has come of his own volition to make a statement in the absence of any understanding of what has actually happened in Spain and Portugal, thereby denying Parliament an ability to discuss any kind of strategic comparative assessment between the resilience of the GB grid and that of the Iberian grid. If he had delayed until he had the answer, we might be having a more valuable discussion.

The Minister has been forced to say that his Department is ready for all eventualities; well, tell that to the tens of thousands of radio teleswitch service customers who will be left high and dry by his Department. He says that he has every confidence in the National Energy System Operator. I did not have a lot of confidence in it on 7 January when, but for the reinstatement of the Viking interconnector, we would have had a very difficult situation on the GB link. I know that that is distribution and not transmission. There is also the matter of trying to instil confidence in GB among electricity consumers after an episode on 21 March at Heathrow, which saw global consequences for a relatively localised disaster in the UK energy market. How does the Minister have confidence after those two events? \p Michael Shanks: The hon. Gentleman brings his customary sunny demeanour to his questions and I am grateful for that on this of all days.

First, I am giving this statement because a number of hon. Members across the House asked questions of the Government on this issue, and it is right that the Government respond to such questions. In fact, I would be criticised if the Government did not offer a statement when questions are being asked. This statement is therefore in response to hon. Members across the House and from different parties.

On the capacity questions in January, I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The repetition of those quite wrong statistics on social media and in this House reduces confidence, and they are not based on truth. To be clear to the House, the standard operating reserves held by NESO at all times is for the largest power generator in the system, which, according to NESO, was 1.4 GW on Wednesday 8 January and not 580 MW, which is the figure in the public domain. The overall  headroom on that day was never lower than 3.7 GW. It is simply not true to repeat the idea that we had 580 MW of capacity left in the system; it was never lower than 3.7 GW. \p David Reed: Recent events in Spain and Portugal highlight the wide range of challenges facing power grids, and we have heard many in previous questions. Those incidents show the complexity of effective reporting and the ability to respond rapidly, and the skills required span multiple Departments, including the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, DSIT, the National Cyber Security Centre and the Met Office, which is based in my constituency. This raises an important question: who is responsible for co-ordinating reporting for similar incidents in the UK? More importantly, does the Minister’s Department have the right skillsets to respond? \p Michael Shanks: May I thank the hon. Gentleman, because that is a really important question and one that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been wrestling with? Under all Governments there are individual Departments that take a responsibility and there are Departments that lead on parts of this, and the covid inquiry has raised a number of questions about how some of these resilience questions are answered, so it is a really important point.

My Department has a number of civil servants with expertise in how the energy system works. I pay tribute to the team, who are often there out of hours when storms and other incidents occur. They do a remarkable job. The question about reporting, however, is important. Partly what the Government seek to do with our mission approach and with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s work is to bring together the whole of Government so that everyone who has a responsibility is at the table, feeding in their views. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. \p Richard Foord: There are over 100 battery energy storage system—BESS—facilities operating in the UK, and another one is planned for Hawkchurch in East Devon. Residents there are very worried about fire risk. South Korea is a global leader in BESS, yet the safety issues are plain. There were 38 fire incidents linked to BESS in South Korea up to 2022. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the safety of BESS technology and exploring energy storage solutions that are less subject to fire risk? \p Michael Shanks: I would first say that fire is a risk in a whole range of scenarios, and I do not think we should jump to the view that because there have been some incidents in one particular piece of infrastructure it is somehow inherent in the infrastructure. It is important to say that batteries will play a critical role in our future energy system, but we obviously take issues of safety very seriously and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise them. The Health and Safety Executive has a role in this and the planning system also has a role in considering some of the fire risks, but we will keep this under review, particularly as the number of battery schemes increases. \p Andrew Murrison: When the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, electrons do not flow, and that happens drearily  predictably in northern Europe, particularly in the cold, dark winter months. As the Minister plans to increase the resilience of the UK grid, will he look at a place where the wind does reliably blow and the sun does shine—namely, south-west Morocco—and support the UK-Morocco power project, which could potentially deliver 8% of the UK’s grid needs reliably and resiliently? \p Michael Shanks: I anticipated the right hon. Gentleman’s question after his first few words. I think the Secretary of State gave him an answer yesterday. This is a private proposal that has come to Government for consideration. It has not been driven forward by Government. We are considering it at the moment and, as I think the Secretary of State said yesterday, we are happy to brief the right hon. Gentleman on the details of where we are at with it. We will make a decision in due course. \p David Simmonds: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? My constituent, Ms Safiya Ismail is without an income because her pension credit application, which was made in July 2024, remains outstanding. I seek your guidance as to what further steps I can take to secure a response from the Department for Work and Pensions for my constituent. My diligent caseworker, Fatema Karim, has chased the matter on numerous occasions. We have been advised that it has been escalated to management, but as yet, no response has been received. Can you suggest any further steps I can take to place my concerns on behalf of my constituent on the record? \p Nusrat Ghani: I am grateful for advance warning of the hon. Member’s point of order. Ministerial correspondence is not a matter for the Chair, but all hon. Members should be entitled to expect a timely reply, especially when they are contacting Government Departments on behalf of their constituents. I am sure that those on the Treasury Front Bench will have noted the hon. Member’s comments, and no doubt he will receive a response in due course. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Clive Jones, supported by Mr Alistair Carmichael, Daisy Cooper, Sarah Gibson, Mr Joshua Reynolds, Tom Morrison, Andrew George and Sarah Olney, presented a Bill to provide for parliamentary approval of international trade agreements; to require the Secretary of State to publish a proposed negotiating mandate in draft before entering into negotiations in respect of an international trade agreement; to require parliamentary approval of that draft before negotiations begin; to make provision for the amendment of draft negotiating mandates by Parliament; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 May, and to be printed (Bill 227). \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Richard Foord: I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“old, entrenched interests”

are

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

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

Richard Foord accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 May, and to be printed (Bill 228). \p David Davis: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today’s Daily Telegraph says that it has been reprimanded by the Independent Press Standards Organisation for reporting on remarks made in this Chamber by the then Communities Secretary Michael Gove. IPSO asserted that the Telegraph should not have reported without having first given a right of reply to the group that the remarks related to.

Press freedom is a cornerstone of democracy, and for centuries the right to freely report on the proceedings of this House have been protected in British law. Those freedoms allowing the press to report without any hindrance or conditionality were secured as long ago as 1771 by John Wilkes. While IPSO may think it is being responsible, its reprimanding of the Telegraph undermines those fundamental rights. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, ask the House authorities to speak with the Independent Press Standards Organisation to remind it that the British press has an absolute right to report on what is said here in this Chamber without any hindrance or conditionality? \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order and for notice of it. He has put his point on the record. Without commenting specifically on the IPSO ruling, because I understand that the issue was not straightforwardly about the reporting of what was said in this House, I do of course support the principle that being able to report on what is said here is extremely important. \p UNKNOWN: Considered in Committee

[Caroline Nokes in the Chair] \p Caroline Nokes: I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Madam Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair and Madam Chairman are also acceptable. \p Jeremy Wright: I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 6, leave out

“different personal characteristics of an offender”

and insert

“an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort.” \p Caroline Nokes: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, page 1, line 7, at end insert—

“(2A) After subsection (7) insert—

‘(7A) In the case of guidelines within subsection (4) about pre-sentence reports, the Council must, after making any amendments of the guidelines which it considers appropriate, obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before issuing sentencing guidelines as definitive guidelines.

(7B) In any case to which subsection (7A) applies, the Secretary of State may—

(a) consent to the issuing of guideline as definitive guidelines,

(b) refuse consent for the issuing of guidelines as definitive guidelines, or

(c) direct the Council to issue the guidelines in an amended form as definitive guidelines.

(7C) Where the Secretary of State has consented to the issuing of guidelines under subsection (7B)(a) or has directed the Council to issue guidelines in an amended form under subsection (7B)(c), the Council must issue the guidelines as definitive guidelines in the appropriate form”.”

This amendment stops sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports coming into force unless approved by the Lord Chancellor.

Amendment 2, page 1, leave out line 10 and insert—

““a particular demographic cohort’ may include those related to—”.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 13, at end insert—

“(d) status as part of a group that may have experienced trauma from experiences of racism or discrimination—

(i) inter-generationally and relayed to the defendant, or

(ii) as a result of important historical events which may have had a greater impact on those from specific groups and cultures.”

This amendment would ensure that sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports cannot include a defendant’s status as part of a group, particularly not if this involves considering events that may not have impacted the defendant personally.

Clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

New clause 1—Independent review—

“(1) The Secretary of State must arrange for an independent review to be carried out of—

(a) the effects of the changes made to section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 by section 1, and

(b) sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports.

(2) The Secretary of State must, after consultation with the Sentencing Council, appoint a person with professional experience relating to pre-sentence reports to conduct the review.

(3) The review must be completed within two years of the passing of this Act.

(4) As soon as practicable after a person has carried out the review, the person must—

(a) produce a report of the outcome of the review, and

(b) send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the report sent under subsection (4)(b) within one month of receiving the report.” \p Jeremy Wright: It is worthwhile at the outset of all debates on this Bill to restate that it is about pre-sentence reports that give information to sentencers that may be used in sentencing decisions, not about the passing of sentences themselves. Specifically, the Bill is about the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council to sentencers about the circumstances in which a pre-sentence report should normally be asked for, and about the sort of information about an offender which such a report may provide and which may be appropriate to consider and take into account before deciding on an appropriate sentence in that offender’s case.

There has been broad agreement—I see the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), in her place, so I will not say unanimity—that an offender’s ethnicity, race, culture or faith are on their own not that sort of information and that the Sentencing Council was wrong to suggest that pre-sentence reports should be awarded on that basis. I would argue that is because, even if there may be points to make about the treatment or experience of members of the ethnic, faith or cultural group to which the offender in question happens to belong, what is relevant to the sentencing of that offender can only be the treatment or experience to which the particular offender has themselves been subject, not whether they have arisen in the cases of other members of the same group who are not before the court. That is effectively the impact of amendment 4 in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). That is why the Government are right to seek to exclude even from the process of asking for a pre-sentence report—let alone from passing sentence itself—the making of decisions based only on membership of such a group. That is after all what the Government have said this Bill is for.

These groups are described in the explanatory notes to the Bill as “particular demographic cohorts”. Paragraph 8 says,

“The Bill is intended to ensure that Sentencing Guidelines are drafted in such a way as to prevent differential treatment and maintain equality before the law. It does this by preventing the creation of a presumption regarding whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort, rather than the particular circumstances of that individual.”

Despite that explanation in the explanatory notes, the Bill goes further than that by prohibiting the Sentencing Council from including in a sentencing guideline any

“provision framed by reference to different personal characteristics of an offender.”

That is what clause 1(2) says in inserting language into the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. I think that language is significantly wider in impact than reference to membership of particular demographic cohorts—undesirably so, in my view. That is why I have tabled amendment 1, which would adopt the language used in the explanatory notes.

Let me explain why I think that would be preferable. My starting point is that I do not believe all personal characteristics are inappropriate to consider in a sentencing decision. There is, of course, much more to be considered in a sentencing decision than simply information about the offender, particularly the seriousness of the offence and its consequences, but relevant information about the offender is needed as part of the process. It surely cannot be right, then, to prohibit the Sentencing Council from encouraging sentencers to find out more about some of the personal characteristics that are relevant in reaching a more informed and therefore better sentencing decision—for example, a physical or learning difficulty, or a brain injury from which an offender will not recover.

The relevance of that information is not just in forming a fuller picture of the offender to be sentenced, but in assisting a sentencer to know whether that offender is capable of carrying out aspects of a community order, including work in the community, which the sentencer may want to consider as a potential sentencing option. It is worth underlining of course that the ordering of a pre-sentence report—whatever it says when it is produced—does not bind the hands of a sentencer to do as it recommends, but in reality, without one a sentencer’s options are often more limited. That is why guidance on when to ask for a pre-sentence report matters. \p Luke Evans: I defer to my right hon. and learned Friend’s experience, but is there not an argument for every case to have a pre-sentence report in order to truly understand what an individual has faced and whether there are any mitigating factors? I appreciate that that could create a backlog for these services, but is it not one possible solution to the problem that the Sentencing Council was worried about—namely, that different cohorts might have different sentencing outcomes? \p Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend makes a fair point in relation to offenders who hover on the border between community sentences and custodial sentences, but he will know that, in the Crown court at least, the majority of such offenders already have a pre-sentence report. Of course, there are also offenders who come before the courts for sentencing and it is blindingly obvious either that a custodial sentence will follow, or that neither a community sentence nor a custodial sentence is realistically in prospect, so I do not think it right to say that we should have a pre-sentence report in every case, but there is already in law a presumption that pre-sentence reports should be ordered unless it is unnecessary to do so. What we are seeking to do here is respond to a very specific set of circumstances that have  arisen as a result of a Sentencing Council decision. As he may have heard me say on Second Reading, I do not think that the Sentencing Council handled this well, and as a result we are having to do something that we would otherwise not have to do.

Sentencing offenders is, in all circumstances, a difficult business. The fact that different offenders receive different sentences, even for the same offence, is not necessarily evidence of a defect in sentencing practice as a result of guidelines or otherwise, but is more likely a reflection of the reality that every case and every offender is different. We should not, I suggest, try to stop judges reaching the appropriate conclusion, assisted by Sentencing Council guidelines, in each case before them. \p Diane Abbott: Nobody is trying to stop judges sentencing in individual cases. All the Sentencing Council was seeking to do was ensure that judges and magistrates had the maximum amount of information before coming to a decision on the sentence. \p Jeremy Wright: Yes, I think the right hon. Lady is right that that is what the sentencing guidelines were aiming at, but I am afraid that the way in which they were phrased rather missed the mark, in my view. It is perfectly true to say that it is a good thing in most sentencing cases to get as much information as possible, but the sentencing guidelines have, as she will appreciate, particular influence on sentencers, who are obliged to follow them unless doing so is not in the interests of justice. The tone that is set by the Sentencing Council in the guidelines that it drafts gives a good indication to sentencers about the sorts of things that they ought to take into account in sentencing. As she heard me say—I think this is an important point to make—we are talking about the ordering of pre-sentence reports and not about sentencing itself.

None the less, as I said, without a pre-sentence report, the number of options that can be imposed are limited, and with a pre-sentence report, sentencers have more options, so whether sentencers are encouraged to order pre-sentence reports is not irrelevant. My concern is that the way in which the Sentencing Council has gone about this is unhelpful. However—the right hon. Lady will hear me expand on this—it would be wrong to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and it is also important to recognise that some of the Sentencing Council guidelines are profoundly helpful to sentencers; they indicate that we should, in many cases, get relevant information when considering individual sentencing decisions. For all those reasons, we should fetter the sentencing process only as much as we need to in order to meet legitimate policy objectives, where genuine questions of policy arise. That is, after all, what the Government said they were trying to do here.

Amendment 1 would allow us to stop the Sentencing Council recommending pre-sentence reports for those who simply belong to a demographic group, but not exclude them for those who have other personal characteristics that are clearly more relevant to the sentencing decision and do not, I suggest, give rise in any way to so-called two-tier justice. The Bill will still allow the Sentencing Council to issue guidelines recommending pre-sentence reports to explore the personal  circumstances of an offender who is to be sentenced, even though it will prohibit that in relation to the offender’s personal characteristics, so the question arises of whether all the information about an offender that sentencers should properly take into account in sentencing can be justifiably described as the offenders “personal circumstances”.

I will concede that there is a danger of getting into fairly fine semantic distinctions here, but to me at least, “characteristics” are things that are intrinsic to the offender, while “circumstances” are the situations in which offenders find themselves. The two are not the same. For example, being pregnant, addicted, a primary carer, or a victim of abuse, grooming or modern slavery could all be sensibly described as personal circumstances, but disabilities or life-altering permanent injuries feel more like characteristics.

We do not need to get into all this in order to do the job that the Government want to do. Ministers have made it clear that they are seeking to target this legislation carefully to avoid trespassing on the separation of powers, and because they are not seeking to undermine the independence of the Sentencing Council any more than is necessary to wrest back control of what are properly matters of policy. I suggest to the Minister that the more precise wording in amendment 1—it is, of course, also Government drafting, because it appears in the explanatory notes—better meets the Government’s own aims than the language in the Bill. If he does not agree, I hope that he will explain clearly in this debate why the Government have taken a more expansive approach.

Finally, let me address amendment 3 in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and other right hon. and hon. Friends. As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister knows, I also have concerns about the breadth of the language in that amendment. I recognise that some people would like to abolish or radically reform the Sentencing Council, but the Bill does neither of those things, meaning that its scope does not allow for a wider debate about the council’s wider purpose and value—of course, you would not allow that debate either, Madam Chairman.

As and when the Bill passes, the Sentencing Council will continue to operate, so when we consider amending the Bill further, we must have regard to the council’s ability to operate effectively and convincingly. It can play its role in the criminal justice system effectively only if the guidelines that it produces are authoritative. Sentencers are likely to see them as such only if the Sentencing Council is clearly independent, and is seen to make its judgments from a legal, not a political, perspective.

Amendment 3 states that all Sentencing Council guidelines involving pre-sentence reports must be agreed by the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State may, if she so chooses, rewrite those guidelines. There are two problems with that. First, the Lord Chancellor has made clear and sensible distinctions between guidelines that relate to matters of policy and those that relate to matters of judicial discretion in specific sentencing cases, with the latter being matters for the judiciary alone. I am not convinced that all conceivable guidelines relating to pre-sentence reports will qualify as matters of policy, so taking political control of all such guidelines would not be appropriate.

Secondly, the Secretary of State’s approval of guidelines and, even more so, the capacity for her to rewrite the guidelines are incompatible with the independence of the Sentencing Council. The Sentencing Council could be obliged to publish in its name a guideline with which it fundamentally disapproved. In the law as it stands, the Sentencing Council must consult the Lord Chancellor and the Justice Committee—I see the Chairman, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), in his place—but that is not the same as the Sentencing Council requiring ministerial approval to publish the guidelines. It is, of course, ministerial approval that is proposed in the amendment, not parliamentary approval—those are very different things. We are discussing a parliamentary decision about the guidelines, not allowing a Minister to make that decision for himself or herself.

As I said on Second Reading, by its handling of this issue, the Sentencing Council has brought on itself both this legislation and, probably, a wider discussion about its future. However, we are not having that discussion today; we are discussing legislation that is intended to allow the Sentencing Council to continue to operate and to fulfil what I believe is an important task.

There is a big gap between legislation and individual sentencing decisions. The Sentencing Council fills that gap, offering help to sentencers in their role. I suspect that if the Sentencing Council were not fulfilling that function, someone or something else would have to do so. In that gap between legislation and individual cases, the closer we are to legislation, the more legitimate parliamentary and ministerial involvement is likely to be; and the closer we are to individual cases, the more danger there is of trespassing on judicial independence and the separation of powers, so we should tread carefully.

If we are to compromise the independence of the Sentencing Council in substantial ways, we should do it only having considered all the implications of doing so, but that is not what this Bill allows for. It is designed to do a specific job, and I think it could do it even more specifically, hence my amendments. \p Andrew Slaughter: It is a pleasure to take part in the Committee stage of this short Bill. On Second Reading, only a few days ago, I set out my views on the merits or otherwise of the Bill; how it affects the role of the Sentencing Council; the council’s consultation on this guideline; and the response to that consultation by the then Government, through their sentencing Minister, and by the Justice Committee, through my predecessor as Chair, Sir Bob Neill KC.

I also regretted the way that the Bill has been used to undermine judicial independence, and to allow ad hominem attacks on judges under the guise of belated objections to the guideline. I am not the only person to raise these concerns, and I agree entirely with the article on this matter by Sir Bob in The Times last Thursday. I do not propose repeating any of his arguments; nor do I need to spend a long time on the amendments tabled for debate. Those proposed by the official Opposition do no more than continue on another front the culture war that is the obsession of the shadow Lord Chancellor in his quest for higher office.

I am more sympathetic to the new clause in the name of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), who is an important member of the Justice Committee. Given the fractured  nature of the debate around the Bill, and the testy relationship between the Sentencing Council and the Ministry of Justice, it may be sensible to review the effect of the Bill, but I am not sure we need to put that into legislation. Indeed, the sentencing landscape is about to shift fundamentally with the imminent publication of the independent sentencing review, which is swiftly to be followed by a sentencing Bill. I suspect that issues raised by this Bill will get swallowed up in that process, and the Lord Chancellor has indicated that it may include a review of the role of the Sentencing Council.

I do not want to stir the pot further, but I observe that had the Sentencing Council been prepared, without the threat of legislation, to postpone implementation of the guideline, all these matters might have been dealt with in one Bill, and in the light of David Gauke’s recommendations. The parliamentary and ministerial time that has been spent debating a relatively narrow point could, in my view, have been better spent on other matters requiring urgent attention in our courts and prisons. \p Ashley Fox: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the reason why we are here today is an error of judgment by the Sentencing Council, on which it refused to back down until threatened with legislation? Does the amendment proposed by the shadow Justice Secretary not offer greater protection to the public from future errors of judgment by the Sentencing Council? \p Andrew Slaughter: As I say, I do not want to repeat everything I said on Second Reading. I made a case then for why the Sentencing Council had behaved quite properly. It was complimented by many people—including the Justice Committee, on which the hon. Gentleman serves—for the way it conducted its consultation. I have a great deal of sympathy with the council and its chair, who were somewhat surprised by the reaction at that stage, the guideline having been approved by pretty much everyone who considered it at that time.

On the views of the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Justice Committee, whose opinions I have a great deal of time for, the Sentencing Council was a little stubborn when confronted with the Lord Chancellor’s view, as well as those of other Members of the House, and it could have acted to prevent us all needing to discuss this today; as I say, there are many other matters that need our attention.

On the amendments in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), as I would expect from a distinguished former Attorney General, his amendments go to the central issue in the Bill, which is whether it does what the Government intend it to do. I hope the Minister will address the issue of what a “personal characteristic” is, as opposed to a particular demographic cohort, and the question of what characteristics are caught by clause 1.

I will take a few minutes, if I may, to add some related questions on which I am seeking the Minister’s guidance. First, I turn to the effect of the Bill on the sentencing guidelines already in force. The effect of the Bill goes beyond the imposition of the community and custodial sentences guideline and future guidelines; it would also render unlawful the inclusion of provision framed by  reference to different characteristics of an offender in all definitive sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Council that have already been issued and are in force. The potential retrospective effect of the Bill on guidelines already in force could create legal uncertainty as to their lawfulness.

There are two main examples of overarching guidelines in force that could be caught by the Bill: the guideline on sentencing children and young people, and the guideline on sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders or neurological impairments.

In relation to offence-specific guidelines, a significant number contain mitigating factors framed by personal characteristics that have expanded explanations referring to the need to order a pre-sentence report—for example, an explanation for the mitigating factor of “age and/or lack of maturity” in the aggravated burglary guideline. By way of another example, the explanation of the mitigating factor of pregnancy, childbirth and post-natal care in the same guideline states:

“When considering a custodial or community sentence for a pregnant or postnatal offender…the Probation Service should be asked to address the issues below in a pre-sentence report. If a suitable pre-sentence report is not available, sentencing should normally be adjourned until one is available.”

In a letter to the chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 24 April, the Minister wrote:

“Once the Bill is in force, any provision in sentencing guidelines that is of the description in the new subsection (4A) will cease to be lawful and so cease to have effect. I can therefore confirm that the Bill will, as a matter of law, affect both new and existing guidelines. In practice, this means that some existing guidelines will be affected by the Bill, including offence-specific guidelines related to mitigating and aggravating factors, which set out guidance about PSRs for specific cohorts.”

To my mind, that prompts several questions. First, have the Government determined which existing guidelines will be rendered unlawful by the Bill? Secondly, why did the Government decide to make the provision in the Bill apply to all guidelines, rather than just the imposition of the community and custodial sentences guideline, which was issued by the Sentencing Council as a definitive guideline on 5 March 2025? Thirdly, are the Government willing to limit the effect of the Bill so that it does not affect the legality of any guidelines currently in force? All those matters are in the interest of clarity.

There is also the matter of the definition of personal characteristics, which was touched on by the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam. The Bill states that guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council cannot include provision framed by reference to “personal characteristics”. The Bill then specifies that personal characteristics include “in particular” race, religion or belief and cultural background. The list is non-exhaustive and therefore covers other personal characteristics, such as age, disability, sex and sexual orientation. Clause 1 will therefore render unlawful the following cohorts, which were included in the imposition of the community and custodial sentence guideline:

“a young adult…female…an ethnic minority”,

which we have discussed,

“pregnant or post-natal…has disclosed they are transgender…has or may have a serious chronic medical condition or physical disability.”

There are others.

Neither the Bill nor its explanatory notes provide any further guidance on the intended meaning of “personal characteristics”. The use of the term “characteristics” means that each of the protected characteristics, as defined by the Equality Act 2010—age, disability, gender assignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation—may be caught by the provision. The Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights wrote to the Lord Chancellor on 8 April and asked the following question:

“Is the term ‘personal characteristics’ in the Bill intended to exclude pregnancy, motherhood…and age…to ensure guidelines that are consistent with…case law?”

The reply from the Minister on 24 April, which I have referred to, said:

“The Bill specifies that personal characteristics includes race, religion or belief or cultural background. However, this is a non-exhaustive list and personal characteristics is also intended to cover a wider range of characteristics, including sex, gender identity, age, physical disabilities and pregnancy status. Pregnancy, motherhood and age are therefore not excluded from the definition of ‘personal characteristics’”.

The explanatory notes state that the Bill does not affect Court of Appeal case law in circumstances where a pre-sentencing report is “necessary or desirable”. They then cite three cases, which are Thompson, on

“a woman who is pregnant or has recently given birth”;

Meanley, which involved young defendants; and Kurmekaj, where

“the defendant’s traumatic upbringing, vulnerability and the fact they had been a victim of modern slavery”

meant that a pre-sentence report should have been required. The explanatory notes make it clear that the Government do not intend to prevent the Court of Appeal or any other body from issuing guidance relating to pre-sentence reports from being framed by personal characteristics, other than ethnic, cultural and faith or minority community. That appears to indicate that they do not object in principle to such an approach.

The Minister’s letter makes it clear that the Government’s objection lies with the Sentencing Council taking such an approach. Why does the Bill take a non-exhaustive approach to the definition of personal characteristics? Are the Government willing to narrow the effect of the Bill so that only references to

“ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community”

will be deemed unlawful? Will the Government explain why they wish to make it unlawful for the Sentencing Council to produce guidance to require a pre-sentence report for a defendant with a physical or mental disability? Why are the Government willing to accept that the Court of Appeal can provide guidance on when a pre-sentence report is needed by reference to personal characteristics but not willing to accept the Sentencing Council doing the same thing?

I have one final question. The effect of clause 1 is to prevent the inclusion of guidance that is “framed by reference to” personal characteristics. Will the Bill prevent the Sentencing Council from making an indirect reference to personal characteristics through reference to either Court of Appeal case law or mitigating factors in a guideline relating to pre-sentence reports? Those are the only matters I wish to raise in relation to the amendments today.

I am concerned that there are ramifications to proposals in the Bill that have not been covered. It may be that those can be corrected in the other place, or it may be that matters have to wait until we have a sentencing Bill in the autumn. While I entirely understand the Government’s frustration with the Sentencing Council, I do not feel that this Bill is the solution to the problems that they have identified, whereas its consequences have been exaggerated in many respects. If we want a system that is not only fair and robust, but clear in dealing with when pre-sentence reports are needed, we need to return to this issue on a future occasion. \p Ashley Fox: I have already recorded my support for the principle of this Bill, which is unfortunately necessary to uphold the principle of equal justice. I speak in support of amendments 3 and 4, which would further strengthen this legislation.

Amendment 3 would give the Justice Secretary the power to prevent future errors of judgment by the Sentencing Council. It would require the council to secure ministerial consent before issuing any sentencing guidelines concerning pre-sentence reports. We should be clear that that is not a measure aimed at politicising justice. However, we must ensure democratic oversight of a body that has shown itself to be capable of committing a serious error of judgment, which led to the situation today. The reason why we are legislating is that the Sentencing Council’s guidance proposed treating offenders differently based on their ethnic, cultural or religious identities. That is wrong. \p Diane Abbott: The Sentencing Council has at no point suggested treating defendants differently according to their ethnicity or religion. All it has tried to do is ensure that judges and magistrates have the maximum information. \p Ashley Fox: The Sentencing Council says that if, for example, someone is a white, Christian male, they are less likely to benefit from a pre-sentence report than if they were a member of a religious or ethnic minority. I believe that that is wrong. \p Ayoub Khan: Does the hon. Member know that any defendant before the courts who has no previous convictions, despite the seriousness of the offence, is entitled to a pre-sentence report? \p Ashley Fox: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. As a former solicitor, I am familiar with that provision, and I agree that any defendant who has not yet received a custodial sentence should have the benefit of a pre-sentence report. However, imagine two criminals who both have a criminal record, but one is a member of a religious or ethnic minority and one is not. The guidelines propose treating them differently, and that is not justice. \p Luke Evans: Is the fact not that the sentencing guidance said that a pre-sentence report would normally be considered necessary, and then went on to talk about race and religion? Making those distinctions immediately apparent in sentencing guidance, which could mean that a white Christian male would be treated differently if they committed the same offence as someone of a different ethnicity, is the fundamental problem. \p Ashley Fox: Indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point; the point I wish to make to the Committee is that all defendants should be treated equally. It should not be a matter of whether or not they are a member of an ethnic or religious minority.

The Sentencing Council did not withdraw the guidance on principle, and it did not acknowledge its error. It was forced to backtrack only after public and political pressure, largely from the shadow Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). Even then, the council continued to defend the policy’s rationale in private communications to the judiciary. That is not accountability—it is evasion. That is precisely why amendment 3 is so vital. We cannot allow this to happen again, and Parliament must have a say when guidance threatens the impartiality of our legal system.

Amendment 4, which addresses the content of sentencing guidance itself, is equally important. The amendment would make it illegal for sentencing decisions to consider a defendant’s group identity, particularly in reference to historical discrimination that has no bearing on their individual case. Current bail guidance from the Ministry of Justice already advises courts to consider the trauma suffered by individuals whose relatives experienced racism or cultural discrimination. It even refers to “important historical events” and their supposed differential impact on specific ethnic or cultural groups. That approach undermines the principle that people should be judged as individuals, not as members of a group. Amendment 4 would draw a clear legal line: mitigating factors in sentencing must relate directly to an individual’s actions and circumstances. Inherited identity or injustices not experienced by a particular convicted criminal should not be relevant to the sentence passed by the court.

Race, religion or cultural background should not determine whether someone is sent to prison, and it should not determine whether or not someone should benefit from a pre-sentence report. The Lord Chancellor has argued that the current Bill allows her to “move at pace” to reverse the worst aspects of the Sentencing Council’s proposals, but this is not just about moving fast; it is also about ensuring that we never face this situation again. Amendments 3 and 4 are essential if we are serious about protecting the most basic principle of a free society, which is equality before the law. Without them, the Bill addresses the symptoms, but not the cause. As such, I urge the Committee to support those amendments and reaffirm our commitment to equality before the law. \p Diane Abbott: I entirely agree with Members who are making the case that we should all be equal before the law. The problem is that the figures show that that is not the case, and it has not been the case for decades. If we look at the statistics for the numbers of people in prison, black people make up 12% of the prison population, yet we only make up 4% of the general population. That tends to raise the concern that we are not equal before the law across the whole custodial and criminal justice system. I remember that years ago, before some Members were in the House, you could not say anything about institutional racism in the police force and how black people were treated by the police. It took Stephen Lawrence and the Macpherson inquiry to get politicians and people who speak for the state to even acknowledge that there was such an issue as institutional racism in the police force.

My concern about the debate we have had about these guidelines is that, for short-term political advantage, we are putting forward a hurried Bill that carries the risk of undermining the Sentencing Council and indirectly undermining the judiciary. I do not believe that that is in the interests of our legal system. I remind the Committee that the guidelines were put out to consultation and there were 150 respondents, only four of which made any reference to the guidelines on ethnic minorities that are so upsetting Members on both sides of the House. Since then, 20 organisations, including the Centre for Women’s Justice, Amnesty International and the End Violence Against Women Coalition, have written to the Lord Chancellor to say that the consequences of ditching the guidelines could be dire. Among other things, they contain detailed advice on sentencing pregnant women and the parents of very young children. I repeat that the guidelines do not dictate the sentence. They only say that there are instances—where the defendant is young, or where they are a pregnant woman—in which we want the maximum information.

What is problematic about this debate and this legislation is that it has been framed as if the real conflict is between politics and the role of our criminal justice system. I would say that the real issue underlying this legislation—I know this is not a view that is shared—is how seriously this House, and Ministers in particular, are prepared to take the proven history of racial discrimination in our criminal justice system, and not just pay lip service to it but do something about it. The poor Sentencing Council is scarcely made up of radicals; it is a group of very senior judges. However, like anybody with any connection to the criminal justice system, those judges know that there is an issue of institutional racism in the courts. In the mildest possible way, they were trying to make a suggestion through their guidelines that might help to ensure that everybody is treated the same.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, I believe everybody is not treated the same, and people outside this Chamber will not understand how so many Members, including so many Ministers, are trying to claim that we are all treated the same. If we want to hold our criminal justice system up to the light—if we want to show people that we as a House are concerned with making sure that the system is fair and is seen to be fair—we should accept the guidelines that have been put forward by the Sentencing Council. \p Siân Berry: I associate myself with every single thing that the Mother of the House has just said, because I could not possibly live up to it. I genuinely believe that this Bill will undermine efforts to ensure that equality before the law is a reality for everyone. It flies in the face of expertise and of the painstaking, authoritative work of the Sentencing Council —a rightly independent body run by, and for, the judiciary. This is a strange and populist Bill that is undermining and delaying good, well-evidenced independent guidelines for effective sentencing that would have made our justice system more fair, rather than less.

I will start my objections to clauses 1 and 2 standing part of the Bill—I am essentially opposing the Bill as a whole—by commenting on the process. We have before us a single-page Bill that in its specificity and intent  cannot but bring to my mind how the current President of the United States is using executive orders to interfere intrusively and intricately in the rightly independent decision making of other bodies. This is a micro Bill that micromanages. I worry what else we might see from this Government if such an example is set today. On Second Reading, the shadow Justice Secretary was not shy of telling us about his next targets, which include the long-standing “Equal Treatment Bench Book”. The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) has outlined other guidelines that might be immediately affected if we pass this Bill today.

My second objection is about the substance of the Bill, which is primarily contained in clause 1. I cannot believe that Ministers and shadow Ministers are unaware that achieving fair and equal outcomes does not mean treating everyone exactly the same. That principle is so fundamental that I think I learned it through the round window. I cannot believe they are unaware that systemic racism and unconscious bias are real things that still affect people at every stage of the criminal justice system in the United Kingdom in 2025. They must be aware that the good practice that we put together must mitigate those things, or else it will compound them.

I do not believe that the Government as a whole think that the findings of the independent Lammy review of 2017 are untrue, or that they and a wealth of other evidence did not demonstrate the need for guidelines of this sort to provide information to help mitigate the impact of systemic racism and prejudice. Yet here we are, being asked to vote for legislation that essentially bans this evidence and these principles from being part of independent judicial guidelines. \p Luke Evans: My concern and that of Opposition Members is that the guidance gave examples where pre-sentence reports would “normally be considered necessary” and picked out an identity of a religion or a minority, thereby entrenching racism back into the system. That is the very aim that the hon. Member purports to not want to see. That is the fundamental argument that the Government and the Opposition are putting forward. We do not want to see this situation made worse. \p Siân Berry: This is— \p Diane Abbott: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Siân Berry: Yes, of course. \p Diane Abbott: Just to respond to the point that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) has just raised, the guidelines did not pick out race and ethnicity. In fact, they listed a number of circumstances in which a pre-sentence report might be considered appropriate, such as someone facing their first custodial sentence, someone who is under 25, someone who is a woman, pregnant, a primary carer or a dependent relative, someone who has said they are transgender or someone who may have addiction issues. Far from the Sentencing Council picking out race and ethnicity, that was only one in a long list of circumstances in which it suggested a pre-sentence report might be appropriate. \p Siân Berry: To return to the intervention from the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), it is difficult for some to realise that with these guidelines, the definition of “normal” has flipped away from the  male, the white, the Christian and the majority to shine more of a light on people who are parts of minorities and might have experienced systemic problems leading up to the sentencing decision. That is the point of the guidelines. That is how we act in an anti-racist way. It is how we put together policy that mitigates the great problems that the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), has outlined and we know well.

In contrast to this rushed Bill, the process that led to the now suspended new Sentencing Council guidelines was excellent: the document was consulted on widely; the Justice Committee looked at it; and it was given the green light by a Conservative Government, of which the shadow Justice Secretary was a member. Before I am intervened on, I am aware that a small change was made, but in essence the same document has come forward and the same principles were enshrined in the document that was proposed and approved. There was basically consensus that more use of pre-sentence reports should be made for people suffering from systemic injustices, that particular groups might be in greater need of them, and that judges should be permitted and encouraged to ask for such reports for those groups in more circumstances.

I want to talk about another group who will suffer from the delay caused by the Bill suspending the guidelines. I do not know when we will get new guidelines, but there will be more harm to women, families and children, who were all given more specific focus in the new—now suspended—guidelines. I have worked for some years on the problems and injustices facing women in the criminal justice system. I am concerned about the serious consequences that will come from any delay to these long overdue changes to further widen the use of pre-sentence reports and to make those reports easier for these groups. There will be serious consequences not only for too many people with these characteristics or circumstances—however we define it—but for wider society too. Will Ministers tell us about the impact of this delay on women, families, pregnant people and other groups named? When will we get new guidelines that include them? How many people will be harmed in the meantime? This delay has already taken some weeks.

Some Members will be familiar with the seminal 2007 Corston report about women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system. Incidentally, that document reminds us in its introduction:

“Equality does not mean treating everyone the same.”

The Sentencing Council guidelines were about to help plug a gap that still remained in terms of addressing the recommendations and themes of the Corston report. Indeed, in its commentary, the Sentencing Council rightly points to deeply concerning evidence of this problem. I am aware of difficulties judges have had in justifying delays and adjournments to go and get pre-sentence reports. The old guidance pushed for often impossible same-day reporting back from the Probation Service and cautioned against adjournments. With this delay to the new guidelines, will it be 2027—20 years after Corston—before the old guidelines are fully removed? How many women might be harmed in the meantime?

As far as I can see, the shadow Justice Secretary has scored a major win today, seizing this issue to stage another culture war ambush against another minority. Instead of standing by judges and by important principles  we have all known for a long time—instead of simply allowing these guidelines to be trialled while the concerns being raised were addressed calmly—this Government have essentially put an executive order-style Bill before us now for its remaining stages. There was not even time on Second Reading for opponents like me to point that out.

I am sorry, but I believe that this Bill represents nothing less than a rushed and extraordinary capitulation by this Government to hard-right propaganda. People will suffer injustice as a result. It is profoundly worrying to see the Government legislating in this manner, micromanaging justice in ways that are led by—let’s face it—dog whistles, rhyming slogans and disingenuous propaganda. I will support new clause 1, but I sincerely hope that other Members will join me in voting against this Trumpian Bill and showing our respect for the independence of judges and magistrates on these matters. It is vital that we do something today to stand up for evidence-led policy, judicial independence and genuine equality before the law. \p Ayoub Khan: Let me begin by drawing Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a member of the Bar.

I will align my comments with those of the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). The Bill, and the amendments, do not in reality tackle two-tier justice in this country; in fact, they risk entrenching it. Our justice system is founded on a principle that we all claim to uphold—fairness and equality before the law—but today we are being asked to support legislation that fundamentally undermines that principle.

Let me be absolutely clear. This is not a matter of opinion. Lord Justice William Davis, the chair of the Sentencing Council, has written candidly about the issue. He has said, for example, that defendants from minority ethnic backgrounds are statistically more likely to receive harsher sentences than their white counterparts for a similar offence. That is not the opinion of politicians or pressure groups, but a warning from within the senior judiciary itself. The Bill ignores that reality. Worse still, it undermines one of the very tools designed to correct it: the pre-sentence report.

Let us remind ourselves what a pre-sentence report is, and what it is not. It is not the sentence itself. Sentencing decisions are rightly governed by separate judicial guidance, based on culpability, harm caused and established sentencing ranges. Those guidelines remain in place. What the pre-sentence report does is help the court to understand the background and circumstances of the offender—information that is needed to establish effective pathways to rehabilitation, particularly when the offender has experienced issues such as mental health challenges, learning difficulties or lifelong trauma.

The current guidelines for pre-sentence reports were very carefully revised with the input of not just senior judges but leading academics and practitioners—experts in criminal justice who understand the complexities and systemic disadvantages that many offenders face. In the  House, we routinely rely on expert testimony to shape our policy, whether it concerns the NHS, education or the environment, and rightly so. In this case, however, we are doing the precise opposite: rejecting expert opinion, dismissing data, and ignoring lived experience.

Let me offer an analogy, or a parallel, with health disparities. According to Public Health England and the Stroke Association, black African and Caribbean men over the age of 55 are almost twice as likely to suffer a stroke as white men of the same age. That is not speculation; it is a clinical fact. If the NHS were to implement a targeted programme to deliver early stroke prevention for that group, not a single person in this Chamber would call it a two-tier health system. We would call it evidence-based care. We would call it a fair and proportionate response to a known disparity. So why, when it comes to justice, are we so afraid to apply the same logic? \p Luke Evans: From a medical perspective, there would be a genetic predisposition. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that people would, on a genetic basis, find themselves affected by the law purely because they were black? The comparison he has just made is exactly that, from a medical standpoint. I do not think he would really make such a suggestion, and I would certainly be against that position. \p Ayoub Khan: The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but as a criminal practitioner who has frequented courts over the last 20 years, I have seen disparities. I have seen sentencing which, in my view, was not fair. Lived experiences among certain communities are just as important as those of other minorities, whatever their backgrounds. Ultimately, who has decided that this is an important element that needs to be taken into account in the sentencing guidelines? This went through all the consultation under the last Government. People had seen it, and agreed to it. It did not raise a concern back then, so why should it now?

Addressing inequality is not the same as creating inequality. It is, in fact, the only way in which to ensure real equality—to ensure that justice is not just blind in theory, but fair in practice. I know some will argue that we need to understand the root causes of disparity, and they are right: that longer-term work is essential. However, while it is going on we must act in the present. We must allow the experts to do their jobs and support the guidance that they, not we, have developed through years of experience, research and consultation.

This Bill is not just misguided; it is regressive. I cannot and will not support legislation that sidelines expert insight, ignores data and compromises the principles of fairness that we all claim to defend in the name of political convenience. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, and right now the communities that face this disparity will no doubt be concerned about the Government’s approach. \p Dan Tomlinson: First, I acknowledge that disparities in outcomes in our judicial system are a real issue and merit serious attention. I recognise the work of the Lammy review in 2017, as well as the conclusions of the Ministry of Justice’s 2020 report, “Tackling Racial Disparity in the Criminal Justice System”, which found disparities in how people  from minority ethnic groups are treated in the judicial system. It is important that these issues continue to have the focus that they merit.

However, I am glad that the Bill has passed its Second Reading and that we are progressing through its remaining stages today. I am firmly of the view that it is not for the Sentencing Council to make policy decisions on this matter, for those are the domain of politicians and must remain so. The Government should be able to make political decisions and implement them, and the ballot box is the right place for us to be held to account.

What I find refreshing about the continued passage of this Bill is that we are showing that politicians do not have to be jelly-like in the face of blockages to their desire to make political decisions. At the same time, I support the unamended passage of the Bill, because it finds a way to thread the needle with a targeted intervention. Amendment 3, tabled by the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, goes too far and would undermine the independence of the Sentencing Council. \p Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend refers to blockages. How can he describe Members of this House, and people in the community who are trying to stand up for a fair and just criminal justice system, as blockages? \p Dan Tomlinson: I do not think that anyone in this House is a blockage—far from it. The point I am making is that I believe that this House should be the place where political decisions are made, and that politicians should make decisions about important things that matter to people in this country.

It is my view that the Sentencing Council is an important body. Crucially, however, it is not political, and I think that if the guidelines had gone through, it would have undermined the important principle of equality before the law. That is a political decision, and Members of this House hold different opinions, but it is for us to contest them in this place. I am glad the Government are making sure that we can make progress on the things that we believe need to be pushed forward for the British people, and I hope that the Bill will pass unamended today, because the precise changes that it proposes would prevent sentencing guidelines from being changed in ways that undermine equality before the law. I do not think that the amendments tabled by the Opposition are necessary, because they take things too far.

With this Bill and much else besides, it is time for us to show that moderate politics, which is the politics of this Government, does not have to be like soup—weak and watery, and impossible to hold on to—but can instead be the politics of action and delivery. I welcome the continued passage of this Bill and urge Members to vote for it today. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Josh Babarinde: I made the Liberal Democrat position on this very short Bill, and on this issue more widely, abundantly clear in the last debate that we had on this matter: we believe in equality before the law, we believe in the rule of law, and we believe that no one is above the law. That is why we believe that anyone facing the prospect of a custodial sentence should be the subject of a pre-sentence report. We believe that the state has that duty before dispensing its power to deprive someone of their liberty.

There is no world in which judges and magistrates having more information about an offender, whoever they are, and their circumstances is a bad thing. That is why it is an injustice that the use of pre-sentence reports had fallen from 160,000 in 2015 to just 90,000 by 2023, which is a cut of 42%. That has left judges and magistrates with fewer resources and insights than ever with which to go about their work. Less informed sentencing means less satisfactory sentencing outcomes. It means more reoffending, more victims and more turmoil, and that is unacceptable. That is not justice.

This is a product of the under-investment in our Probation Service—it compiles the reports—which was gutted under the Conservative Government. I therefore welcome the fact that the Minister, in his closing speech on Second Reading, agreed with me that

“the debate should be about how we move to universality of pre-sentence reports, not about rationing.”—[Official Report, 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 1019.]

I will come to new clause 1 shortly. \p Ashley Fox: The hon. Member will be aware that any sentencing magistrate or judge can request a pre-sentence report, so I would say that his use of the word “rationing” is inappropriate. \p Josh Babarinde: I do not know whether the hon. Member has read the Sentencing Council’s summary of the responses to the draft guidance that was in consultation under the Conservative Government, but it paraphrased magistrates and judges as saying that driving the universality of pre-sentence reports would be challenging in the light of the limited resource for the Probation Service and of the court backlogs. I would suggest that he consult that document to see the phrases used by those legal professionals. \p Luke Evans: How much would universality cost? Have the Lib Dems calculated how much it would cost? \p Josh Babarinde: If the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) was making the point that these reports should exist come what may, the cash should be ringfenced and earmarked for the use of judges and magistrates to request them, but he and the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) cannot have it both ways. We know that if we best tailor a sentence to whether it will result in somebody not reoffending—if we best match the sentence to an offender—we can spend to save. If we can reduce reoffending by ensuring that people get the appropriate sentence, we will keep people out of our crumbling prisons who do not need to be there because they will not reoffend in the first place. We can spend to save.

I regret that this issue has become a political football and one that is sowing the seeds of division. Plainly and simply, this is about the shadow Justice Secretary attempting to hijack our criminal justice system for his own political ends. So desperate is he to score political points that he uses his platform in this House to undermine judges by name, in the full knowledge that they cannot respond and that there is a formal process by which judicial complaints can be investigated and addressed. So desperate are the Conservatives to score political points that they paint judges as activist villains and are working to undermine public confidence in them just because the shadow Justice Secretary does not agree with their rulings. \p Kieran Mullan: I would expect the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to at least acknowledge that such references are to judges in their capacity as leaders of the Sentencing Council, not to judges sitting in individual cases. That is an important distinction to make when parliamentarians comment on their conduct. \p Josh Babarinde: I refer the hon. Member to the comments the shadow Justice Secretary made at the last Justice questions—I think the hon. Member was not in attendance for that—when he named a specific judge and made a critique of or complaint about them outside the formal processes. \p Ayoub Khan: Judges have been vilified, as have others sitting on the Sentencing Council, by Members of this House. Does the hon. Member agree that, if there is to be any vilification, it should be of the Conservative Members who formed the previous Government, who held the consultation and agreed to the guidance? \p Josh Babarinde: I do not agree that vilification is the right approach from any side of the argument. This debate should be conducted with respect and courtesy, and I feel that that was missing from some of the comments I just referred to. Absolutely, there must be accountability. Indeed, the previous Government were held accountable in huge respect at the general election, where they suffered the biggest defeat in their history. So desperate is the shadow Justice Secretary to rise to the top of our democracy that he is prepared, in the ways I have described, to undermine our democracy itself.

Turning to specifics, as other hon. Members have referred to, the Bill and its amendments are rushed, knee-jerk and not the way to make policy about people’s liberty or our constitution. Why not negotiate with the Sentencing Council, now that the immediate emergency has subsided? To my knowledge, based on my engagement with the Ministry of Justice, Ministers and officials, the question of how long they would be prepared to pause before the implementation of the guidelines has not been asked. Why not wait for the Gauke review to report and ensure that the issue is explored comprehensively and that wider consultation takes place? Why not comprehensively address what is already a two-tier justice system, as hon. Members on the Benches behind me and the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), have referred to? As the Lammy review found, people from ethnic minority backgrounds are more likely to serve longer sentences for the same crimes than those who are not from ethnic minority backgrounds. It is disappointing that there is no provision in the Bill to consider that. If the Government insist on passing the Bill, we urge them to embrace our calls for an independent review of pre-sentence reports to be conducted within two years, as per new clause 1. \p Siân Berry: I hope the hon. Member was listening to my speech when I talked about the harm that might be caused by the delay in bringing in the really excellent parts of the new guidelines that might help women and families. Are the Liberal Democrats asking for a delay, or would they like to support bringing in the parts of the guidance that are agreed as soon as possible? \p Josh Babarinde: One problem with the proposals is that consultation has been minimal. They come from a rushed place. They come from a place of responding to a culture war. We are voting on people’s liberties and we need to consider the issues in great detail before responding, not in a knee-jerk way. What I can say, and what I have discussed with Members, including the Lord Chancellor, is that, for example, in the guidance on pre-sentence reports, the circumstances of victims of domestic violence, modern slavery and so on should be considered. As I said at the very beginning of my speech, on pre-sentence reports we should lean toward a presumption of universality rather than one of rationing, so that for all the groups and individuals that have just been mentioned, and more, judges can access a pre-sentence report.

We make the call I have just made not only because we have grave concerns about the impact of the proposed changes, but because we remain steadfastly committed to evidence-based policy making. Against the backdrop of cynical culture wars and leadership manoeuvres, it is more important than ever for the Government to assess the outcomes of this policy, with assessments based on statistics, data and evidence as opposed to dogma and ideology.

To conclude, we must not dance to the tune of the populists or the culture war fanatics, or undermine our legal institutions. As such, our position has not changed since last time and we will act accordingly. We will defend our judicial system and its independence, but we reject short-term reforms that fail to address the wider issues of disproportionality at play. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Kieran Mullan: I rise to speak in support of amendments 3 and 4 in my name and in the name of the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and of Conservative colleagues.

As MPs from across the House have made clear, the draft guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council would have led to an unacceptable two-tier justice system in which defendants were treated differently on the basis not of their crimes, but of their racial, cultural or religious identity. In fact, the record will show that two-tier justice did exist for several hours, because this issue was managed so shambolically that the guidance came into effect ahead of its formal withdrawal. That is not justice—it is a betrayal of the fundamental principle of equality before the law. It would have happened under the watch of this Labour Government and this Lord Chancellor but for the intervention of the Opposition, and in particular the shadow Secretary of State for Justice.

This Bill is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Instead of acting decisively to restore public confidence, after the Labour Government have been dragged to this Chamber to act at all, they now bring forward a half measure—a meagre response that falls short of what it should be. That is why the Opposition have tabled two important amendments.

Amendment 3 would ensure that in future, sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports cannot simply be issued by the Sentencing Council without democratic oversight, and would instead require the consent of the Secretary of State before coming into force. Why is that  now necessary? The Sentencing Council has proven itself not just in the initial measures it proposed, but in its attitude and response towards parliamentary and public scrutiny, to be unable to sustain public confidence in its work in this area. It is one thing for a public body to possess operational independence and to seek to exercise that independence on a day-to-day basis; it is quite something else for a public body to choose not to exercise good judgment and make use of that independence to act with restraint in the face of widespread Government, Opposition, parliamentary and public concern. While they do, of course, have their merits, the actions of the Sentencing Council have brought to life the potential pitfalls of unelected quangos that are deaf to the concerns of the people who pay their wages and the politicians who represent them.

While this whole affair has no doubt been humiliating for the Lord Chancellor and the Government, the damage to public confidence in the leadership of the Sentencing Council is just as great. Despite what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) said in his remarks on Second Reading, the Sentencing Council did not agree to pause the implementation of the guidelines to allow for a period of reflection—it outright refused to do so. He has misunderstood the sequence of events. The council paused only because we would have otherwise entered into a constitutionally unsustainable situation where people were being sentenced in the courts, with guidelines being legislated against in Parliament through emergency legislation. It was that direct threat alone that caused the council to pause and demonstrated its lack of judgment.

I am afraid that we must therefore act more broadly to constrain the Sentencing Council in future, pending any wholesale changes that may be forthcoming. That is why the shadow Secretary of State put forward a Bill that would have taken the necessary steps to return accountability of the body through the Lord Chancellor while wholesale reform could be undertaken. Labour chose to oppose that Bill. Today, it is out of scope for the Opposition to seek to introduce a similarly wide amendment, and we are therefore restricted to seeking to at least restore accountability where we can in this field.

The amendment would require that guidelines on pre-sentence reports drafted by the council must be expressly approved by the Secretary of State before they come into force as definitive guidelines—a basic safeguard of democratic accountability, ensuring ministerial oversight on sensitive sentencing matters. Without our amendment, history may repeat itself: the same council will be free to bring forward ideological frameworks that Ministers will be powerless to stop before the damage is done. Had these guidelines gone unchallenged, we would have tilted sentencing based on identity politics, undermining public confidence in the entire system.

Our amendment would create a crucial safeguard, ensuring that no future set of guidelines in this field, at least, could bypass ministerial accountability. I encourage those on the Government Benches who have made clear that they wish to see accountability restored across the work of the Sentencing Council to vote in support of amendment 3; doing otherwise would make clear that they are unwilling to follow through on their concerns with action.

Amendment 4 would make clear that sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports must not include consideration of a defendant’s status as part of a group that has experienced historical or intergenerational trauma. Why is this necessary? It would be deeply wrong to allow collective historical grievances to influence the sentencing of an individual today. This area is the latest frontier of identity politics, with the public being told that what should be given disproportionate focus in all sorts of domains—that what matters more than what is happening today, with the whole variety of challenges facing people of all creeds and colours—is, in fact, the past. Sentencing must focus on the actions, culpability and direct personal circumstances of the defendant before the court, not on sweeping assumptions based on historical events.

We are not able in this Bill to legislate across all the workings of the criminal justice system as much as we might like to. The events of the past few months have shown that what has happened with these guidelines was not a one-off. There is a creeping, systemic attempt to inject identity politics into our judicial processes, bail decisions, probation, and even training materials. If we do not confront this now, it will embed itself deeper and deeper into the foundations of our system. It is fundamental to the rule of law that justice looks to the individual, not to the group. It is fundamental that we deal in evidence, not in ideology.

Taken together, our amendments are designed to strengthen this Bill, to ensure that it is not merely a reactive measure, but, in this narrow area at least, provides lasting protection of the principle that justice must be blind, and must be seen to be blind. The public expect justice to be equal, not preferential. Our amendments will go further in helping to secure that.

We are in this Chamber today because the Lord Chancellor was not paying attention, and was then humiliated by the recalcitrant leadership of an unelected body turning its face against parliamentary and public concern. The Government should have acted decisively and immediately and we provided them with an opportunity to do so, but they failed to take it. Even now, we are faced with a Bill that does not do the full job. Our amendments are closing the gap between what the Lord Chancellor is offering and what is necessary—decisiveness in place of timidity. I urge the whole House and the Government to support them. \p Nicholas Dakin: It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I wish to thank hon and right hon. Members for the points that have been made and the amendments that have been discussed, which I shall respond to in turn. I shall speak briefly to each clause and then remind us of why we are here debating this Bill.

In the last Parliament, the Sentencing Council consulted on a revised imposition guideline, which was due to come into effect on 1 April. The revised guideline includes additional guidance on when courts should request pre-sentence reports. It notes that pre-sentence reports will “normally be considered necessary” for certain offenders, including those from an ethnic, cultural or faith minority. The “normally be considered necessary” is replaced with “may be particularly important”, which the previous Government very much welcomed.

This Government note that a pre-sentence report is necessary. They agree that disparities exist in the criminal justice system. The reasons for that are unclear, but this is a matter for the Government, accountable to Parliament and to the ballot box, to address.

In effect, the revised guideline could have led to judges deciding whether to request a pre-sentence report based on an offender’s faith or the colour of their skin. The Lord Chancellor has been clear that this would be unacceptable, as it risks differential treatment. Singling out one group over another undermines the idea that we all stand equal before the law—a principle that has been in the foundations of our justice system for centuries, and that is why she acted immediately and quickly. By preventing the Sentencing Council making guidance on pre-sentence reports with reference to personal characteristics, this Bill helps to ensure equality before the law.

Clause 1 amends section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. It provides that sentencing guidelines may not include provision framed by reference to different personal characteristics, including race, religion, belief or cultural background. Therefore, any existing guidelines that make reference to different personal characteristics will cease to have effect and the Sentencing Council is prevented from making such provisions in guidelines in the future.

The changes made by this clause prevent the Sentencing Council making policy about when pre-sentence reports should be obtained that risks differential treatment before the law, and which could undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The sentencing code is clear that courts should obtain pre-sentence reports unless, in the circumstances of the case, it is unnecessary. The clause does not affect the independent judiciary’s ability to make decisions based on the personal circumstances of an individual offender, or determine where pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable. Nor does it stop the Sentencing Council from advising, in general terms, that pre-sentence reports are sought in cases where the court would benefit from an assessment of an offender’s personal circumstances. \p Catherine Atkinson: Pre-sentence reports, as the Minister has set out, are important in considering punishments that can address offending behaviour and help reduce the likelihood of reoffending. But, very often, probation is stretched so thin that officers do not have time to complete them. What will the Minister do to ensure that, where a pre-sentence report is required, probation has the capacity to do that important work? \p Nicholas Dakin: My hon. Friend echoes much of what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) picked up on earlier. Probation is a significant part of the landscape. That is why we are onboarding 1,300 more probation officers over the next year.

The Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), raised issues about the impact of the guidelines on existing guidelines. We expect that other guidelines will be affected by the Bill, including offence-specific  guidelines related to mitigating and aggravating factors, which set out guidance about pre-sentence reports for specific cohorts. We will continue working with the Sentencing Council on the implementation of the Bill. We have had constructive discussions and will continue to do so.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick referenced, the Bill’s explanatory notes point out, existing precedent is not changed where the courts have determined that pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable. Such cases include: Thompson, where the Court of Appeal recently emphasised the importance of reports in sentencing pregnant women or women who have recently given birth; Meanley, in which the court referenced the value of pre-sentence reports for young defendants; and Kurmekaj, where the defendant had a traumatic upbringing, a vulnerability and was a victim of modern slavery. The Bill narrowly focuses on the issue at hand, putting beyond doubt the principle that we all stand equal before the law of the land.

Clause 2 is concerned with details about how the Bill will be enacted. The Bill will apply to England and Wales only, and its measures will come into force on the day after it passes. The Bill may be cited as the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act 2025 once enacted.

I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for tabling his amendments and for the very thoughtful and comprehensive way in which he dealt with them. Amendments 1 and 2 would replace the term “personal characteristics” with “demographic cohort” to describe the type of provision about pre-sentence reports in sentencing guidelines that the Bill will prohibit. The Government have considered the proposed change to the wording very carefully and would like to take the opportunity to briefly explain the Government’s approach.

The Government’s objective is to help ensure equality before the law so that offenders are treated according to their own particular circumstances and not by virtue of their membership of a particular group. To ensure that the Bill prevents sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports including provision framed by reference to any specific personal characteristics of an offender, we have used the term “personal characteristics”. The Bill sets out that personal characteristics include race, religion or belief, or cultural background. However, this is not an exhaustive list. We accept that personal characteristics and personal circumstances have, over the years, been elided in different court judgments, and we are clear that it is intended to cover a wider range of characteristics including sex, gender identity, physical disabilities and pregnancy status.

The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam has rightly noted that the term “demographic cohort” is used in the Bill’s explanatory notes. However, the use of the term was not intended to narrow the definition of personal characteristics, and I believe it does not, though I note that he believes that it might do. Rather, it is a different term used to describe individuals who share certain personal characteristics. \p Jeremy Wright: I accept that the Minister is trying to give us clarity, so for the purposes of clarity is it the Government’s view that all personal characteristics can also be described as personal circumstances? \p Nicholas Dakin: No, that is not the Government’s view. “Personal characteristics” is a term that is understood and applied in other contexts, whereas “demographic cohort” is a term that, on balance, the Government feel is more imprecise and would ultimately need to be defined with reference to a group with shared personal characteristics. Therefore, I understand where the right hon. and learned Gentleman is coming from, but from the Government’s point of view, the amendments do not add anything to the drafting of the Bill and risk causing further confusion. As he pointed out in his helpful contribution, there is a danger of getting into detailed semantics, which probably does not help any of us. \p Jeremy Wright: I take on board the Minister’s warning, and I am not sure whether this will make it any better. I think he is saying that the term demographic cohort is a subset of personal characteristics, but personal characteristics are not the same as personal circumstances. Is that right? \p Nicholas Dakin: If we had used the phrase demographic cohort, we would have to define what that means, whereas personal characteristics is a phrase that already has a level of definition and is therefore preferred by the Government.

I turn to the similar issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick. We carefully considered whether the Bill should be narrower than referring to personal characteristics—for example, an offender being from a cultural minority—but in the end we felt that was not helpful.

As such, while I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam for suggesting alternative wording, the Government remain of the view that, having considered it carefully, the term personal characteristics is the most appropriate way of capturing the issues raised by the guideline. \p Andrew Slaughter: Will the Minister clarify the point in relation to pregnancy? He said—it is in the explanatory notes—that it would be right for a sentencer to follow Thompson and order a pre-sentence report where a woman is pregnant or has recently given birth, but that, following the passage of the Bill, it will be incorrect for the Sentencing Council to make recommendations along those lines for sentencers to follow. I do not quite see the difference. \p Nicholas Dakin: The Court of Appeal has made it clear, and, as my hon. Friend said, it is right to follow Thompson in those circumstances.

While I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam for raising and rightly exploring this issue in Committee, I hope that he will not press the amendment to a vote.

Amendment 3, tabled by the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on behalf of the official Opposition, would require the Sentencing Council to obtain the Secretary of State’s approval before issuing any sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports. Again, I referenced the helpful words of the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam, who said we should tread carefully in this territory and that the separation of powers needs to be very much respected. Therefore, while carefully considering the  case for mandating that the Sentencing Council obtain the Secretary of State’s approval, I am not persuaded that that is appropriate at this particular time.

As the Lord Chancellor has set out, this case has highlighted that a potential democratic deficit. That is why we are currently assessing the Sentencing Council’s wider role and powers for developing sentencing guidelines, with recent developments and imposition guidelines in mind. \p Kieran Mullan: I gently suggest to the Minister that if there is a risk of a democratic deficit, surely the thing to do is to act now in the short term and unpick it later if he feels he has overreached. \p Nicholas Dakin: We certainly do not feel that we have overreached. We are acting in a timely and effective way. As the debate has demonstrated, there are issues of detail that need to be properly explored. The Lord Chancellor has done the right thing in announcing a review that will have a look at things in proper time; that will take place.

Given the special role of the Sentencing Council and the significant policy and constitutional issues involved, it is right that we take the time to consider whether more fundamental reform is needed, alongside considering wider recommendations that come out of the independent sentencing review. I am not convinced that it will be proper to deal with the issue now through this fast-tracked legislation, nor am I convinced that legislating in a piecemeal way would be helpful, noting that the amendment of the right hon. Member for Newark applies just to sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports when there may be other things that we need to look at. To be clear, we are keeping all options on the table and are willing to legislate further in a more comprehensive way if necessary. I therefore urge the Opposition not to press this amendment.

Amendment 4, also tabled in the right hon. Member’s name, would prevent the Sentencing Council from framing sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports with reference to groups that may have experienced trauma from historical racism or discrimination. While we have carefully considered the case for adding this restriction to the Bill, we are not persuaded that it is necessary. We have taken a general approach in the Bill to preventing sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports from being framed by reference to any personal characteristic of an offender. The Bill specifies that personal characteristics include race, religion or cultural background, but that is not an exhaustive list.

More widely, I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Newark has taken a keen interest in wider guidance across prisons and probation that touches on different experiences, including those specified in the amendment. The Government are absolutely clear on the need to ensure equality before the law. Wider work is going on to review relevant policy and guidance, and we will update practices where necessary. I therefore urge the Opposition not to press the amendment.

New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to arrange an independent review into the restrictions the Bill places on the Sentencing Council’s ability regarding pre-sentence reports, which are framed by reference to offenders’ different personal characteristics. I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne for tabling the new clause.  Although we have carefully considered the case for such a review and I agree that it is important to carefully think through what the Bill’s effects, I am not persuaded that a review is necessary because the direct changes made by the Bill are very limited in nature.

To recap, the Bill helps protect equality before the law by ensuring no offender receives differential treatment regarding pre-sentence reports based on their personal characteristics. That reflects a fundamental principle that does not need to be reviewed. The Bill does that by restricting the powers of the Sentencing Council to issue sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports. It will prevent guidelines from, for example, creating a presumption around whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s personal characteristics, rather than all the circumstances of the offender before the court.

For the avoidance of doubt, this Government support the use of pre-sentence reports and we have publicly committed to creating more capacity in the probation service to ensure it is able to do the valuable work that includes preparing pre-sentence reports. We are also happy to continue to work with the hon. Member for Eastbourne on disparities in the criminal justice system and the use of pre-sentence reports more generally.

We fully support the increased use of PSRs in our courts. PSRs include an assessment of the offender’s behaviour and the risk they pose, and the recommendations for sentencing options. It is a valuable tool, as many Members have said, in helping to ensure a sentence is tailored to an individual offender and their circumstances.

Equality before the law is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system. It is the Government’s policy and belief that that should be protected. I again welcome the contribution from the Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), supported by the hon. Members for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) and for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), to keep our feet to the fire on tackling disproportionality. I confirm again that this Government take very seriously tackling disproportionality in the criminal justice system. That is why the Lord Chancellor has commissioned a review of the data on disparities in the justice system to better understand the drivers of the problem. I know that my right hon. Friend does not need my encouragement to keep going on this one, so I look forward to her continuing to hold us to account as we move forward.

I will also be clear on what the Bill does not do, to underscore its limited changes. Nothing in the Bill restricts the court’s pre-existing ability to request pre-sentence reports, nor the Sentencing Council from advising in general terms that a pre-sentence report should be sought where a further assessment of the offender’s personal circumstances would be beneficial to the court. The Bill does not affect Court of Appeal case law about the types of cases where pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable, as we have covered previously. There is recent relevant case law covering vulnerable defendants, pregnant women and women who have recently given birth, and young defendants. Furthermore, the Bill will not prevent judges from requesting pre-sentence reports in cases where they ordinarily would, including in appropriate cases involving, for example, pregnant women,  as well as those involving young people or domestic abuse. I welcome the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson) on those issues.

With such considerations in mind, the Government do not consider the proposed review to be necessary. However, as the Lord Chancellor has set out, she is carrying out a review into the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council, so I can reassure the hon. Member for Eastbourne that there will be further opportunities to discuss issues surrounding the Sentencing Council in the House. I therefore hope that he will withdraw the new clause. \p Judith Cummins: I call Sir Jeremy Wright to wind up. \p Jeremy Wright: I think—in gratitude to all those who have spoken—that we have got to a place where the Minister has told the House that there is some territory, which at the moment is being described as “personal characteristics”, into which the sentencing guidelines may not trespass. That is not the same as specifically referring to someone’s personal circumstances, and is a broader area than the question of whether they are a member of a particular demographic group.

I simply say to the Minister that, before this Bill complete its progress, he and his departmental colleagues may want to clarify what specific territory the Sentencing Council cannot now construct guidelines about, so that we all—including the Sentencing Council—understand where we stand. I am grateful to him for the explanation he has been able to give today, and in consequence I am content to withdraw the amendment; I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 3, page 1, line 7, at end insert—

“(2A) After subsection (7) insert—

‘(7A) In the case of guidelines within subsection (4) about pre-sentence reports, the Council must, after making any amendments of the guidelines which it considers appropriate, obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before issuing sentencing guidelines as definitive guidelines.

(7B) In any case to which subsection (7A) applies, the Secretary of State may—

(a) consent to the issuing of guideline as definitive guidelines,

(b) refuse consent for the issuing of guidelines as definitive guidelines, or

(c) direct the Council to issue the guidelines in an amended form as definitive guidelines.

(7C) Where the Secretary of State has consented to the issuing of guidelines under subsection (7B)(a) or has directed the Council to issue guidelines in an amended form under subsection (7B)(c), the Council must issue the guidelines as definitive guidelines in the appropriate form’.” —(Dr Mullan.)

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 222.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: 4, page 1, line 13, at end insert—

“(d) status as part of a group that may have experienced trauma from experiences of racism or discrimination—

(i) inter-generationally and relayed to the defendant, or

(ii) as a result of important historical events which may have had a greater impact on those from specific groups and cultures.”—(Dr Mullan.)

This amendment would ensure that sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports cannot include a defendant’s status as part of a group, particularly not if this involves considering events that may not have impacted the defendant personally.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The Committee divided: Ayes 88, Noes 226.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clauses 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading \p Nicholas Dakin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Let me first take this opportunity to thank all Members of this House who have spoken in support of this important Bill. I am particularly grateful for the support expressed on Second Reading, as well as to all the hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to this afternoon’s Committee proceedings. It is not yet a month since the Sentencing Council’s imposition guideline was due to come into effect. The Lord Chancellor followed up her concerns immediately with action. As Members from all parts of the House have acknowledged, had the Government not acted quickly to introduce this Bill, the guideline would have risked differential treatment before the law in this country.

I put on record my thanks to the Sentencing Council and in particular its chair, Lord Justice William Davis, for the constructive conversations on this issue and for pausing the guideline while Parliament had its say, as it is doing today. I also thank officials who have worked on this Bill, including Andrew Waldren, Stephen Toal, Jack Hickey, James Metter, Clare Taylor, as well as the Bill manager, Katherine Ridley, and my excellent private secretary, Emily Brougham. This Government strongly support the use of pre-sentence reports, which judges are required by law to obtain except in circumstances where they consider such a report unnecessary. We also acknowledge that there are disparities within the criminal justice system that must be addressed. However, those are matters of policy, and it is right for the Government to seek a policy response to these issues. That is why we brought this Bill forward, and I commend it to the House. \p Kieran Mullan: It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition on Third Reading, following on directly from the Committee of the whole House, where Government Members rejected our amendments to strengthen the Bill. We now know the strength of the appetite on the Labour Benches to tackle this challenge properly and comprehensively here and now: there is not one. In truth, we knew that already.

The Government had an opportunity weeks ago to restore democratic accountability to the Sentencing Council through the private Member’s Bill of the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). They rejected that opportunity, and earlier today they rejected even the more modest strengthening we proposed. That should not be a surprise. Labour has a Prime Minister who is first and foremost a lawyer, not a leader. He is a lawyer steeped in the philosophy of securing political change through legal activism. That is the very approach that the Lord Chancellor has been forced to bring in emergency legislation to curtail. That approach is why the appetite for proper action is so limited. The legislation before the House is a fig leaf to hide the truth that a Labour party led by   Keir Starmer will always have to be dragged kicking and screaming to tackle the judicial activism that he has long championed—[Interruption.] \p Judith Cummins: Order. The shadow Minister must be heard. \p Kieran Mullan: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; they do not want to hear it.

The root cause of the issue is that the Prime Minister appointed an Attorney General—the Government’s own Law Officer—who is steeped in judicial activism. The Prime Minister himself practised in a chambers that relished it and wholeheartedly supported its expansion case by case.

For anyone interested in a treatise on the risk of this approach—from someone much more qualified than me, as I am sure the House will agree—I encourage them to listen to Lord Sumption’s Reith lecture. His analysis on the divide between matters that should properly be the domain of politics and matters for law could not be more pertinent. He said:

“It is a vice of some lawyers that they talk about law as if it was a self-contained subject, something to be examined like a laboratory specimen in a test tube, but law does not occupy a world of its own. It is part of a larger system of public decision making. The rest is politics. The politics of ministers and legislators of political parties, of media and pressure groups, and of the wider electorate.”

Lord Sumption went on to say:

“The Courts have developed a broader concept of the…law which greatly enlarges their own constitutional role. They have claimed a wider supervisory authority over other organs of the State. They have inched their way towards a notion of fundamental law overriding the ordinary processes of political decision-making, and these things have inevitably carried them into the realms of legislative and ministerial policy. To adopt the famous dictum of the German military theorist Clausewitz about war, law is now the continuation of politics by other means.”

Be in no doubt: this whole sorry episode has been an exquisite further example of that mentality, this time from the Sentencing Council and its members as part of the wider judiciary establishment. The Lord Chancellor has failed to act decisively today. If she continues to refrain from taking decisive action, we will be here again and again, with the Opposition making sure, on each and every step of the way, that voters know where the sympathies of the Labour party and its leader lie: not with the ordinary, law-abiding citizen who expects equal treatment under the law and the democratically elected politicians of this country deciding on policy, but with activists and campaigning lawyers who want to wrestle control from them.

The Bill is barely adequate—barely. We will not oppose it, because it is better than nothing—and at least it tells the public everything that they need to know about those who sit on the Government Benches, and about the mentality of the man leading them.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed. \p Diana R. Johnson: I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To conclude, this extension reflects our commitment to remembering what was a truly momentous event—our finest hour—and to celebrating those who defended our country, liberated Europe and secured peace. With that, I commend this order to the House. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Harriet Cross: I hope it will be apparent that all Members of the House strongly support this motion. Certainly those of us on the Opposition Benches welcome the opportunity for pubs  and other licensed venues across the country to stay open late to commemorate VE day without incurring any cost to extend their licences.

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

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

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

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

The motion to extend licensing hours appears exceptionally appropriate. Not only was a national holiday declared in Britain on 8 May 1945, but it is said that on that morning, Churchill—with his focus very much on the real priorities—gained assurances from the Ministry of Food that there would be sufficient beer available in the capital. Meanwhile, the Board of Trade announced that people could purchase red, white and blue bunting without using ration coupons. We share that same spirit today by approving this motion, which I hope will allow people to fully and memorably commemorate this truly historic day. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Bobby Dean: I speak on behalf of my party when I say that we join everybody in supporting this order, which will provide communities the opportunity to celebrate in many different ways across the country. Whether it be street parties, private gatherings or, indeed, going down the pub, people will want to mark the occasion in their own way and ultimately honour those who gave such sacrifices towards for our country. They fought for our democracy, our freedom and our way of life 80 years ago, and that should never be forgotten.

Of course, the order will also provide a boost to our local hospitality industry. We have many great pubs in Carshalton and Wallington, and I am going to try to name them all, if I can. We have the Butterchurn, the Railway Tavern, the Hope, the Sun, the Racehorse, the Greyhound and the Windsor Castle. We have the Coach and Horses, the Woodman, and the Cryer Arts. We have the Duke’s Head, the Whispering Moon, the Star, and the Harvest Home—I am a hostage to fortune here, I know. We also have the Dog House and the Plough, and we have the Jack & Jill, which is occasionally closed, but we are hoping to keep it open permanently. I will not say I am going to go to all those pubs on VE day, but I do try to go to many of them as often as I can.

Finally, I would just like to say a personal thanks because of something else that is happening that day. I am sure the Prime Minister will be particularly pleased to know that Tottenham are playing in Europe that night, and that if we win—if we get victory in Europe of our own—then we will be through to the Europa league final. I am sure many Spurs fans will appreciate the opportunity to stay out a little bit longer that evening, too, so I want to thank the Government for introducing this order. It is utterly appropriate to mark the occasion—it is in the national interest, and it is in my personal interest, too.

Question put and agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crime and Policing Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Dame Diana Johnson.) \p Harriet Cross: As we have said from the outset, we will support measures that improve policing and ensure that those who commit crimes face the full weight of the law. As such, we will support this finance motion as there are a great number of things in the Crime and Policing Bill with which we agree. Indeed, as we have pointed out on a number of occasions, significant elements of the legislation are effectively carried over from the Criminal Justice Bill in the last Parliament. Although there are areas with which we disagree, we must ensure that, following the passage of this legislation, the police have the resources they need.

That said, there are two elements that should be acknowledged. First, given that this is a matter of finance, the settlement for policing that we have seen from the Government is clearly causing challenges for the police. We have already seen the Metropolitan police announce cuts in officer numbers, and we are warned that 1,800 officers may be at risk. I am concerned that the number may be even higher. The Government must ensure that we do not see the decrease in officer numbers that many are concerned about and which would undermine the measures in the Bill.

Separately, on the matter of the Bill itself, although it is not an issue for today’s vote, I ask Members of this House to carefully consider the proposals that are put in front of them in the future, including on Report. I hope that Members will have the opportunity to vote on sensible amendments, which we firmly believe are in the best interests of the country. Rather than merely following the whims of a party, I ask Members to consider what is right and wrong for our country, for law enforcement and for victims.

When there have been decades of historical abuse, particularly in the form of rape gangs, there must be thorough investigations—with no stone left unturned. Therefore, I hope this motion will not only cover what is currently in the Bill, but provide resources for a national statutory inquiry into rape gangs. \p Diana R. Johnson: I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her support, but on the financial settlement to police forces this year, it is worth saying that there is up to £19.6 billion going into policing. She will be well aware of the additional funding going in to support neighbourhood policing, which we want to restore after the decimation that happened under the previous Conservative Government.

The shadow Minister can make her points, but it is this Government who are committed to funding policing and supporting police officers. We are getting more police officers on our high streets, and in our communities and local areas. I know that she has only recently joined the House, but 14 years of history explain why we have  found ourselves in the position where police forces are in challenging circumstances with their finances. This Government are committed to supporting policing, and the financial settlement this year does exactly that.

Question put and agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Health and Social Care Information Standards (Procedure) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 25 March, be approved.—(Sir Nicholas Dakin.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Sir Nicholas Dakin.) \p Chi Onwurah: It is a great privilege to have secured this Adjournment debate on Government support for the people in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but I regret immensely the need to do so. I, like most of the world, was horrified by Hamas’s attack on Israel and Hamas’s killing and kidnapping of Israeli citizens. I supported, and continue to support, Israel’s right to self-defence in response to that attack.

I also know that today—at least when the sun sets—will be Yom Ha’atzmaut. That is Israel’s Independence Day, when many Israelis will be celebrating their country. None the less, I am here today to ask three principal questions of the Government. First, what more can they do to support the people of Palestine? Secondly, what can the British public, particularly my constituents in Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, do as individuals and as a community to support the people of Palestine? Thirdly, if the Government believe that there is nothing more we as a Government, as a nation or as individuals can do to support the Palestinians, could the Minister please inform the House, so that we may so inform our constituents? I said I had three questions, but in actual fact I have 12 questions for my hon. Friend the Minister, and that I will be counting them as I ask them and as she replies; this is a very important subject, and there is a lot to cover.

The north-east of England may seem far away from Gaza and the west bank—it may even seem far away from London to some—but 24 hours a day the consequences of Israel’s humanitarian blockade and use of weapons of modern warfare against civilians plays out on family televisions and social media platforms in the north-east, as it should. My constituents watch as the body of a five-year-old girl is pulled from beneath the wreckage of a car she was riding in with her family—a car that the Israel Defence Forces attacked with the most powerful weapons of modern warfare. My constituents watch a 20-day-old baby in Gaza, wrapped in a blanket by that baby’s hysterical relatives, frozen to death in a sub-tropical country—the fifth child to die from hypothermia in Gaza in six days last winter. My constituents watch one by one the deaths of the 100 Palestinian children the Israel Defence Forces killed or maimed every day in the 10 days from 21 to 31 March.

I know that my constituents see this because they stop me in the street in Newcastle—in Grainger Market when I am buying my vegetables, on the West Road when I am visiting local businesses, when I play bingo in Blakelaw, when I visit cultural centres in Benwell and Scotswood, support community centres in Fenham and knock on doors in Lemington. They ask me, “What can we do to stop the suffering we see?”

I also know this because they write to me. One wrote:

“I kindly request that you please advocate for the people of Gaza in Parliament, as they too have the right to defend themselves, they too have the right to feel safe, to live in peace and enjoy freedom and liberty without occupation, colonisation or terrorism.”

Another said:

“As a Jewish constituent of yours, I am very concerned about our Government’s relative silence regarding Israel’s abandonment of the Gaza ceasefire agreement, brokered by Qatar and Egypt. It is utterly deplorable that Israel is once again slaughtering Gazan civilians.”

I quote another constituent:

“What is the Government doing to stop the killing of Palestinian people?”

Another wrote:

“We are witnessing the most horrific of nightmares unfold. Trapped. Starved. Bombed. Surrounded by Israeli forces, with many of those who try to flee being shot at. Palestinians in north Gaza are living under a suffocating siege. Children are being bombed when they play on street corners. In central Gaza, people are being burnt alive in tents that were made to protect them. The UK must act urgently to protect Palestinians from extermination in Gaza.”

Finally, a constituent said:

“Last week, a new UN report detailed Israel’s sexual and reproductive violence: like the killing of pregnant women, the rape of male detainees, the destruction of an IVF clinic with its 4,000 embryos. Waging war on Palestinians’ ability to reproduce were termed ‘genocidal acts’. Last week, Israel’s environment Minister declared the ‘only solution for the Gaza strip is to empty it of Gazans’. I could go on as it seems there are limitless examples of other such acts. How can these actions so documented, evidenced and confessed to—facilitated by western weapons and diplomatic support—continue? No one in UK politics or media circles can plausibly say, ‘I did not know what was really happening’.” \p Warinder Juss: I have to intervene, because my hon. Friend’s experiences are the same as those I am having with my constituents. They are continuously asking me what we are doing to stop this bloodshed—the killing of women and children that is carrying on. When our diplomacy and negotiations are not having any effect on Israel and, I have to say, the United States, who our allies, for how long are we going to continue to wait for Israel to act to stop the bloodshed before we take further action that can have some effect? \p Chi Onwurah: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am pleased, though not surprised, to hear that the people of Wolverhampton West and the people of Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, as well as people across our country, have a similar response to the horrific acts and suffering they are seeing. As I will set out in my remarks, my objective is to ask—indeed, to demand—what more we can do, and will do, to ensure that the suffering comes to an end.

The examples that I read out are just a minute sample of what my constituents write and say to me. I have had hundreds and hundreds of emails, letters and exchanges on the streets of Newcastle. I emphasise that while many of the constituents who raise issues are Muslim or of Muslim heritage, many more are not. Many Christians were particularly appalled by the Israeli Government’s Palm Sunday attack on the al-Ahli hospital in Gaza, run by the Anglican diocese of Jerusalem—as a statement from the House of Bishops, supported by the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Newcastle Helen-Ann Hartley, has emphasised. That is why I am here: to address and demand action in relation to the horror and despair my constituents feel about the consequences of the Israeli Government’s blockade on humanitarian  aid to Gaza and the Israeli Defence Forces’ killing of Palestinian civilians, particularly children, in Gaza and the west bank.

My constituents simply do not believe that we as a nation, a people and a leading voice in the world community are helpless to affect in any way the behaviour of the Government of Israel—a nation with which for decades we have enjoyed friendly relations and strong diplomatic ties. It is a nation that many of us believed shared our values, our commitment to human rights and democracy, and our principled opposition to racism and ethnic cleansing.

At some level, we are all aware of the extremely long and complex history of what is now the state of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories of the west bank and Gaza, and the intertwining of the modern part of that history with both the British empire and the Holocaust. I do not wish to retell that story, as although I think this Adjournment debate will go on for longer than was anticipated, it cannot be long enough to do full justice to that history, so instead I will start from 7 October 2023.

On that day, Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups based in Gaza launched a sickening attack on Israel that killed over 1,200 Israeli men, women and children in horrific circumstances. Hamas and their allies kidnapped 251 Israelis and other nationalities and held them as hostages. My constituents were, as I was, absolutely horrified by those events, and supportive of the Israelis as victims of horrible crimes and, as a nation like ours, entitled to exercise their right to self-defence.

The stories of the experiences of Israelis—some facing their last moments—inspired huge sympathy and understanding among the people of the north-east. We stood with Israel in its demand that the hostages be immediately released and recognised that Israel had a right to defend itself and a right to strike against Hamas.

Five hundred and seventy-one days of violence have followed, with two periods of ceasefire—seemingly endless days of the world’s most powerful weapons being used against civilians by one of the world’s most powerful militaries. I just want to emphasise that Israel is the 15th most powerful nation in total firepower, according to Global Firepower. Gaza’s Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health has reported that between 7 October 2023 and 8 April 2025, the Israel Defence Forces have killed 51,000 Palestinians and injured over 100,000. Their numbers include 166 journalists and media workers, 120 academics and more than 224 humanitarian aid workers.

Estimates of the proportion of the dead in Gaza who are civilians range from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz’s 61% to the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor’s estimate of 90%. A detailed study of bodies found in Gaza residential buildings by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights found that 44% were children and a further 27% were women, which makes a total of 71% and suggests that the total when civilian men are included is likely to be closer to 90% than 61%. A joint report by Oxfam and Action on Armed Violence in October 2024 found that the Israeli military had killed more women and children in Gaza than had been killed in any other conflict around the world in the past two decades. These numbers do not include deaths from disease and malnutrition.

Israel has contested some numbers provided by the Gaza Health Ministry, but early in the war, Israel Defence Forces officials told The Times of Israel that approximately 66% of the Palestinian casualties in Gaza were civilians. Given that Israel does not provide its own figures for civilians killed in Gaza, nor does it permit UN fact-finders, international journalists or the BBC to enter Gaza, we must go with other sources. In January 2025, a peer reviewed study in The Lancet, the UK’s premier medical journal, suggested that the Gaza Ministry of Health was undercounting the death toll by 41%. If that study is accurate, it is likely that the death toll in Gaza as a result of Israel’s military operations today stands at over 90,000. In addition, 70% of all structures in Gaza have been destroyed by the Israelis.

There were audible sighs of relief across the country, and indeed the world, at the ceasefire of 19 January this year. However, on 18 March, Israel launched what it called “extensive strikes” in Gaza. Earlier in March, Israel’s Government blocked humanitarian aid from entering Gaza. No supplies, including food and medicine, have entered Gaza in over seven weeks and 95% of aid operations in Gaza have been suspended or dramatically cut back. A joint statement issued on 17 April by a dozen aid organisations based in multiple countries, including Oxfam, CARE and Save the Children, confirmed that they had all the means necessary to deliver aid, but were being denied access to Gaza by Israeli authorities.

Infectious diseases, particularly those that affect children, are now on the rise. The World Food Programme announced three days ago that despite more than 116,000 tonnes of aid being ready at the border, 91% of Gaza’s population, which is 1,802,000 people—human beings —face

“high levels of acute food insecurity”.

That is basically international aid jargon that means malnutrition and actual starvation. This is my fourth question for my hon. Friend the Minister. Can she confirm that that is the Government’s understanding of the humanitarian situation in Gaza today?

I will move on to what can be done to support the Palestinians in Palestine. I know that the Government are taking action by pressing for an immediate ceasefire and the release of the hostages, increasing funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, signing a memorandum of understanding with the leader of the Palestinian Authority, condemning settlements and settler violence in the occupied west bank, sanctioning settler groups involved in violence, and undertaking a comprehensive review of arms sales to Israel, which has resulted in the suspension of some arms transfers. I have also been advised that pressure on Israel would be more effective if the Palestinian high commissioner in Jerusalem and the UK ambassador to Israel in Tel Aviv were able to work more closely together. Could the Minister tell me if that is happening or if that is the case? That is question five.

I greatly welcome the fact that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has stated that the Israeli Government’s

“decision to block aid going into Gaza is completely wrong and should not be supported”—[Official Report, 3 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 32.]

However, the Israeli Government continue to kill Palestinian civilians, particularly children, and continue to prevent the flow of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies into Gaza. My constituents ask me what the Government are doing to end that, and that is the question that I repeat to my hon. Friend the Minister. Specifically—question six—will the UK respond to the International Court of Justice’s summer ruling on the legality of the Israeli occupation, and will the UK support the current case before the ICJ on humanitarian access in order to better hold the Israeli Government to account?

I shall turn now to what my constituents can do directly to support the Government in supporting Palestine, and to support Palestine directly. Newcastle, as I hope all Members are aware, has a long history of support for social justice and international solidarity. The people of Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West want to know how they can support the people of Palestine, so can the Minister tell me if the Government support the right of my constituents to protest and to show their horror at the death and destruction in Palestine? If so, how?

Money matters, so can my constituents support the people of Palestine through the way in which they spend or do not spend their money? Are there goods and services that they can buy from Palestinians? Is it clear what goods are from the illegally occupied Palestinian territories and what goods are from Israel? How can my constituents distinguish between the two? That is question eight.

Geordies are famously generous, and my constituents want to know how they can help Palestinians through their charitable giving without helping Hamas. With aid rotting at the border, which non-governmental organisations or charities does the Minister recommend my constituents support to ensure that aid gets through? On social media, there are regular appeals from GoFundMe accounts to help victims of Israeli military strikes or the blockade individually. Does the Minister recommend that my constituents provide funding to those appeals, and if not, how can they provide support to the people they are watching die on their screens?

Alternatively, are there other organisations to support advocacy efforts, legal aid and other forms of assistance that do not rely on physical access to Gaza itself? The UN Human Rights Council has identified what it calls “clear evidence” of war crimes being committed by Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians. The International Criminal Court intends to investigate the evidence of war crimes, but—question 11—what can my constituents do to support the survivors of war crimes on the ground? Finally, how can my constituents support constructive engagement between Palestinians and Israelis? That is question 12.

Every day, the people of Newcastle express to me how intensely they want their Government to act and how intensely they wish to directly and personally support the people of Palestine and help end their suffering. In the future, I believe we will all be asked what we did in the face of this horror. I urge the Minister to advise the people of Newcastle what the Government are doing to stop the Israeli Government’s killing of civilians, particularly children, and their blockade on food and medicine reaching the people of the Gaza strip, and to advise us on what we as individuals and as a community  can do. If nothing more can be done by the British Government, in addition to what the Minister and the Foreign Office have talked about and the announced actions that have not resulted in the lifting of the blockade or the ending of Israeli strikes on Gaza, can the Minister be clear about that? If my constituents are condemned to watch the Israeli Government use their tanks, artillery and war planes against apartment buildings, tent encampments and family cars, and to watch dead toddlers being pulled from the rubble of their homes on the 10 o’clock news every night, please tell us. \p Nusrat Ghani: We have three colleagues who also wish to contribute. I turn to Andy Slaughter first. \p Andrew Slaughter: I rise only briefly, principally to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah) on her tour de force of a speech and the pertinent questions she put to the Minister. Her comprehensiveness means that I can be brief. I want to say just two or three things.

I agree from the perspective of my Hammersmith and Chiswick constituency that there has been a huge outpouring of sympathy and a wish to help from constituents. I have had over 7,000 emails, letters and calls from constituents about the atrocities in Gaza, which is easily the largest postbag I have had on any single issue over the 20 years I have been here. That shows the level of empathy and support.

Unfortunately, there is little good news from Gaza, but one small piece of good news this week was the visit to London of the Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa to meet our Prime Minister to sign the memorandum of understanding, which included reaffirming the commitment to a two-state solution, announcing a further aid package of over £100 million and, importantly, showing solidarity between our two countries, which is not done nearly enough. I met the Palestinian Prime Minister briefly at the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, where he spoke fluently, clearly and calmly under the circumstances of the demands he wishes to see, and many of them have been reflected in my hon. Friend’s speech. He was asked by one of our colleagues of the eight asks he made which was the most important, and his answer was recognition of a Palestinian state. That may seem slightly strange given the immediate humanitarian disaster on the ground, but in reality, without recognition and without Palestine having—at least in diplomatic and constitutional terms—the same status as Israel, the situation in the region will never move forward. It is disappointing therefore that the Government have not committed to that.

I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to announce any major policy changes today, but I hope that we are moving further and more quickly towards that, and that there are strong hints, perhaps later this year, that more countries, including France, will follow those European countries that have already recognised the state of Palestine. I do not think there has been a better or more necessary time over the past few years for that step to be taken. I speak on behalf of my constituents when I say that it is very difficult to see  why, when we quite rightly recognised the state of Israel many years ago, we do not also recognise the state of Palestine.

I will touch briefly on the aid situation, which is dire. We have perhaps repeated that so often that it has lost some of its impact, but it is absolutely true. Not only are the bakeries empty and food not available in Gaza because of the blockade, which is, in anyone’s terms, a breach of international humanitarian law—there is no food left in Gaza and people will starve and die as a horrific consequence—but an assessment in February by the UN, EU and World Bank estimated that 95% of hospitals are not functional, 91% of the population has high levels of acute food insecurity, which has worsened, and 100% of education facilities have been fully destroyed or partially damaged. The assessment estimated that the reconstruction and recovery costs are $53 billion, including $20 billion needed in the next three years.

Yes, the UK has historically been a generous donor of aid to Gaza, and it continues to be so, but there is such a level of need given the continuing violence and destruction. My hon. Friend was right to emphasise the horrific number of deaths, particularly civilian deaths, which account for the majority, but the problems go beyond that and into the destruction of a whole civil society, built environment and economy, which is clearly a deliberate policy that we should call out more profoundly in this House and at Government level.

I will not repeat my hon. Friend’s points about the ICJ judgment. Our response to that is long overdue, as is a reconsideration of our trading relationship with illegal settlements. Given that Government policy is clearly and quite rightly that such settlements are illegal under international law, it has always puzzled me that we continue to trade with them.

I would like the Government to take a lead from the British people, who have made clear their sympathy for the people of Gaza, Palestine, the west bank and the other Occupied Territories, and to take more positive steps. If they do not, we will see only a continuation of the death and destruction. \p Oliver Ryan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah) on securing this important debate to talk about the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the people of Palestine.

Much like my hon. Friend the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West and for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), many hundreds of constituents have been in touch with me throughout my time as the Member of Parliament for Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield to talk about the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the death that they have witnessed on social media and television or heard about from families, friends and perhaps people from the region who have shared stories of the way lives are lived over there. I promised those people that I would raise my voice, and that is what I am doing today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West said—I could not have chosen better words—there has been such an outpouring of emotion and sympathy, and a desire to help and see peace in the region. That is why we are all here to speak about this today.

As we have already heard, the situation for Palestinians is desperate—it is hell on earth. It is estimated by the United Nations that 40,000 to 50,000 people have been killed since 7 October, including over 250 aid workers, and over 100,000 people have been injured. Some 90% of Gazans face immediate hunger and the prospect of starving to death, and 70% of buildings on the Gaza strip have been destroyed in Israeli bombing. There are no education facilities—nothing—and very few standing hospitals. In March, Israel stopped all humanitarian aid and completely cut off power to the strip: no food, medicine or aid, only death. I say to Israel: we must have peace and a return to the ceasefire now, and in the long term we must have a two-state solution, about which a lot of Labour Members agree.

At the same time, when we talk about the context of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, we cannot forget that 59 abducted hostages are still being held by Hamas terrorists in Gaza. So I say to Hamas: Palestinians are suffering; stop this, bring the hostages home, disband and end this now. Hamas have killed thousands of innocents; they have killed women and children and they took over 200 hostages on 7 October. Hamas are not freedom fighters—they are monsters. I will not countenance any defence of Hamas or their actions.

But, turning to the actions of the Israeli Government, last month Israeli tanks moved into the west bank for the first time in decades. Some 40,000 Palestinians have been displaced from areas of the west bank and 916 Palestinians have been killed in the west bank since October 2023. I have met Palestinians living in the west bank, including a woman from the Tent of Nations farm. I can only describe their experiences as daily harassment, terror and bullying by Israeli troops and settlers to unreasonable and unnecessary levels, and that is before we talk about the specific actions of some of the very aggressive settlers from the illegal settlements. Those settlers want complete annexation of the west bank and the utter destruction of the possibility of a two-state solution, and consequently, of a Palestinian state.

I am glad that this Government have consistently called for a ceasefire and for the release of all hostages. On my first week in Parliament, I raised that with the Prime Minister. After the election, I was glad to hear him recommit to not only a two-state solution but a ceasefire in the region. It is worth remembering that this Government restored and increased funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees to more than ever before.

I condemn the awful violence that we have seen in settlements in the west bank. I am glad that this Government have strongly sanctioned settler groups, although I agree with the previous comments that those sanctions need to go further. It is important to say that those settlers do not represent all Israelis, but a niche and extreme group. There is a wider context that can bring about peace, as this is a battle not between nations or creeds but between extremists on both sides.

This Government have suspended a large number of arms transfers to Israel, where they are known to have been used or seem to have been used improperly. I know that is under constant review, which I welcome. We   must do more to get aid into the region, and I am glad that the Prime Minister yesterday set out a further £100 million for the Palestinian Authority. We have to end Israel’s blocks on aid and electricity in the strip, and we must make the steps we promised in the election in supporting the creation of a Palestinian state. As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), that will allow legal protection and security for Palestinians and the wider region, and self-determination for the occupied areas, which they do not currently enjoy and have not enjoyed for some time. I caveat all that with a desire, certainly on my part, that Hamas will play no part in that Palestinian state.

Justice for Palestinians and Israelis who have lost loved ones is within our grasp. Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield want peace, to stop the death, get back to a ceasefire, get aid in and proudly uphold international law. We must use the opportunity of the June conference hosted by France and Saudi Arabia to progress statehood for Palestinians; recognition from the UK ought to be a serious consideration there. A political solution—a two-state solution—is the only solution. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West for securing this debate. \p Warinder Juss: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah) for securing this debate and for the solutions that she has put forward. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) that the time for us to recognise the state of Palestine is now. That would go some way towards trying to make some improvement to the situation. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) that what Hamas did is unforgivable, but, as I have said in this House before, the actions of Hamas can in no way be used to justify what is happening to the Palestinians in Gaza.

We do not have any control over Hamas, but Israel is an ally, and we should have more of an influence on what is happening. Gaza has a population of more than 2 million people, who mostly depend on aid, but since 2 March no humanitarian or commercial supplies have gone into Gaza, because of the blockade that Israel has imposed on the territory. Since 9 March, no electricity has gone to Gaza, because of Israel cutting off the supply. Since January, there have been 10,000 cases of acute malnutrition among children and 1,600 cases of severe acute malnutrition—those are just the reported figures. The UN World Food Programme has said that as of 25 April, all food stocks in Gaza have been depleted. My constituents continuously say to me that we need to be on the right side of history. We cannot stand by and just wait for the Israeli Government to listen to us.

I have a lot of faith in this Government, and I am very pleased that they have repeatedly stated the urgent need for a return to a ceasefire in Gaza, for the hostages to be released and for the aid to be unblocked. I am also very pleased that this Government have continuously condemned the Israeli settlements and stated that they are illegal under international law. Those settlements are harmful to the prospect of a future Palestinian state. We must call for and recognise the state of Palestine now.

It was very good to have Prime Minister Mustafa of the Palestinian Authority in this country, and the memorandum of understanding signed between our two countries is a good step forward. I am very pleased that we have announced the £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but I have a question. It is all very well pledging that support, but if Israel continues to behave in the way that it has so far, what effect will that aid have? Will it actually stop the killing, the bloodshed and the malnutrition being suffered by the Palestinians in Gaza? Although my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West went a lot further than I am going in coming up with solutions, as I said earlier, I have faith in this Government, and I want them to come to some kind of conclusion about the further steps they can take to improve the situation. I have to confess my frustration that although we are making all the right comments and statements, nothing is improving. People—women, children and others—are continuing to die in Gaza, in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. How much longer are we going to tolerate this? \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Minister. \p Catherine West: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for this important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah) for securing it; she is an active campaigner on this topic and on a number of other foreign policy matters. I also thank her for the thoughtful way in which she put the debate in context. Of course, tomorrow is Yom Ha’atzmaut, which is a national holiday in Israel, and my hon. Friend also emphasised the suffering from the dreadful attacks in October 2023—the horrific terror attacks—and her support for the people of Israel following that terrible moment. She is quite right to ask how she can support the situation in the middle east, quoting her constituents assiduously, and to ask how she can respond to their compassion and concern.

The Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), would usually have been at the Dispatch Box for this debate. He will watch it later on, and will be very happy to reply to any bits that I miss out, or any questions that are only half-answered—as the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, I might occasionally answer only half the question, rather than give the full answer that the Minister for the Middle East could provide. I am also grateful to the hon. Members for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) and for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), and I will attempt to answer some of the questions raised and respond to some of the points made.

The Government are steadfast in our friendship with, and support for, the Palestinian people. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West asked what support we can provide and what more we can do. Several Members have mentioned the visit of Palestinian Prime Minister Mustafa to London yesterday for high-level meetings with both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and I reassure my hon.  Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Chiswick and for Wolverhampton West that we support the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination, including to an independent state. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister signed a memorandum of understanding with Prime Minister Mustafa, enshrining the UK’s commitment to advancing Palestinian statehood as part of a two-state solution. That memorandum of understanding also underscored the commitment of the Palestinian Authority to deliver its reform agenda as a matter of priority.

I now turn to the UK’s support for Gaza, and the main question that my hon. Friend’s constituents in Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West want an answer to: is the UK doing all it possibly can to alleviate the humanitarian situation in Gaza? In the last financial year, the UK provided £129 million in funding to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, or OPTs. This week, the UK announced a £101 million package of funding for this financial year, which will include substantial funding for the humanitarian response in Gaza, as well as support for Palestinian economic development and strengthening the Palestinian Authority’s governance and reform—they have to be ready. Our support is making a real difference to those who need it most. To date, the UK’s support has provided essential healthcare to over 430,000 people, food to almost 650,000 people, and improved access to water, sanitation and hygiene services to close to 380,000 people. \p Chi Onwurah: I thank the Minister for her comments and the context she is giving. I just want to be clear about something: is the humanitarian aid we are providing to Gaza getting through into Gaza right now? \p Catherine West: My hon. Friend is right to say that funding is one thing and access is another. That is why it is crucial that we have been pressing the Government of Israel to ensure that vital aid can reach Gaza and that our humanitarian partners, including the United Nations, can deliver their work effectively. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Burnley for reminding the House that UNRWA funding was reintroduced under this Government, and for emphasising that UNRWA has been at the centre of things since July last year. Given the infrastructure that it has on the ground, it is critical to the provision of assistance.

In addition, UK funding to UK-Med has helped to sustain its field hospital operations. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West asked which organisations can be trusted to deliver. UK-Med has facilitated more than 405,000 consultations in Gaza since January 2024, so that patients can receive critical life and limb-saving surgery. We are also providing funding to the World Health Organisation Egypt to ensure vital medical supplies reach evacuated Gazans being treated there.

My hon. Friend asks who can help. Our Government, through the international groups such as the World Health Organisation that public funding goes towards, are providing this vital treatment. The experts in development aid always say it is best to work through those big funding organisations, because they do that enormously helpful work. For example, there is the delivery of the polio vaccination campaigns. My hon. Friend mentioned communicable diseases and the risk  of further illness, but that polio vaccination campaign protected more than 600,000 vulnerable children across Gaza through funding to the global polio eradication initiative. We know that the scale of the crisis means that more support is crucial. That is why we continue to support UNRWA’s vital work. That includes providing essential services, education and healthcare to civilians in Gaza and the west bank and to Palestinian refugees across the region. \p Jim Shannon: I apologise that I could not be here for the beginning, because I was in Westminster Hall—the times were all out of kilter. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and I were both there, and we have just arrived.

All the things that the Minister has outlined about the medical help that can be given are important, but what is also important, particularly for young children, is education. Can she perhaps give us some more information about education? It is not just about what they are missing out on, but the opportunities that can change their lives. \p Catherine West: I thank the hon. Member for mentioning education, because it is so crucial. We do not want children to go uneducated and then, perhaps through a sense of the well of suffering, recreate in the next generation less education and less understanding of the world. Some Members who spoke earlier mentioned the destruction of schools. That is why it is so important that UNRWA can gain access to Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, so that schools can be rebuilt and classrooms can be re-provided. That is not just in terms of education, but that important psychosocial help that so many traumatised families need now.

People may ask, as indeed have Members, “What are the Government doing? Can’t we do more?” The Foreign Secretary has intervened time and again. Most recently, he spoke to Israeli Foreign Minister Sa’ar on 15 April, where he raised urgent concerns about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza and the urgent need to restore the flow of aid. The UK issued a joint statement last week with France and Germany calling on the Government of Israel to restart immediately the rapid and unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza. We have repeatedly raised our concerns at the UN Security Council, including on the safety of aid workers. The Minister with responsibility for the United Nations intervened at the Security Council just this week, expressing outrage at recent attacks, including the killing of Palestinian Red Crescent workers and the strike on a United Nations compound on 19 March. \p Warinder Juss: Can my hon. Friend give any indication of what response we have received suggesting that Israel might change its course of action? \p Catherine West: As my hon. Friend will, I think, appreciate, many Israelis say that people outside the region simply do not understand their desire for security. Equally, Palestinian communities say that those outside the region cannot possibly understand the extent of their suffering. That, in a nutshell, is the depth of what we are facing, and that is why we must redouble our  efforts not just to make the case to the senior people involved and the decision-makers in this conflict, but to impress on them the importance for our constituents that their reply must be true and must come with some action attached.

Let me return briefly to the subject of the strike on the UN compound on 19 March. Israel has admitted that it was caused by one of its tanks, despite the compound being known to the IDF as a UN humanitarian facility. That is inexcusable, and we urge Israel to ensure that accurate public statements are made about such grave incidents. It must conduct full and transparent investigations of these incidents, hold those responsible to account, and reinstate an effective deconfliction system to prevent such terrible tragedies from reoccurring.

Members have mentioned the International Court of Justice. Let me remind them of what has been said in the past by both the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Middle East:

“The UK is fully committed to international law and respects the independence of the International Court of Justice. We continue to consider the Court’s Advisory Opinion carefully, with the seriousness and rigour it deserves.”

Let me reassure Members on both sides of the House that we are committed to a two-state solution, and that commitment is unwavering. The statement continued:

“We are of the clear view that Israel should bring an end to its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as rapidly as possible, but it must be done in a way that creates the conditions for negotiations towards a two-state solution.”

That, I know, is an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick has raised on a number of occasions in his cross-party work on this important subject.

The hon. Member for Burnley mentioned settlements and settler violence. The UK Government’s position is that Israeli settlements in the west bank are illegal under international law, and harm prospects for a two-state solution. Settlements do not offer security to either Israel or Palestinians. Settlement expansion and settler violence have reached record levels. The Israeli Government seized more of the west bank in 2024 than in the past 20 years, and that is completely unacceptable. The Foreign Secretary met Palestinian community members in the west bank, where he heard how communities—not just Palestinian communities, but other local groups—are affected, and made it clear to Israeli Ministers that the Israeli Government must clamp down on settler violence and end settlement expansion.

I thank the hon. Member for Burnley for mentioning the hostages. This is, of course, a situation about which we feel very strongly, because of the involvement of the British hostages and people who have family members still stuck with the terrible terrorist group Hamas. Let me respond briefly to the hon. Gentleman’s point. The UK Government welcomed the announcement of an agreement last January to end the fighting in Gaza and release the 38 hostages, including the British national Emily Damari and the UK-linked Eli Sharabi. Securing an immediate ceasefire and the safe release of all hostages has been a priority for the Government since the start of the conflict, and we will not stop until they are all back at home. The death of Oded Lifshitz, who had strong UK links and was tragically held hostage by terrorists in Gaza, is absolutely heartbreaking This is a crucial time for the region, and we thank Qatar, Egypt and the  United States for their support in bringing the horrific ordeal of those individuals and their families to an end. The hostages have endured unimaginable suffering, and the situation in Gaza has continued to worsen. The ceasefire needs to get back on track.

I want to briefly mention the Bibas family—our thoughts are with them. They are going through intolerable anguish over Shiri and her young children Kfir and Ariel. As the Prime Minister said, we want to see all remaining hostages released and the ceasefire restarted. The Government remain committed to working with international partners to end the suffering and secure long-term peace in the middle east. \p Chi Onwurah: I am sure the Minister will join me in expressing our pleasure at seeing the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place. I would not have felt that I had really had an Adjournment debate had I not heard his voice, for which I am very grateful.

I thank the Minister for her comments. She mentioned that the settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal. One of the questions I put to her was about distinguishing between goods from illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and goods from Israel so that my constituents can make decisions about what they purchase. \p Catherine West: With my hon. Friend’s permission, I will write to her on that point or ask the Minister for the Middle East to write to her. With Israel being a close friend of the UK, we have a trading relationship with it. On her specific point about whether there are particular products that could be purchased to support the situation at the moment—for example, specific products that may have been made by particular groups that she wishes to support, such as traditional handicrafts and so forth—I will seek the guidance of officials so that I  can write to her with confidence. More generally, we are keen to maintain our trading relationship, which gives us another way of talking to Israel about this important question. \p Chi Onwurah: I thank the Minister greatly for her generosity. As the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, she did a fantastic job of setting out the complex issues in response to Members’ contributions. I will take her up on her offer to write to me on these issues, and I will make sure that the Minister for the Middle East has both the Hansard record and a copy of all the questions I have set out. \p Catherine West: I think my hon. Friend came into the House with me in 2015, and we have learned some very nice manners over the years. It is very important in these potentially heartfelt debates that we have the tone that we have had this afternoon.

The Government are steadfast in our friendship with, and support for, the Palestinian people—my hon. Friend can reassure her constituents about that. Our support for the Palestinian Authority continues to provide essential services, and promotes reform and state building. Our support for the humanitarian response in Gaza provides food and medical assistance to those who most need it, and we will keep pressing for access. Our consistent support for Palestinian statehood through a two-state solution aims to ensure a political horizon and future in which Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and security. In the end, that is the only solution that can bring stability and prosperity to the entire region.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.