Commons Chamber

Tuesday 13th October 2026

(began 9 hours, 11 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
None Portrait Q2. What steps she is taking to support households by helping reduce energy bills. (901410)
-

Tristan Osborne thank you, Mr. Speaker. Question number two.
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:51
None Portrait Q4. What recent progress she has made on improving the UK's resilience to the impacts of climate change. (901412)
-

Tom Rutland question number four, Mr. Speaker. will answer question number four and ten. Together. My colleagues raised an excellent point. In June
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:56
None Portrait Q5. What discussions she has had with the Scottish Borders Council on the Cross Border Connection. (901413)
-

John Lamont thank. Speaker. National Grid Electricity Transmission has.
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
None Portrait Q11. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of constructing energy infrastructure on peatland on the climate. (901421)
-

Josh Fenton-Glynn number 11. Please, Mr. Speaker.
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:16
None Portrait Q12. Whether her Department is taking steps to implement a cold homes plan. (901423)
-

Sonia Kumar question. >> Minister. >> We all felt the impacts of
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:42
12:42
12:43
12:43
12:44
12:44
12:45
12:45
12:45
12:46
Jake Richards Portrait Jake Richards MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Rother Valley, Labour)
-
-
Nick Timothy thank you, Mr. Speaker. To ask the. Speaker. To ask the. >> Justice Secretary to make a scheme. >> Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. In July 2024, men's prisons were July 2024, men's prisons were operating at 99% capacity. At one point, there were fewer than 100 places available across the male estate. Without intervention, we risk running out of prison places, leaving courts unable to sentence offenders and police unable to make arrests. This government has acted to increase capacity and to reform sentencing. We have committed to delivering 14,000 prison places by 2031 and have already delivered 3200.

The last government added just 500 places in their time in office. We've also accelerated the removal of foreign national offenders, returning around 11,700 to their countries of origin. It is within this context, Mr. Speaker, that we launched the Independent Sentencing Review in October 2024 and subsequently passed the Sentencing Act earlier this year to place the prison system on a more sustainable footing and ensure there is always space available for the most dangerous offenders. The act also aimed to avoid the chaotic emergency release schemes carried out, with little scrutiny or warning by the Conservatives, but we know that aspects of these changes cause concern and are determined to do the right thing for victims.

That is why the government listened to the concerns raised, paused implementation of the progression model and conducted an urgent review. As the Lord Chancellor confirmed in this House on the 1st of September. In addition to the 18,000 dangerous offenders already ineligible for the progression model, this government has excluded rape and serious child sex offences from eligibility for changes to release dates under the Sentencing Act, unlawful killings, including manslaughter, causing or allowing the death of a child and death by dangerous driving are also excluded, as well as indecent assault, ensuring more historic child sex offences prosecuted under older laws are treated consistently with equivalent offences.

Today. This means hundreds more dangerous criminals will be staying behind bars for longer, including those who killed PC Andrew Harper in the line of duty. The first releases on the progression model took place on the 1st of October. Mr. speaker, with His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service working closely with operational partners to ensure eligible offenders were released safely into the community. As the second tranche of releases begins today on the 13th of October, robust arrangements remain in place to manage releases, support probation practitioners and supervising offenders and ensure that those subject to electronic monitoring requirements are fitted with a tag as part of the supervision of offenders released into the community, Hmpps will maintain rigorous oversight of those on licence, with measures in place to recall those who are non-compliant.

We recognise, Mr. Speaker, the significant effect that changes to release dates can have on victims. We will ensure those in the Victim Contact Scheme that are affected by these new exclusions are informed. If there are any changes to the release date of the offender in their case. I have also instructed my officials to attempt to contact victims not in that scheme, to provide information should they wish for that to happen. We have launched the Victim Support Offenders Release Helpline with nearly £19 million worth of additional funding.

This will provide victims with emotional support, practical advice such as safety planning and general information about the sentencing changes. Mr. speaker, it's important to add that the Ministers for prison, probation and reducing reoffending is unable to be here herself today because she is currently speaking with governors about early release and how implementation of the progression model is going.
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:56
12:57
12:57
12:58
12:59
12:59
13:00
13:00
13:01
13:01
13:02
13:03
13:03
13:04
13:04
13:05
13:06
13:06
13:07
13:07
13:08
13:08
13:09
13:09
13:10
13:10
13:10
13:11
13:11
13:12
13:12
13:13
13:13
13:14
13:15
13:15
13:16
13:17
13:17
13:18
13:19
13:19
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
Minister well, thank you. urgent question. And can I, Mr. Speaker, also welcome him to his role? He's always been a good colleague and friend, and indeed thank him for his service to this country, not only as a former Minister but also in his past career. Mr. speaker, the government takes the threats posed by Iran to British interests extremely seriously. We have acted robustly in response to them and we will continue to do so. Iran's hostile activity, both directly and through its proxies and networks, continues to pose a significant threat to the United Kingdom, to our partners and allies, and to the rules based international system.

And we know the threats posed by Iran, and whether that is directly or whether it's through partners like the Houthis or indeed militias in Iraq or indeed Lebanese Hezbollah, many, many other groups that he is more than aware of. We will act. And protecting the British public and defending our national security is the government's first duty. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the government sanctioned two Iranian IRGC officers for their role in state threats, state threats, activity and we have sanctioned nearly 240 individuals and entities in relation to Iran, whose actions threaten our people and security.

And we will continue to keep all those tools under review and will not hesitate to take further action where appropriate. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I summoned the Iranian ambassador to the Foreign Office in response to Iran's activity and informed him candidly and forcibly that this government condemns in the strongest possible terms. The Islamic Republic of Iran has continued attempts to undermine the safety and security of the United Kingdom and our allies. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Foreign Secretary signed a statement with 35 other foreign Ministers across the Five Eyes and Europe, making clear that we will not tolerate state threats, activity on our soil and that we are committed to facing those threats together.

And earlier this year, Mr. Speaker, we strengthened our legislative toolkit through the national security framework, and these measures provide enhanced powers to investigate, expose and counter hostile activity that threatens our security. And he will know that we immediately designated the IRGC and the IMC are under that framework. We will continue to work closely with the police, intelligence agencies and international partners to identify, disrupt and deter hostile activity directed against the United Kingdom and our allies. And as recent events have demonstrated, the threat from Iran is not theoretical.

The Prime Minister yesterday made clear that in relation to the incident at RAF Fairford, this was highly likely coordinated in Iran and almost certainly directed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Although investigations remain ongoing and more recently, in September, Mr. Speaker, law enforcement agencies disrupted an alleged plot targeting Jewish communities in Manchester involving individuals suspected of links to actors in Iran. So, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to take the action necessary to protect the public, safeguard our democratic institutions, defend communities at risk and ensure those that are responsible for threatening British interests are held to account.

Thank you.
13:22
Tom Tugendhat Portrait Rt Hon Tom Tugendhat MP (Tonbridge, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Look, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, actually, and he is a friend for his response today. After almost a decade, however, of consistent Foreign Office advice being to reject photographs and particularly handshake photographs with Iranian officials because of the propaganda tool that it gives the regime. It seems that our foreign secretary has just been ambushed in New York. Now, either it has been an ambush with a by a snapper, or it has been a change of policy.

And I think it's important that we understand which. Because while it is certainly clear that the Foreign Secretary did not look happy, Araghchi was absolutely beaming. Now, if this wasn't deliberate, has the Foreign Office changed its advice? And if so, why? Because, frankly, following the threats against UK air bases that not only has he mentioned, but the Prime Minister has. Following the state threats that the head of MI5 has listed, which have been reported on today following the murder of 40,000 of their own people, their expansion of violence in Yemen using the Houthis to target civilians in Riyadh, their attacks on Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.

I'd be very grateful to know what made the Foreign Secretary believe that this was worth giving them a propaganda win. Perhaps the Minister will tell me that this doesn't matter now. He knows better than that. Of course, he knows that images project a message, and in this case, they project the message that the Iranian regime is equal to the moment. Well, they're not. The reality is the Iranian regime. In fact, Mr. Al-gashey himself is merely the front for the IRGC, which is, of course, the terror group responsible for the murder of thousands in Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Iraq and elsewhere.

So maybe I could just finish by asking the Minister very briefly a few questions. The first is, was the Foreign Secretary aware of his Iranian friends threats to the United Kingdom before he decided to shake hands with him and have it photographed? Was the UK aware that the US and Israel had given warning to the British government that the Iranian regime's threats to the US air bases in the UK were credible. And lastly, has the policy of the UK reverted now to not giving propaganda wins to such a vile regime?
13:25
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
Minister. >> Minister. >> Well, Mr. Speaker, the Foreign Secretary followed the standard practice of previous UK Foreign secretaries of both parties and many countries in meeting with the Iranian Foreign Minister. In fact, foreign Ministers including William Hague, Philip Hammond, Boris Johnson, Jeremy Hunt. Sorry, I should refer to him by his new constituency Liz Truss, David Cameron and others and they've all engaged. I think what's important, Mr. Speaker, is to understand what the Foreign Secretary raised with Foreign Minister, and he met with him to strongly raise the UK government's objections to Iran's behaviours to protect our interests.

He told the foreign Minister that Iran should choose de-escalation and diplomacy instead of prolonging war and conflict. He underlined the importance of restoring freedom of navigation and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. He reiterated the UK's unwavering resolve to combat threats from Iranian backed groups on UK soil, including attacks on the British Jewish community. He made clear that we will not tolerate intimidation, threats or hostile activity on UK soil and set out the measures we would take in response. And he also raised Mr Speaker I know will be a matter of great interest to the House.

The ongoing detention of Craig and Lindsay Foreman repeating our call for their immediate release and stressing that their welfare remains a priority for the government. And, Mr. Speaker, he knows full well that Iran's threats to the UK are public. And indeed, the evidence that the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary has set out are public. So we are fully aware of the threat that they pose to the UK, our interests and our allies and partners. I'm not going to comment on intelligence matters. He knows why I won't do that at the despatch box.

I would strongly encourage him to avail himself of opportunities for Privy Council briefings. Would be very happy to arrange those. Mr. speaker, I know the Leader of the Opposition and others have taken those opportunities up. He's very welcome to come in and have a briefing on those matters. He rightly raised Mr Speaker issues relating to Iran's threats more broadly, not just to the UK and our interests directly, including to partners in the Gulf and what Iran has done in relation to whether it's Kuwait or Bahrain or other partners is utterly unacceptable.

I met with all of our Gulf partners in New York and over recent days to reiterate our support for them, and another reason why we're engaged in such heavy diplomatic and other efforts to find a resolution. And just this morning, Mr. Speaker, I've spoken with my Saudi counterpart and indeed the foreign Minister of Yemen in relation to the appalling Houthi attacks, not only on the people of Yemen, but also, of course, on Saudi Arabia and the kingdom in recent days, including the attacks at the airport in Riyadh and other threats.

And so he can be absolutely assured that whether it is direct threats from Iran or whether it is indirect threats through proxies and partners and others, we take these matters incredibly seriously. A substantial amount of our diplomatic and other effort is involved in countering them, and I welcome his engagement and cooperation in the national interest on these issues.
13:28
13:29
13:29
13:30
Stephen Doughty Portrait Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour )
-
-
consumers can afford. >> Yes, Minister. >> Well, he absolutely raises the reason why all of this matters, not just the threats to our security, but to our economy as well, and to the prices that British people pay and indeed, people around the world pay for, whether it's energy or indeed consumer goods on the shelves. Because, of course, that disruption to energy, of course, has a wider implication. Of course, it's the fertiliser and other things that come out of the the Gulf that also impact on those prices.

I'm delighted that he visited Oman. I also was in Oman just a few weeks ago. They're a key partner, friend and a long standing historic relationship with the UK is crucially important to us. We're looking forward to welcoming His Majesty the Sultan of Oman to the UK soon. His Majesty the King looks forward to welcoming him. It's a crucial partnership for us and he's absolutely right to talk about maritime security and the work we do in that domain. I'm glad he saw the work in in his visit.

I also visited just last week our joint maritime Security centre at Portsmouth, and the incredible work done there jointly between the Royal Navy, Border Force and UK maritime trade operations and a range of different civilian and other agencies. It's crucial that we understand the threats to shipping, and then that we are able to provide information to mariners, avoid threats and avoid risk. We continue to work internationally with partners on this, just at the UN in New York, at the General Assembly, the Foreign Secretary, working with Bahrain and others, brought together, I think, nearly 80 countries to stand up for those principles of international navigation.

And it's crucial that we recognise this isn't just what happens in the Strait of Hormuz or indeed in the Red sea. This is a threat to the very principles of freedom of navigation and global trade. And that is why we need to Ballinger.
13:32
13:32
13:33
13:34
13:34
13:34
13:35
13:35
13:36
13:36
13:36
13:37
13:38
13:38
13:38
13:39
13:40
13:40
13:41
13:41
13:42
13:42
13:43
13:44
13:44
13:45
13:45
13:46
13:46
13:47
13:47
13:48
13:49
Pat McFadden Portrait Rt Hon Pat McFadden MP, The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Wolverhampton South East, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. like to make a statement on the government's plans for the future uprating of the State Pension. uprating of the State Pension. Security and dignity in later life is a mission that has run through every Labour government. Harold Wilson was the first to introduce the statutory link with earnings. The creation of Pension Credit in the early 2000 to increase the incomes of the poorest pensioners, and saw pensioner poverty halve under the last Labour Government. And in our 2024 manifesto, we said we would keep the triple lock for the duration of this Parliament.

That is a promise we will keep to pensioners, and keeping that promise means that this year the full new State Pension is rising by £575. It is set to be over £2,000 a year more by the end of this Parliament, compared to when we took office in 2024. That will make will take the new State Pension to over 30% of average earnings by the end of the Parliament. That is forecast to be a record high in the future.

We will adjust the triple lock to make those gains permanent, but also to put the State Pension on a sustainable basis. Let me set out how this will work and how it will deliver a State Pension that rises each and every year. The uprating mechanism will retain its current three elements. There will be a universal State Pension that protects against inflation, ensures a material rise every year, and enables pensioners to share in the wealth of the nation as wages go up.

So from April 2030, the State Pension will continue to go up by the highest of inflation, 2.5%, or what is required to maintain its record high level against average earnings. This will lock in for the future. All the gains from the triple lock up until April 2030. This adjusted mechanism will mean the State Pension grows in line with earnings over time, instead of outpacing them, as is the case with the current triple lock. This will end what is known as the ratchet effect that makes the triple lock consume a greater and greater share of national wealth over time, and which means that reform at some stage was inevitable.

In simple terms, it will mean the State Pension will continue to rise, but not permanently grow as a share of average earnings. We know that people want security and retirement. We are committed to protecting the poorest pensioners and under our plans, pensioner poverty is set to fall. In addition, we have asked the Pensions Commission to include suggestions for further supporting lower income pensioners in their final report to be delivered next year. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, a good retirement is about more than income.

It is about security and peace of mind too, and that is why it is so important that savings from this change will make a significant contribution to a new settlement for older people arising more sustainable State Pension alongside free personal care through a new National Care service. This is a policy that is better for pensioners, better for families and better for the NHS, better for pensioners, because so many worry about what will happen to them in their final years.

Better for families because those worries are shared by children and grandchildren who want to know their elderly relatives will be looked after when they need it, and better for the NHS, because it will ease the pressure we see on the NHS today, where failings in our social care system mean many pensioners are kept in hospital longer than they need to be because social care beds are unavailable. The cost of inaction, the cost of turning away from this is more pressure on the NHS, more ambulance callouts, more A and E admissions, more corridor care and more people stuck in hospital when they do not have to be.

And that is why change is needed now. The triple lock has of course been subject to much debate. Economists and commentators have proposed a range of options, as have the party opposite over the years, from removing the earnings link to scrapping the triple lock altogether. Some have called for the State Pension to be means tested. But we have rejected those proposals. We believe our plan is the right answer to a difficult question that has been ignored for far too long.

I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend and Minister for pensions for his work in this area, and for helping ensure that we could have a system going forward that is sustainable and retains, in an adjusted way, the three current elements of the triple lock system. Madam Deputy Speaker, this will mean that the State Pension will not continue to outpace average earnings, as it would have under the current triple lock, and the savings from these changes will reduce spending by an estimated £15 billion a year by the end of the next decade, rising substantially to around £50 billion a year by 2050.

These pension and social care changes are a new settlement, which puts the universal State Pension on a more sustainable footing, so it is there for decades to come, while also giving pensioners and older people a better deal on social care, pensioners can be confident that they will have a rising State Pension every year, and they can also be confident that we are sorting out one of the most difficult problems the country has faced for a long time, and that is the issue of social care.

So a new settlement for pensioners, a rising pension, a sustainable system and a plan to fix our social care system, that is what we will deliver. And I commend this statement to the House.
13:56
Helen Whately Portrait Helen Whately MP (Faversham and Mid Kent, Conservative)
-
-
Helen Whately thank you, Madam >> Helen Whately thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. 30 years ago, nearly 1 in 3 pensioners in our country lived in poverty. Today, country lived in poverty. Today, that figure has halved in no small thanks to the decisions made by our party in government to stand by pensioners, people who have done the right thing, worked all their lives and paid into the system. That's a fair thing to do and it's the right thing to do. Yet we are faced with a government that doesn't seem concerned about what is fair or right.

Can the Secretary of State explain why his party has chosen to go after pensioners, instead of tackling the fastest growing part of the benefits Bill? Working age welfare. Working age benefits are costing us £140 billion a year and rising fast. That includes the cost of benefits of 6 million working age people who are not working. Many could and should be, but instead they are spending decades of their lives on benefits. It is unaffordable and it's morally wrong. Yet he's done nothing of substance about it.

And now his party's refusal to bring down the welfare bill is putting the State Pension in jeopardy. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister is desperate for cash to pay for his new National Care Service. That's why he's ditching the triple lock. And let's not beat around the bush and say it's some kind of adjustment or something. It's ditching the triple lock. But let's look at the numbers for a moment. The savings he's hoping for will hardly touch the sides come the mid 2030s.

A national care service is forecast to cost over £18 billion, versus potentially 4 billion a year in savings from the triple lock. And that's extremely uncertain. The care service could well cost more. Demand does tend to grow for something that's free, but scrapping the triple lock could save less. At the very least, Labour's policy creates a 15 billion black hole in the public finances. And what a way to announce it in a couple of lines in a conference speech.

No proper explanation, no detail. Just millions of pensioners left wondering what it means for their retirement. Labour backbenchers should remember how these things go. Their last Prime Minister came after pensioners winter fuel payments, not a plan that stood the test of time, their first U-turn. How many of the hon. Members sitting here today defended that ill conceived policy, only to see it abandoned in the face of pressure? Listening to the Secretary of State's statement, it's clear he's branding this plan as a pension minister's idea.

It's not his first rodeo. I suspect he can see this is a U-turn in waiting. How long has it got? And all this before the government's own Pensions Commission has even reported that the Secretary of State forget he had one. They asked it to look at whether people will have enough to live on in retirement. Why bother asking for independent advice if he has already made up his mind on the biggest question? The right hon. Gentleman will know that more women rely on the State Pension than men.

Before rushing to this change, has he even thought about them? And what happens if the savings from scrapping the triple lock are lower than the Secretary of State expects? Will the government scale back its social care plan or push taxes up even higher? The Conservatives introduced the triple lock to give pensioners dignity in retirement after the humiliation of Labour's £75 a week pension rise. And we have backed the triple lock ever since. Unlike working age adults, most pensioners live on fixed incomes and most are unable to work.

If the Prime Minister wants to make savings, he should start with working age welfare. That's what a conservative government would do. We have a plan to save £36 billion from the benefits bill and get Britain working again, but the reality is that with the Budget looming, the Prime Minister has no plan for fixing the country's finances, and this announcement is simply a distraction from the tax rises that are coming. This is Labour doing what Labour does best dodging the tough choices, ducking a fight with their welfare loving backbenchers, leaving a black hole in their fiscal plans and hammering those who have worked and paid into the system to give more handouts to benefit Street.

I'm appalled, Madam Deputy Speaker, but frankly, I am not surprised. All we've seen on welfare is a government missing in action without the backbone to do what is right. They are clearly not on the side of pensioners nor hardworking taxpayers. The question is whose side are they on?
14:01
Pat McFadden Portrait Rt Hon Pat McFadden MP, The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Wolverhampton South East, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you to the Shadow Secretary for her response. I Secretary for her response. I listened to her carefully outlining her opposition to our plans. The trouble for her is that so many in her party actually agree. The case for change. The shadow Chancellor, for example, has said we should unpick the triple lock. The shadow Foreign Secretary has called it simply not affordable and described it as a Ponzi system. The shadow Justice secretary actually wrote the 2017 manifesto that pledged to replace it with a double lock.

But my favourite, my favourite is Lord Gove, who told LBC that if Andy Burnham changed the triple lock, he would, and I quote, declare that I will be campaigning at the next general election exclusively for Stella Creasy in Walthamstow. So I look forward to seeing him at the end of the Victoria line at the next election. With a red rose on his chest. I could go on, Madam Deputy Speaker, but we'd be here all day.

Let's just say I have a file as thick as my morning porridge, full of quotes from the Tories saying that the triple lock is unsustainable and will have to be changed. They say it in private. They say it before they join the frontbench, and they say it after they leave it. But the shadow secretary did not say it. So that leaves her with some questions. How will she fund her opposition to what we have announced? Will it be as they did before, when in government, through faster and faster rises in the State Pension age, asking people to work into their 70s before they even get a pension at all? And if she won't tell us that, how can she tell us how they'd fund the future of social care? Do we simply add it to the list of unfunded tax promises that they come out with on an almost weekly basis? Stamp duty, inheritance tax, National insurance, private schools, all funded from fantasy welfare savings that they never managed to achieve in office.

And she spent her time attacking the system they designed, created and legislated for. She spoke about welfare bills rising. They are rising at half the rate in this Parliament that they did in her last Parliament in power. She spoke about pensioner poverty. It rose under the government in which she served. Now we look forward to the report of the Pension Commission next year. I refer to it in my statement and Baroness Casey will also report on how and when the National care system will be rolled out.

She did ask about welfare reform in the midst of her attacks against the system that her own party created. We have already cut the gap between the health and standard elements of Universal Credit. We have made changes to the Motability scheme. We have stopped people buying British pensions on the cheap and we will make more changes. Following the reports of the Milburn and Timms reviews. The truth is that there is a stark contrast here today between a party that is prepared to take the decisions needed to offer a new settlement for older people and their families, and one that is in a frankly pathetic position of resisting that change in public, while one after another, they agree with it in private.
14:05
14:05
14:06
14:07
14:09
14:10
14:11
14:12
14:12
14:13
14:13
14:14
14:14
14:15
14:15
14:16
14:17
14:18
14:19
14:20
14:21
14:22
14:22
14:23
14:23
14:24
14:25
14:25
14:26
14:27
14:28
14:28
14:29
14:29
14:30
14:31
14:32
14:33
14:33
14:35
14:35
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:37
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:43
Uma Kumaran Portrait Uma Kumaran MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Stratford and Bow, Labour)
-
-
Deirdre Costigan thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Ealing Southall, there is a wonderful culture of extended families living culture of extended families living together and looking after elderly relatives at home. But families, mainly women in families, do this, often without government support and at a cost to their own opportunities in life. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that this National Care Service, funded by this adjustment today to the triple lock, will make a real difference for families and unpaid carers, all while ensuring the State Pension continues to rise every year for pensioners and Ealing Southall.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend is quite right. She's right to draw attention to the immense contribution made by carers at home. The package that we have announced is good news for have announced is good news for carers. As I said, this is a new settlement not just for pensioners but for the many younger relatives

**** Possible New Speaker ****

who are looking after older relatives And who can now look forward to a new National Care service being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a new National Care service being developed in the coming years. Ayoub Khan Madam Deputy Speaker. More than a quarter pensioners in my constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr already claim Pension Credit on top of their State Pension, so even with the triple lock, there will be choosing between heating and eating this winter. And now they're being told that their social safety net may be cut even more. Pensioners are worried the triple lock cannot be lifted until we put an end to the cost of living crisis, and we provide more support for the most vulnerable pensioners.

So what is the Secretary of State doing to achieve this? So we can ensure that the poorest pensioners aren't left

**** Possible New Speaker ****

worse off? Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I refer to our introduction of Pension Credit, which has done significant amounts to reduce significant amounts to reduce pensioner poverty. We have had an increase in claims of over 30,000 increase in claims of over 30,000 in recent times. Under the plans that I have set out, pensioner poverty is set to fall, but in poverty is set to fall, but in addition to that, we have asked the Pensions Commission to look at what further measures may be needed to ensure that we bear down on pensioner poverty in the future, because, of course, security in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

retirement is absolutely vital for older people. Rachael Maskell thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. I welcome the government's. Ambition to have free personal care, and I welcome the ambition to care, and I welcome the ambition to keep the triple lock for the duration of this Parliament. But the Secretary of State will know that I have deep concern about the levels of pensioner poverty. 1.7 million pensioners making those million pensioners making those difficult choices today, 880,000 pensioners not claiming the Pension Credit which they could. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to raise his ambition to end pensioner poverty in this Parliament and ensure that we find mechanisms to give sufficiency to those pensioners not claiming their Pension Credit, but also to publish an impact assessment so we can have a real understanding of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

implementation of the consequences of the implementation of these proposals. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, let

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend for campaigning on this issue. We for campaigning on this issue. We did publish a document on the 29th of September, which showed that pensioner poverty was set to fall pensioner poverty was set to fall under these plans, but we are not complacent about that. That is why, in addition to that, we have asked the Pensions Commission to look at what further measures may be needed to reduce pensioner poverty in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

future years. Dave Robertson thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Shadow Secretary of State has clearly been Secretary of State has clearly been in this place for a few years longer than I have, and I'm sure he's seen just as many people getting in touch with him on a weekly and monthly basis about the problems that they face in the care system. It is so bad for families system. It is so bad for families out there, and I have lost count, even in my short time in this place, with the number of people I've had with the number of people I've had in tears in my surgeries, talking about the difficulties of navigating personal care for elderly relatives.

Can I really thank him for the work that he's done on this? Because unless we get that care system right, we are absolutely turning our face away from one of the great evils that are left in this country. The triple lock is a difficult thing to unpick, but I think the steps that unpick, but I think the steps that he's taking are proportionate and should lead to that really should lead to that really essential care system. And I thank him for the work that he's done in this space.
14:53
Wendy Morton Portrait Rt Hon Wendy Morton MP (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)
-
-
Let me thank him for his comments. He is right to point out the deficiencies and and worse that exist in the current care system, and perhaps an under-discussed part of it all is the pressure it puts on the NHS. As I said in my statement, if we turn away from this and we don't tackle the kind of things that he spoke about, we will have more A and E admissions, more ambulance call outs and more elderly people kept in hospital when they would actually be better

**** Possible New Speaker ****

off in a social care setting. Johanna Baxter thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. The SNP wasted over £28 million of taxpayers money on social care plans, which went nowhere. No improvement to outcomes, no improvement to the terms and conditions of social care workers in Scotland. And now they're trying in Scotland. And now they're trying to hoodwink my constituents in trying to tell them that these plans would make them worse off. These plans would increase Barnett consequentials for Scotland, which could be spent on a national care service. So will the Secretary of State learn from the SNP's failures

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and reassure my constituents. My hon. Friend is absolutely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the importance of the social care workforce. That is why we are not waiting until April why we are not waiting until April 2030 to make improvements for the social care workforce. She is also social care workforce. She is also right to say that as a result of the changes that have spoken about in my statement, extra funding will in my statement, extra funding will be available to the Scottish Government. In addition to the record financial settlement it has already received since the general election, where we in a different environment, we could have a constructive discussion with the Scottish Government about how to build the best social care system throughout the UK.

Instead, we have the usual claims of perfection, which she knows are not the experience of her constituents.
14:58
Uma Kumaran Portrait Uma Kumaran MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Stratford and Bow, Labour)
-
-
John Grady thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> And the party opposite show remarkable flexibility when it comes to the triple lock, but absolute commitment to the reckless management of public finances and uncosted pledges. Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm the following points to pensioners in Glasgow East in Scotland, the triple lock will remain in place until 2030 following 2030. The pension will always keep track with prices. Further. It will rise more than this if needed, to keep its relative value for earnings.

Scottish pensioners are protected under our proposals. No pensioner will lose money as a result of our proposals and the Labour Party

**** Possible New Speaker ****

backs. The hon. Friend is right to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Friend is right to point out that the pension, the State Pension, will continue to rise in each and every year. He is rise in each and every year. He is also right to point out that a Shadow Secretary, having confirmed that they oppose these changes, is that they oppose these changes, is now left with the question of where they will find the money to continue paying the triple lock should they ever come into power after the next election, and where they will find the money to fund social care improvements.

Her failure to respond to these questions completely undermines their waving around of more and more savings to fund their growing list of unfunded tax promises. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have seen that movie before. We know how it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ends because the British people are still paying the price. Chris Murray. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here. Fears for your finances and care in old age keep many people up at in old age keep many people up at night. This is the biggest issue of our generation and we must tread our generation and we must tread carefully. Shamefully, the First Minister of Scotland is exploiting people's fears, wrongly claiming
15:02
15:03
15:03
Al Pinkerton Portrait Dr Al Pinkerton MP (Surrey Heath, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
pensioners in each and every year. Furthermore, extra funds will be allocated to the Scottish allocated to the Scottish Government as a result of the social care changes that are part of this package. He is also right of this package. He is also right to point out that the Institute for Fiscal Studies said the First Minister was wrong to claim what he claimed over the State Pension. But I also think there is another thing on top of that, which is the enormous complacency which suggests that the Scottish care system cannot be improved.

It can be improved. There are almost 10,000 Scots waiting for social care assessments, and he knows that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

true of his constituents and the many other constituents who are represented here today. Neil Duncan-Jordan thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Neil Duncan-Jordan thank. You. Madam Deputy Speaker. We should. Be clear. That setting future indexation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That setting future indexation to a proportion of average earnings means that over time, the State Pension will be lower than under the current system. Given that future generations will future generations will increasingly rely on the State Pension, this seems like we're going in the wrong direction. But actually, the real concern is that this policy is asking pensioners to this policy is asking pensioners to pay for the care of other pensioners. So can I ask the Secretary of State why we are not Secretary of State why we are not sharing the cost amongst us all for a new National Care service? Good question.

question.
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
Ruth Jones Portrait Ruth Jones MP (Newport West and Islwyn, Labour)
-
-
it by 2021. He then he he then postponed it to 2023 and then said, postponed it to 2023 and then said, we do it in 2025 but had no funding. And what has that led to? It has led to more people in hospitals who don't need to be there. It's led to care workers having only £0.39 an hour more than minimum wage and care workers. Skilled workers should be treated that way. So can the Minister promise me we will not hide behind the triple lock? We will not fumble the ball like those opposite have done.

But when Baroness Casey releases her report, we will actually implement it and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make a change. Yes. My hon. Friend is right to say there have been many reports and there have been many reports and many reviews over the years. There are differences this time. The are differences this time. The first is that in making the changes, in putting forward this new settlement, and we have identified settlement, and we have identified a source of funding that will grow over the years, that will help to fund the social care system. And fund the social care system.

And the second is political will. It is that the Prime Minister has put this front and centre of his ambitions in his role as Prime Minister, front and centre of his speech to party conference a couple of weeks ago, and is really putting his shoulder behind getting this resolved once and for all.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Final question Gordon McKee. The fundamental problems with social care that the Prime Minister social care that the Prime Minister outlined so powerfully in his conference speech are the exactly the same fundamental problems with social care that my constituents in social care that my constituents in Glasgow experience, and indeed my own family experience with my grandparents had dementia. So can I grandparents had dementia. So can I ask the Minister if he agrees with me that rather than play politics, the Scottish and Welsh governments the Scottish and Welsh governments should work with the Prime Minister to help design a national care service that works for every corner

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Britain. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and as I said, it would be a right, and as I said, it would be a better future on this if governments in Scotland, Wales and governments in Scotland, Wales and the UK could work together on an issue that is a common challenge. That is the approach that should be That is the approach that should be taken forward. That is the spirit in which the Prime Minister announced this in his speech at announced this in his speech at party conference.

It is a new settlement and we should be taking it forward together.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is the. End of. The statement on pensions triple lock. I'll give the. Frontbenches a moment or.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moment or. Two to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I remind the Minister that under. I remind the Minister that under paragraph 9.5 of the ministerial paragraph 9.5 of the ministerial code, the opposition Front Bench and the Speaker's office should be sent. The text of a draft statement, sent. The text of a draft statement, a minimum of 45 minutes beforehand. This statement was not received on time. I do not wish to suspend the time. I do not wish to suspend the House on a busy day, but it is regrettable that this important standard was not met in this instance, and I now call the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

instance, and I now call the Minister for the statement on Falkland Islands. Minister. Uma Kumaran Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise for the delayed submission. We respect the processes of this House and I'll ensure that does not happen again. Madam Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I'll update the House on Argentina's escalating campaign against individuals and companies in the United Kingdom and around the world, involved in the lawful economic development of the Falkland Islands. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me state from the outset the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are British.

The United Kingdom has no doubt about its sovereignty over them and their surrounding maritime areas. As the Prime Minister told the House yesterday, as part of conversations at the UN General Assembly, he and President Trump discussed the islanders clear and declared will to remain British. The Prime Minister reiterated that message to the UN General Assembly. Let me once again repeat what the Prime Minister made clear to this House yesterday. We will always do
15:30
15:30
Sarah Sackman Portrait Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
-
Foreign Secretary and I have reiterated this government's commitment to the Falkland Islanders right to determine their own political and economic future own political and economic future and livelihoods. I made this point very clear in my public statement, very clear in my public statement, published online on the 30th of September, and in my subsequent meetings with members of the Legislative Assembly. I welcome Legislative Assembly. I welcome Jack Ford, chair of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly, here in the gallery today. I know the whole House will want to show him and the Falkland Islanders our full support.

Madam Deputy Speaker, in recent weeks, we've seen inflammatory remarks from President Miller at the UN General Assembly and increasingly aggressive public statements from the Argentine foreign Minister. The Argentine government has threatened sanctions and warned that it will pursue criminal measures against businesses and individuals connected directly and indirectly to the Sea Lion project. The Sea Lion field lies on the Falkland Islands continental shelf. The project is lawful and regulated by the democratically elected Falkland Islands government. Argentina has no jurisdiction over it.

Let me be absolutely clear. This government will not stand by while Argentina uses economic coercion against the people of the Falkland Islands. We will do whatever it takes to support them. What's particularly disappointing about this is the brazen attempt to use the people of the Falkland Islands as some sort of political prop by President Miller. Ahead of Argentina's elections next year. Madam Deputy Speaker, we will not allow the Falkland Islanders to be used as a tool of Argentine domestic politics. The government of the United Kingdom is responding in four ways.

First, we have confronted Argentina directly. On the 17th of September, the Minister for Latin America made clear our position to the Argentine ambassador and rejected the attempted application of Argentine law to the Falkland Islands. He also reaffirmed the islanders right to develop their natural resources. Our message is unequivocal the measures announced by President Miller on the 3rd of September, threatening companies and individuals for lawful commercial decisions are economic coercion. They will not change the United Kingdom's position or weaken our commitment to the rights and wishes of the Falkland Islanders.

Nor will they halt lawful economic activity. We will respond firmly and promptly to Argentine threats to apply measures beyond its jurisdiction, which are intended to frighten businesses. Such conduct damages legal certainty and confidence in Argentina as a reliable economic partner. Second, the government is engaging with affected businesses to understand their concerns and make clear the government's position. The. The Department for business, innovation, Science and Trade, working closely with the foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, is having regular discussions with the Sea Line operator and its supply supporting supply chain here.

Our message is straightforward. Legitimate commercial activity in the Falkland Islands remains lawful, and the British Government stands behind those engaged in it. We are also speaking to wider UK business interests to explain the government's position and understand the potential consequences of Argentina's actions. Third, I can confirm that the Business Secretary will, subject to the necessary parliamentary protocols, deploy the powers available to him under the Protection of Trading interests legislation against any Argentine measures that seek to influence or regulate lawful activity beyond Argentina Argentine jurisdiction.

These steps will provide additional protection for UK businesses against attempts to compel them to comply with measures Argentina is trying to enforce outside its jurisdiction. There will also demonstrate that the government is prepared to use the tools available to defend lawful British commercial activity. We will continue to talk to businesses as the situation develops to understand how best to support their operations. Let me emphasise that this action responds to Argentina's attempted extraterritorial application of its domestic measures. Fourth, we're mobilising international partners, our diplomatic network, acting on the instruction of the Foreign Secretary, are engaging to set out what Argentina's conduct means for international businesses to secure supply chains and predictable global commerce.

We're engaging G7 and G20 partners and governments across Europe, the Americas and beyond. We urge countries who value open markets, legal certainty and stable trading relationships to stand against the intimidation of companies undertaking lawful business. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I say to this House and the government of Argentina that the United Kingdom will prepare additional measures if this situation persists. They will be legal. They will be proportionate. And let me assure you, they will be robust. Madam Deputy Speaker, the United Kingdom never sought this confrontation with the current Argentine government, and less so with the Argentinian people.

We do not want to see wider implications for our two countries. Let us not forget the reconciliation and progress we have seen since the events of 1982. Next year we will mark 45 years since British forces liberated the Falkland Islands. For some of those veterans who fought in that conflict, this may be one of the last major anniversaries they see. To mark that occasion, to celebrate the liberation and remember all those who paid the ultimate price for the freedom of the Falkland Islands.

And they should never be forgotten. Today I can announce that the foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, in partnership with the Ministry of Defence, will support commemorations on the islands and here in the United Kingdom. Madam Deputy Speaker, addressing the situation at hand, there should be no doubt that the government will defend the Falkland Islanders, defend them from bullying, defend them from threats and defend their right of self-determination. Every part of this response is being developed in close coordination with the democratically elected Falkland Islands government.

The islanders interest and wishes remain at the heart. The principle at stake is simple the Falkland Islanders have the right to determine their own future. In 2013, the referendum 99.8% of those voting on a turnout of 92% chose to remain a British overseas territory. Their wishes could not have been clearer. The United Kingdom will. The United Kingdom will remain open to dialogue and practical cooperation with Argentina, where it benefits both countries and our peoples. The hon. Gentleman will be minded to listen to my statement for the progress.

The progress must rest on international law and respect for the rights and wishes of the Falkland Islanders. Firmness in defending those principles is entirely consistent with keeping the door open to diplomacy and dialogue. Madam Deputy Speaker, on the 28th of September, the government of Argentina formally notified the United Kingdom that it was commencing arbitration proceedings under annexe seven of the UN convention on the law of the sea, or enclose as its known. Argentina demanded that the United Kingdom prevent hydrocarbon activity in the North Foreland Basin in relation to the Sea Lion project, Argentina threatened to seek provisional measures from the International Tribunal for the law of the sea.

I can confirm that the United Kingdom Government's intention is to engage with this process, consistent with our long standing position in respect of international courts and tribunals. On Sunday the 11th of October, the British Embassy in Buenos Aires delivered our formal response to Argentina's notification. That response sets out clearly the United Kingdom's position. The House will understand that while legal proceedings are contemplated or underway, or will not provide a running commentary, but I assure members we will defend the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the United Kingdom robustly.

At the same time, I want to be clear about what Argentina's action does not do. Its notification does not constitute a judgement by an international court or tribunal. It does not invalidate licences issued by the Falkland Islands government. It does not alter the island's regulatory authority and it does not require lawful activity on hydrocarbons development to cease. Madam Deputy Speaker, His Majesty's Government stands shoulder to shoulder with the Falkland Islanders. We are in no doubt about their sovereignty. We will defend their security, their livelihoods and their right to determine their own future while remaining ready to resolve differences with Argentina through diplomacy, dialogue and international law.

The United

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kingdom's resolve is absolute. I commend this statement to the House. I call.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Shadow Minister Wendy Morton. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, advance sight of her statement, although it was somewhat belated. Let me start by welcoming Jack Ford, chair of the Falkland Islands MLA, chair of the Falkland Islands MLA, to the gallery today. Yesterday marked 44 years since the Falklands marked 44 years since the Falklands Task Force victory Parade, when more than 300,000 people lined London streets to honour those who liberated the islands.

Their sacrifice reminds us of our enduring responsibility to defend the Falkland Islanders freedom and their right to self-determination. Argentina's increasingly hostile rhetoric and threats towards the islands, their people and their economic interests are wholly unacceptable. The islanders are overwhelmingly have overwhelmingly expressed their wish to remain British. No amount of intimidation or economic coercion from Buenos Aires will change that. The Falkland Islanders deserve more than words of reassurance. They deserve to know that the British government will stand firmly behind them, protect their interests and defend their right to determine their own future.

So I welcome reports that the Foreign Secretary has signed off on the next steps for Sea Lion. The Islanders have every right to develop their natural resources. But I am a little perplexed, Madam Deputy, because in energy questions today, Ministers suggested this was not a decision for the British government. So can the Foreign Minister clarify the Foreign Secretary's role? Precisely what is authorised and whether further decisions are required? In fact, was the Energy Secretary even consulted? And if the Foreign Secretary can support sea lion in the South Atlantic, why is the government still leaving Rosebank and Jas Athwal in the North Sea waiting? But back to the Falkland Islands.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we welcome the measures today outlined, but approval alone will not protect those involved from Argentina's threats. British nationals and businesses operating under licences issued by the Falkland Islands government should
15:54
Kieran Mullan Portrait Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
-
-
not face intimidation or threats of legal action. And there are some questions that need answers and clarity today. The Minister has announced their intention to extend the protection of trading interests measures to cover Argentina. What will this mean in practice for companies and individuals facing companies and individuals facing Argentine legal action? And what risks will remain? Can she confirm reports that the government has approached Interpol and set out what assurances it has received that politically motivated requests will be rejected? Has the FCDO sought assurances from international partners that British citizens will not face arrest or detention when travelling abroad? What practical, legal, consular and travel support is being offered to those affected, and how will the government help companies resist attempts to disrupt the project's financing and supply chains? What direct support is being provided to the Falkland Islands government to ensure development can proceed without interference? Because alongside these protections, there must be consequences if Argentina continues to escalate its threats.

Has the Minister examined targeted sanctions or other proportionate diplomatic and economic restrictions that must also inform our wider economic relationship? President Miller cannot simultaneously threaten British interests while expecting Britain to facilitate closer economic cooperation. Argentina has applied to join the Cptpp. The shadow Foreign secretary has made clear that Britain should be prepared to oppose that application. If Argentina continues to threaten peace and stability in the South Atlantic. Is the government prepared to use Britain's position within Cptpp to make clear that such behaviour carries consequences? Because these developments underline a wider point about Britain's standing in the world, when Britain appears unwilling or unable to defend its interests, it risks encouraging those who would seek to challenge them.

That is why we on these benches are committed to fully to fully costed plans to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030. So will the Minister confirm what discussions she has had with the Defence Secretary about the resilience of Britain's military presence in the South Atlantic, and whether any additional measures are being considered? Madam Deputy Speaker, Britain must bring together its diplomatic, economic and military strength to defend its interests and stand up to those who seek to intimidate us.

Argentina should be working to strengthen its own economy, rather than threatening the livelihoods of the Falkland Islanders. There can be no question of bargaining away their democratic rights or their future. So I will end where I began. The Falkland Islanders have chosen to remain British. We on these benches will always stand with them and defend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their fundamental right to self-determination. Minister Kamara.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister Kamara. I thank the right hon. Lady for the important points that she's raised today. I'll try to take some raised today. I'll try to take some of those in turn. Let me be clear. The Prime Minister was in the House yesterday. This government will defend the Falkland Islanders right defend the Falkland Islanders right to self-determination relentlessly. The Falkland Islands are British overseas territory, and they will remain so for as long as the islanders wish. In relation to Argentina, we've made clear to Argentina that attempts to obstruct lawful economic activity in the Falkland Islands are not the act of a responsible of responsible international engagement.

They damage legal certainty and raise serious questions about Argentina's reliability as an economic partner. On some of the questions that she's asked relating in relation to the PT and TT, PPE, we don't speculate on possible future sanctions or designations, but we will consider continue to consider all appropriate measures in accordance with our legal framework and wider policy objectives. We the UK does not comment publicly on CPT extension discussions. Our focus now is on the merit of an application to maintain the strongest agreement.

Although Argentina's current behaviour does, though, raise very serious questions about their reliability as a partner for the United Kingdom. On the question. On on the House. I'll get to that. On the questions of the House will understand that while legal proceedings are contemplated or underway, I will not provide a running commentary on that, on defence matters, on the questions of defence readiness. The Ministry of Defence is confident that our military presence is at the appropriate level to defend the islands, and that that posture is kept under constant review.

Indeed, I've had conversations with the Minister who's present here today. Also, since 1982, the United Kingdom has maintained a continuous military presence on and around the Falkland Islands. HMS Medway is currently patrolling the South Atlantic. We've got the current tranche. One of typhoons will be replaced with more modern tranche two aircraft in 2027, alongside significant investment to ensure that typhoon remains at the cutting edge of capability. So you will see that those conversations are ongoing in relation to matters to do with climate and natural resources.

The hon. Lady will understand that the core tenant of self-determination is ensuring that the Falkland Islanders and themselves and their government can make decisions to do with their natural resources. Finally, on business and what we're doing to give businesses assurance, the government is continuing to support businesses affected by Argentina's actions. We're engaging closely with companies involved in the Sea Lion Project and its supporting supply chain. My message to those companies is straightforward their activity is lawful, and the British government stands unequivocally behind them.

As I set out in my statement, the Business Secretary is prepared, subject to the necessary parliamentary processes, to deploy powers under the protection of Trading interests legislation against any Argentine measures that seek to influence or to regulate lawful activity taking place outside Argentine jurisdiction. Jurisdiction. The process is straightforward to provide additional protection to the UK. Businesses facing pressure as a result of Argentina's actions. Madam Deputy Speaker. On the issue of the Falklands, this House has long had consensus that we stand together, that we stand with the people of the Falkland Islanders who, as we all know, are feeling quite scared about these measures.

They are feeling very uncertain about their future. It is our job as a Parliament to share, to stand together. I have met and spoken with a number of those in the Falkland Islanders. They are. They are very worried. They are scared. They are scared. And it is our job to offer them reassurance and stand together and show them that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

United Kingdom stands full sail behind them. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And can I welcome the Minister to her place? Constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth will be Warwickshire and Bedworth will be really pleased to hear her announcements on the commemoration events, and I look forward to being events, and I look forward to being able to to take part in those in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that the action we're taking today is a clear indication of this Labour Government's position that if Argentina continues to threaten the Falkland Islanders right to self-determination, we will prepare additional measures, no matter what threats or economic coercion Argentina carries out against the Falkland Islanders.
16:10
Karl Turner Portrait Karl Turner MP (Kingston upon Hull East, Independent)
-
-
Minister Connor Rand. >> Minister Connor Rand. >> I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know she spoke passionately about these matters. Let me be very clear. The United Kingdom government will continue to do all that's necessary to protect the Falkland Islanders. The government of the Falkland Islands next year, as I said, is the 45th anniversary of the conflict. We are very much looking forward to working with the Ministry of Defence, the FCDO and Ministry of Defence together on the commemoration and celebratory

**** Possible New Speaker ****

events around Falkland. 45. Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Doctor Al Pinkerton. and. Can.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can. I welcome the government's commitment to Falkland Island sovereignty and the Islanders right to self-determination? But in the to self-determination? But in the light of President Miller's escalating campaign, I think a little history may be in order. The Falkland Islands were first sighted by English navigators in 1592, by English navigators in 1592, claimed by Britain in 1765 and continuously settled since 1833. And some Falkland Islands families can trace their roots back nine, even ten generations. And of course, there is a particular irony in Argentina's claims of colonial injustice.

One of two countries in this dispute. It was only Argentina that systematically dispossessed indigenous peoples of their homes and their homelands, and Argentina's sovereignty claim rests substantially on its asserted inheritance of the Spanish empire, whose imperial ambitions were sanctioned themselves by a 15th century pope and the Treaty of Tordesillas. Now, the colonial history is rather more complicated than the government of Argentina, perhaps like to acknowledge or remember, which is precisely why self-determination matters so much. In 2013, I was in Stanley to witness myself.

The referendum, in which 98.9 9.8% of islanders voted to remain British. They spoke for themselves as a self-governing, self-determining, distinct and identifiable people. Yet President Miller now seeks to use unclass arbitration to deny islanders economic sovereignty and deny them the right to shape their own future. That is neo-colonialism dressed up as anti-colonialism. So I have three questions for the Minister. Will Britain challenge any attempt to use Unclass to determine territorial sovereignty? And if she's not willing to give an express account of whether the.

TPP negotiations will be will be narrated, can she at least acknowledge that the Auckland principles that underpin Cptpp are inconsistent with Argentina's desire to undermine the islanders right to develop their own economy? And finally, what concrete measures will this government take to ensure that Argentina's threats do not deter investment in the islands?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member, and I know he knows lots about this. Indeed, I believe he's a professor who specialises in some of these areas, so I thank him for the brief history lesson that he's treated us history lesson that he's treated us to today. On the question of enclose. The answer to that is yes. enclose. The answer to that is yes. On CT, we expect good practices from all our international partners, and I've made very clear our expectations from the government of Argentina.

How they're behaving at the moment isn't in line with what we would expect. On his third point on this matter, we are expecting all partners to get around the table. Diplomacy and dialogue remains a very important part of moving this forward. We've been very clear we will engage with this process in full on diplomacy, on dialogue, on matters of international law. The United

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kingdom will play its full part. Al Carns. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to thank the Minister and I'd like to thank the Minister in particular for her support for the 45th anniversary coming up of what was some pretty heroic action what was some pretty heroic action from the UK armed forces, including Buster Brown, who took me through marine training many, many years ago. Does the Minister agree with ago. Does the Minister agree with me that the Argentinians, the UK government, will not cower in any way, shape or form or be intimidated by any aggressive or threatening language from Argentina?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The answer to that is an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unequivocal yes. Paul Holmes thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I declare an interest that I visited the Falklands a number of months ago as a trustee of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, and can I welcome the Minister to her position? I entirely endorse the sentiments of her statement that. Maintain that the Falklands that. Maintain that the Falklands must remain British, and I welcome the chair of the Legislative Assembly to the gallery today. But as well as diplomacy, we must match that diplomacy against Argentina with military deterrence.

And when I visited the islands, I was most concerned that permanent refuelling capability for our military assets on the island was not on the island and indeed was based elsewhere. So can I ask you, and I don't expect a detailed answer, although I see the Minister next to her, could I ask to see that that permanent refuelling capability for the typhoons is back on the islands, if it is not already.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman opposite for that important opposite for that important question. You could see that the Defence Minister was explained that he will have some conversations he will have some conversations with you about this. We don't comment on operational matters in relation to this, but we are moving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relation to this, but we are moving our capabilities and our assets in the area. Just to remind the Minister and all colleagues know you and yours, we're speaking through the chair and I was not responsible for that question. Dan Carden.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I spent an hour with one of my constituents, James, last week, who constituents, James, last week, who was shot in the face in the Falklands War, and I've met him many times. To work on issues with many times. To work on issues with him in in recent months. Can I also add my welcome to Jack Ford, who's add my welcome to Jack Ford, who's in the gallery today, and say that I want to give my fullest, strongest backing to what the strongest backing to what the Minister said today and just mention two little things.

One, how is discussions with our allies in the Latin American region, with Uruguay and Chile in particular, are going, and will she make sure that they are a focus of the talks that she is having? And I think we we must find a way to assert our sovereignty. I want to say this as gently as possible, but to assert our sovereignty against what are spurious often claims against us in international courts that basically allow our foes to challenge sovereignty.

We've seen it recently, and we're seeing it now again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I know he's spent many years engaged in these matters. many years engaged in these matters. On the question he asked about conversations with partners in conversations with partners in Latam, the Minister for Latam is in regular discussion with friends and regular discussion with friends and allies in the region. They are important partners on this matter, particularly for support of the islands on the matter of sovereignty.

The United Kingdom government is in no doubt about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islanders. We will follow their wish at every turn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You look like you're in pain, Sarah Pochin. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Whilst we at reform, of course, welcome the Minister's. Commitment to allowing the Falkland Islanders to determine Falkland Islanders to determine their own governance. Can she confirm that we actually would, as a nation, be in a position militarily, militarily to defend the Falkland Islands if ever called the Falkland Islands if ever called to do so by the islanders when we couldn't even get a single warship to the Strait of Hormuz?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. The direct answer to her question is yes. Gloucester.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gloucester. Luke Evans thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Now, the Minister was asked specifically about what the Foreign specifically about what the Foreign Secretary had signed off. So can she confirm he granted consent under the Mineral Ordinance 1994? And if so, what does she say to the people of Aberdeen who've been told people of Aberdeen who've been told they cannot drill but 8000 miles away? We can drill to protect the global climate change? That is incongruent. It doesn't make sense.

And what does she say to them? Very.
16:29
Jess Brown-Fuller Portrait Jess Brown-Fuller MP (Chichester, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I'll remind the member, the the >> I'll remind the member, the the member opposite, that this is a very different situation. The UK oil and gas licensing policy does not apply in the Falkland Islands. I've made very clear that their right to develop their natural resources is in line with their self-determination. When deciding whether to consent. New hydrocarbons licences in the islands. The Secretary of State acts in accordance with the applicable Falkland Islands legislation. We do not comment on individual licences.

I'm pretty surprised that he's attempting to bring domestic politics into a matter that this House has long had consensus on. That is the sovereignty and self-determination

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rights of the Falkland Islanders. Place. I also welcome the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Place. I also welcome the Minister restating Britain's commitment to the fact that the Falkland Islands is British. As long as the people of the Falklands wish to remain so. The Minister has said that Argentina has threatened to seek provisional measures to seek provisional measures through the International Tribunal for the law of the sea. President Trump, an ally of the Argentinian Trump, an ally of the Argentinian president, has spoken in support of Argentina's claim and has recently sanctioned the ICC. So I'm interested to hear what the government is doing to ensure that no pressure is brought to bear on international tribunals, and that the rule of law is protected.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the member, hon. Member opposite for that question. It's an important one. As the Prime important one. As the Prime Minister told the House yesterday and at the UN General Assembly in New York, the Falkland Islands were New York, the Falkland Islands were a matter of discussion with President Trump and the clear and declared will of the islanders to declared will of the islanders to remain British was part of that conversation. The United States is our closest ally. We talk to them our closest ally.

We talk to them on a range of issues. This remains one of the issues that we talk about. Our officials remain in constant communication on matters to do with the international law and courts. We're in constant discussions on this matter, and it's something that we can pick up, and I can write to him further if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he would like a fuller answer. Mark Anthony Antonio Gutierrez.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mark Anthony Antonio Gutierrez. The secretary general. Of the United. Nations. Will retire. In December. One of the leading candidates. Is a senior Argentinian ambassador. Rafael Grossi. Is it the UK's position Grossi. Is it the UK's position that they are supporting the Argentinians in this important role? Argentinians in this important role? If not, does the Minister agree with me that it should also disqualify the Costa Rican and the two Ecuadorian candidates? Should they have made public statements supporting Argentinians? Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The member opposite asks a pertinent question, but he will know that the UK government doesn't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

know that the UK government doesn't comment on unsg processes from the Dispatch Box. Ayoub Khan Madam Deputy Speaker. Our overseas territory, which voted to remain British, where our brave troops fought and died for the Falkland Islanders right to self-determination is now once again being put in jeopardy because a warmongering Argentinian a warmongering Argentinian government is seeking to rally its base to hide their domestic failures and failing economy, many international companies are being deterred from investing in that region because of the noise that's being created.

What more can this government do to ensure international companies that want to invest can do so with confidence?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister I'll assure the hon. Member opposite matters of sovereignty are not in jeopardy. sovereignty are not in jeopardy. I've been very clear in my statement today that the United Kingdom stands resolute behind the Kingdom stands resolute behind the Falkland Islanders. Conversations with businesses are ongoing, and letters of comfort have been issued

**** Possible New Speaker ****

letters of comfort have been issued to those businesses that we deem necessary to send those letters to Qatar. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker, as I'm sure you. Are aware. As well as applying to join the Cptpp, the Argentinians are in the final stages of accession to the OECD. Now, membership of that organisation brings with it significant benefits in terms of the risk premium attached to national debt, which could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions to Argentina. However, membership requires consensus from existing members that you're allowed to join. Would the Minister agree with me that the conduct of Argentina in this regard is unlikely to engender the kind of consensus needed for them to accede to the OECD?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member opposite for very eloquently put question. for very eloquently put question. We will continue to consider all options. Indeed, the behaviour of the Argentine government is not the Argentine government is not what we would expect. We've been very clear today in my statement. I hope they'll reflect on that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hope they'll reflect on that. Andrew Murrison is it any. Surprise Preston is citing enclose. Annexe seven.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Annexe seven. In defence of. His claim in relation to the Sea Lion field. When this government is using article 298 to defend its position in relation to the Chagos Islands and on the subject of enclose, will she use its strictures regarding freedom of navigation to ensure any thoughts that Argentina might have of frustrating the upcoming sea route between Punta Arenas and Stanley are given short shift?
16:42
Catherine Atkinson Portrait Catherine Atkinson MP (Derby North, Labour)
-
-
Minister Ian Murray. will understand that while legal proceedings are contemplated or underway, I will not provide a running commentary. The UK's established position is that provisional measures ordered under the applicable international legal framework are binding on the framework are binding on the parties, and that the UK complies with its international obligations on the issue on the matters raised in relation to Chagos, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

situation is in no way comparable. Sir Julian Lewis may I strongly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir Julian Lewis may I strongly welcome all three front bench statements on this vital matter? I would like to say, as someone who is politically active in 1982, that is politically active in 1982, that I well remember the failure of deterrence, which was partly deterrence, which was partly fuelled by mass agitation for nuclear disarmament, an unrelated subject at that time. So although the Minister says that there is no connection or no parallel with the Chagos dispute, let me assure her that the signals that have been sent by the government over Chagos are undermining of deterrence.

So will she therefore make it crystal clear to Argentina, now that any military action against the Falkland Islands will be met with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an overwhelming military response? I'll be. Very clear to the member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very clear to the member opposite. We will do everything and anything it takes to protect the Falkland Islands. There are. We Falkland Islands. There are. We have strong support for the nuclear deterrent. On the issue of the deterrent. On the issue of the Chagos Islands, I would remind members across the House these situations are in no way comparable and bringing domestic politics into these matters does not help us. We have a united approach on how we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deal with matters of the Falkland Islands, and I think we should go forward in that spirit. Last but not least, Douglas.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Last but not least, Douglas. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. It's been asked already, but I'm still unclear on the process of unclear on the process of consenting new drilling at the Falklands. So can the Minister tell us if the government has a role in us if the government has a role in consenting new drilling in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consenting new drilling in the Falklands, yes or no? Mr. I'll reiterate my answer, which I said minutes ago the issues to do with drilling in the Falkland Islands are a matter for the government of the Falkland Islands are in no way comparable to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

domestic licences. For Minister chiefs. Very point

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For Minister chiefs. Very point of order. That is the end. Of the statement. On Falkland Islands. I'll just give the Frontbenches a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The point Speaker. We had a. Council by election.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We had a. Council by election. In my constituency. constituency. Over the course of the break, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Over the course of the break, I was very surprised to see a picture. Tweeted by the Secretary of State for Scotland standing in State for Scotland standing in front of a street sign in my constituency, with the road very clearly written on it, despite the clearly written on it, despite the fact that he hadn't given me any notice that he was intending to be in my constituency. Madam Deputy Speaker, how can I raise with the Secretary of State for Scotland the importance of notifying members if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he intends to be in their constituency and to campaign in their constituency? Yes, yes. No doubt this will be raised

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No doubt this will be raised many times by colleagues and there is the document called The Rules of Behaviour and Courtesies in the Behaviour and Courtesies in the House of Commons, which deals with this matter when a member visits another member's constituency, except on a purely private visit, except on a purely private visit, they should take reasonable steps in advance to tell the member in which constituency the visit is taking place. The guidance also taking place. The guidance also states that failing to do so is regarded by colleagues as very discourteous.

No doubt that will be passed on by the front benches to the members commented on. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now move on to the ten minute rule motion. Ruth Jones. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy. Speaker, and I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a bill leave be given to bring in a bill to establish a close season from the start of February to the end of September, during which the killing or taking of brown hairs is or taking of brown hairs is prohibited to protect mountain hares, to repeal the seasonal prohibition on the sale of Hayes in prohibition on the sale of Hayes in the Hayes Preservation Act 1892, and for connected purposes.

Before starting my speech, I would like to pay tribute to the work of Baroness Helic. In the other place. She's been a tireless champion of this cause, alongside the wider animal welfare sector. Indeed, it has been a privilege to work alongside her in putting together this bill. Now, despite being affectionately heralded as an inhabitant of the British countryside and featuring on the Bank of England's recent banknote competition, they they came fifth. The brown hair is not originally native to these lands.

The species is thought to have originated in Central Asia and spread across Europe. Alongside the expansion of agriculture. Academics believe the brown hair was introduced to Britain following the Roman invasion, although some suggest the hairs may even arrive before the Romans. Now, following their introduction to Britain, the hare population continued to grow, peaking in the 18th and 19th centuries. Unlike other wild species, agriculture reforms land enclosure and predator control on larger estates all created favourable conditions for hares to thrive.

Experts at the University of Bristol estimate that the hare population reached 4 million in the late 19th century. As a result, the species became deeply embedded in a rural culture and folklore. But these conditions were not to last. However, by the early 1990s, gamekeepers and rural ecologists were beginning to sound the alarm. Brown hair numbers had declined sharply, especially since the 1960s. The National Brown Hair Survey, organised by Hutchings and Harris in 1996, estimated that the brown hair population had fallen as low as 817,000, barely a fifth of the number 100 years ago.

Hare numbers were estimated to be falling by 2% a year during the 1990s, shooting, coursing and poaching were specifically cited as cause of this decline, alongside wider changes in farming intensification, decreasing crop diversity and the loss of headlands and hedgerows. Despite having been a priority species since 1992, the estimated number of brown hairs continue to decline, with targets to double the spring population by 2010 being missed. Estimates in 2022 put the population at fewer than 600,000, with surveys such as by the British Trust for ornithology only reporting a recovery in the last few years.

It's this worrisome decline, which my bill seeks to respond to, building on existing best practice to protect local hare populations. Principally does this through introducing a statutory

**** Possible New Speaker ****

close season for the killing of Hayes in England and Wales. Currently, hares are the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wales. Currently, hares are the only game species in England and Wales without a statutory close season and may therefore be killed season and may therefore be killed throughout the year. This makes England and Wales outliers compared to Scotland, Northern Ireland and to Scotland, Northern Ireland and the rest of Europe. The gap in protection, Madam Deputy Speaker, makes brownie populations uniquely makes brownie populations uniquely vulnerable from commercial shooting. Most organised hare shoots take place during February and March. Following the closure of the Gamebird shooting season, this almost exactly aligns with the breeding season, meaning shoots can devastate the local population.

The Game Conservancy Trust estimated that a February Hare shoot can remove 60% of the breeding stock in low population areas. Such devastation can also pose the risk of localised extinction. Such impacts are already reflected in guidance and voluntary codes, which are clearly proved ineffective. Researchers at the University of Bristol found that shootings in February resulted in a profoundly damaging combination of population shrinkage and the orphaning of leverets, with consequent and animal welfare impacts and poor population recovery outcomes.

Madam Deputy Speaker put simply, the killing of pregnant or nursing female hares during their principal breeding season cannot be reconciled with a modern and coherent approach to animal welfare. At a time when we are committed to restoring nature and biodiversity. Such reckless practices only risk putting brown hair populations at further risk. When considering the welfare of haze across England and Wales, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is critical that we do not neglect the mountain hares. The upland cousin of the more common brown hair.

Whilst their numbers have declined significantly since the 19th century. The Peak District maintains an established wild breeding population in the dark peaks of Derbyshire and South Yorkshire. In Wales, however, the mountain hare population has all but disappeared, despite efforts to reintroduce reintroduce the species in historic habitats. The lack of any specific wildlife protections for mountain hares in England and Wales has been a key contributor to their decline. With moorland and scrubland habitats being lost and intensive, culling efforts linked to red grouse shooting.

In responding to these intensifying threats to mountain hare populations in 2021, the Scottish Government extended full protection under schedule five of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, a crucial step given that Scotland is home to most of the native British mountain hare population. Clause four of my Bill seeks to extend the same protections afforded to mountain hares in Scotland to those in England and Wales. This would mean it would become generally unlawful to intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take a mountain hare without a licence.

By providing greater protection, we can give this vulnerable species the breathing room it needs to recover. Boosting local ecology in the process. Madam Deputy Speaker, Having seen in my knee and my static caravan in Saint David's in West Wales, the hares out and about in the in in the spring and summer and autumn evenings. It's a delight to watch them. And I would want to make sure that we make all all efforts to protect these marvellous little creatures. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, this Labour government was elected on a commitment to deliver the biggest increase to animal welfare in a generation, providing increased protection for domestic farmed and wild animals.

The recently published animal welfare strategy was a major first step in delivering this, including a priority commitment to introducing a closed season for hares. This government has also committed to reversing ecological decline and boosting species abundance. We've had the warm words and now it's time for action. The government must urgently back this bill, or an equivalent in the other place, to introduce a closed season and better protect our hares. Deeds, not words, will determine how this government is judged before the next election.

This applies animal welfare and the environment as much as anything else. I therefore this bill to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the hon. Member have. Leave to bring in the Bill, as may that opinion say. I Bill, as may that opinion say. I may. That opinion say I of the contrary? No. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill? Irene Campbell. Sir. Desmond Swayne. Kerry McCarthy. Sir. Roger Swayne. Kerry McCarthy. Sir. Roger Gale. Neil Duncan-Jordan. Tim Farron. Ben Lake. Tonia. Antoniazzi. Farron. Ben Lake. Tonia. Antoniazzi. Terry Jermy. Simon Hoare and myself, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ruth Jones.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ruth Jones.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Hares Bill. Second Reading. What day?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

19th of March 2027. 19th of March 2027. Before we get on to the next bit of business, I've been updated that the Foreign Office statement was indeed received on time, and I did tell the Minister off earlier, but maybe we could pass that information on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to her. The clerk will now proceed to be the orders of the day. Courts and Tribunals Bill, as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Courts and Tribunals Bill, as amended in committee to be considered. Now. We will begin with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We will begin with the government. New clause 23, with which it will be convenient to consider other new clauses and consider other new clauses and amendments as listed on the selection paper. I call the Minister to move. New clause 23.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister to move. New clause 23. Yeah, yeah. I beg to move. Now, the bill now be considered. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is an honour to open the Report stage of the Courts and Tribunals Bill and to bring this important piece of legislation back before the House. This is a bill with victims at its heart. Its purpose is urgent and long overdue to ensure that justice in this country is delivered fairly for both victims and defendants. Currently, thousands of victims, witnesses and defendants are trapped in the long, slow wait for justice.

That is simply unfair. For
16:52
Geoffrey Cox Portrait Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Cox KC MP (Torridge and Tavistock, Conservative)
-
-
some, justice may never come. The old maxim rings true in our country today. Far too often, justice delayed is justice denied. Madam delayed is justice denied. Madam Deputy Speaker, occasionally there are stories that stop one in one's are stories that stop one in one's tracks. I appeared on the Newsnight programme to explain the situation programme to explain the situation in our courts backlogs reaching 80,000, far too many people waiting for justice. And on that programme I was confronted with the story of Morwenna Loman, and she spoke of the devastating impact that these court delays had had on her life.

Morwenna was violently raped in February 2023. In her case, she was forced to wait over two years for her attacker to be convicted after her trial was cancelled not once, but twice at short notice. During that time, she lost her job, her home, her sense of self and to be honest, Madam Deputy Speaker, her story has stayed with me ever since. It's exactly people like Morwenna that I have in my mind's eye as I return to the House with this legislation.

For far too many survivors, delays themselves have become another source of trauma. We cannot sit idly by. We have to act now to resolve this situation. This bill seeks to turn a crisis into an opportunity, an opportunity to rebuild a justice system that is swifter, stronger, and that has victims voices at its core. A system that gives courts the ability to triage cases rather than defendants. And that transforms our approach towards the culture around rape and serious sexual violence.

That is the ambition of this bill, not just to repair what is broken, but to build something better in its place. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government inherited a criminal justice system on its knees. Trials taking longer, hearings constantly cancelled, victims facing unacceptable delays and years of inaction and underinvestment had led to a court system that, as Lord Leveson's report concluded, was simply and remains simply unfit for purpose. Today, the Crown Court backlog stands at almost 81,000 cases and the pressure is growing.

Cases themselves are increasingly complex, not least because of the growth of digital and forensic evidence. A single smartphone can hold the equivalent of 50 million printed pages, and this adds to disclosure complexity and the time it takes to reach a verdict. The police are arresting more criminals, something we make absolutely no apologies for. But a system already under strain cannot continue to absorb ever rising demand without reform. Old structures are creaking under new volumes and new types of crime. And if we do not act, the situation will continue to spiral.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we are not only failing victims. This situation, these unacceptable delays are corrosive of public trust in the justice system itself. We can and we must do better. To do that, we need a sensible, principled and pragmatic approach. As no doubt we will hear, the opposition have offered plenty of objections, but precious few answers to the reality facing our courts. And we will not take lectures from the party that left the criminal justice system in this state.

This government has a plan, a serious package of measures designed to drive down the backlog and ensure victims get the fast, timely and fair justice that they deserve. Lord Leveson's conclusion in the independent review of criminal Courts was absolutely clear. There is no silver bullet for addressing this problem. We need to pull every lever. Investment, modernisation and structural reform. This government is doing precisely that. Let me begin with investment. For a start, we have removed the financial limit on court sitting days.

We have recruited more judges and magistrates by Uncapping Crown Court sitting days, meaning there is no financial limit on the number of cases that courts can hear. We have unleashed the potential of our Crown courts, who are hearing more cases than ever before. We are investing an additional £287 million in court repairs and digital upgrades, alongside record investment in criminal legal aid to support the solicitors and barristers who run our criminal cases. Alongside a package of over half £1 billion for victim services over the next three years.

In addition to that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am also proud that we have announced a £23 million package to introduce specialist rape courts. A manifesto commitment in every single Crown Court centre. This will improve the experience of victims of rape and other sexual offences at court, and I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North, whose bravery and determination has driven forward these changes. But modernisation and efficiency matter too. I abhor inefficiency, it's so frustrating.

And when I speak not just to victims, but to defendants, to people who work within the system, it is so frustrating. The wastefulness of ineffective trials, stories of trials being put off because a prisoner wasn't produced on time or because counsel was unavailable. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, working with the judiciary, we are modernising our system and we are throwing the kitchen sink at it. I'm happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm extremely grateful to the Minister for throwing the kitchen sink at the problem, but throwing sink at the problem, but throwing everything at it, including court repairs and Taunton Crown Court. We we wish to see those repairs make progress. The Minister was good enough to write to me at the beginning of the summer to explain beginning of the summer to explain that the court has been closed since 2023 will be closed for longer. Can I ask the Minister to longer.

Can I ask the Minister to contact me and let us give us an update on when Taunton Crown Court will finally be reopened.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm very grateful to him and I was glad to meet with him to discuss the situation at Taunton, discuss the situation at Taunton, which I know has been a deep source of frustration. Nothing could exemplify more the years of neglect of our justice system than our of our justice system than our crumbling court estate presided over by the party opposite. This over by the party opposite. This government is investing in the fabric of our court estate, not just in the bricks and mortar, but also in the digital upgrades that are so important.

And it's that that I'm coming to now. The use of remote hearings. We have the technology now. We need to be deploying it. This government will be developing a pilot of virtual remand hearings so that we don't need as many prisoner transfers as previously. Working with our judiciary to develop a new pioneering national video model, the model allows suitable cases to be allocated to available judges across different locations. It might be that a judge in Cardiff is hearing a matter based down in London, helping to alleviate the pressures there, helping to make much more effective use of capacity and target those areas facing the greatest backlogs.

We are also adopting a new national listing tool, harnessing the capacity of AI to schedule cases in a more efficient way. Case progression officers in every single crown court, making the more complex cases progress further and faster. Working with the judiciary to set up short trial courts, which hear similar cases together over concentrated periods so they can be dealt with more quickly. We're also expanding a scheme already used in Manchester, Bristol and Nottingham to allow prison vans to use bus lanes.

So to those who say we need to make the more the system more efficient, I agree with you entirely and we are stretching and straining every sinew to do exactly that. With the investment to go with it. And we welcome, in particular, the judiciary's reforms to prioritise rape and serious sexual offences and end the unacceptable practice of floating trials for these cases, giving victims greater certainty about when their case will be heard. But Lord Leveson's review was clear investment and modernisation can only take us so far.

No single lever can fix a crisis which has been years in the making. Decades of underinvestment in a system that has simply not kept pace with the 21st century, where cases now take twice as long as they did 25 years ago. So our third lever is pragmatic, principled structural reform to ease the pressure on the Crown Court and make sure its time is concentrated on the most serious cases. That is precisely what this bill delivers. Madam Deputy Speaker, the case for reform remains as strong as ever, but good government requires us to listen.

And this place exists to scrutinise and improve legislation. When concerns are raised. It is right that the government reflects and reacts. When the Prime Minister took office, he committed to looking at these proposals again and that is why, over recent months, the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor, and I have listened carefully to stakeholders, to members across this House, to people who work within the system. We've heard that strength of feeling and we've acted. So I can confirm today that the government has brought forward an amendment to the bill to remove clause three, the Bench Division.

The effect of that will be that all defendants facing a trial in the Crown Court will be heard with a jury. That decision does not change the destination or the ambition of this bill, which has always remained the same. Swifter justice for victims. And by simplifying our approach and avoiding some of the operational reforms that would have come with a new division, the Crown Court. This gives us the opportunity to move faster in implementing the changes that are set out in this bill.

Implementing these changes more efficiently will free up court capacity and make better use of court time, helping us to bring about fast, fair justice for victims. And we remain confident that the package of reform, the guts of this bill, backed by the record financial investment I've outlined, along with the ambitious programme of modernisation, that this will be sufficient to free up Crown Court time to turn the tide on the backlog within this Parliament. This is the right decision for victims, and it's the right decision for the justice system.

Now, I know that the opposition have tabled amendments to remove the remaining clauses that relate to Lord Leveson's review from the bill, but I'm afraid that is to bury one's head in the sand. We are proceeding with other structural reforms in the bill, including removing the right for defendant to choose whether their case is heard in the magistrates or the Crown Court when it is an either way offence, as in Scotland, the reform that we've always put forward is that it should be the court rather than the defendant, that triages cases.

This has a double effect. Not only is it more efficient. So where the prosecution and the court decides that a case can be heard in the magistrates, that is where it's heard. It's also fairer. What this does, it's about putting the power in the hands of the court rather than defendant giving a far greater say to victims whose voice can be heard through the prosecution. That puts its case as to what venue the case should be heard in. Alongside hearing from the defence, what this means is that cases are heard based on their seriousness, not simply on the preference of the defendant, exactly as the case is in Scotland.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this is exactly the right thing to do. These measures will not only reduce the demand on the Crown Court, it will prevent defendants from gaming the system, electing a jury trial in the simple hope that the delays drag on and that the case falls apart when the victim or witnesses withdraw. So the reforms today are not only pragmatic, they are principled. So too, giving magistrates courts greater sentencing powers means that more cases can be dealt with more quickly.

The magistrates Court is an efficient jurisdiction. It currently deals with triable. Either way, cases around four times faster than the Crown Court. We're also reforming the automatic right of appeal. Of course, I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be concerned as I am about the backlog in the magistrates court, which is four times larger than which is four times larger than that in the Crown Court and growing at 16% a year, whereas the Crown Court backlog is stabilised. If it really is a reform in the interests of efficiency, shouldn't she be sparing the magistrates court at a sparing the magistrates court at a time when their backlog is growing so fast? Yes, Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I don't accept the premise of that question. I don't accept that we do have a backlog in our magistrates court. What we have is a substantial case caseload. But you will know that the magistrates court, he is over 1.5 million cases a year. The Magistrates court is coping well. What I do acknowledge, and I will say to this House, is that we need to grow the capacity of our magistrates court. It's why we are increasing the number of sitting days in our magistrates court.

In 2025, 114,000 sitting days, we are growing that to 130,000 by 2829. The other thing we're doing is increasing the number of magistrates. Under the previous government, the number of magistrates in this country halved. We are going to restore the magistracy to its former glory. The changes that we have made to the application process, the investment that we are making in recruitment, quadrupling the Budget, is already reaping the rewards and we are on target to meet that 21,000 target. So the hon.

Member is right. We do need to grow capacity as we see a more expanded role for the magistracy, but I believe that we can do it and we are on track to do so. So we are reforming the automatic right of appeal. It's vital that, of course, there is a right of appeal, but it's also reasonable to ask a defence to identify grounds of appeal. So by introducing a permission to filter out cases without merit, what we avoid is a situation where victims are needlessly put through unnecessary hearings, where the appeal totally lacks merit.

These reforms, as I said, must be matched by the capacity to deliver them. And it's why, as I said, we're investing in our courts, in the people who make justice possible. And we remain on track to reach our target of 21,000 magistrates by 2829. And not just magistrates. Strengthening judicial capacity, boosting the number of district judges and legal advisers who need to see better pay and better and better career progression. There remains, too, a strong case for judge alone trials in the small number of cases that pertain to complex and lengthy fraud and financial matters, and I can confirm to the House that we will be proceeding with this measure, which has had strong support from those responsible for investigating and prosecuting serious economic crime.

Our primary objective here is minimising the burden on ordinary people who sit as jurors on such trials. We know that these trials can be lengthy, often lasting months at a time, which can mean long periods away from work, family responsibilities, lost income and real pressure on family life. So we are clear reform must bring down delay and improve victims experience. And it must also command public confidence and protect the principles that have made our courts respected the world over. The destination has not changed.

It never has wavered. Swifter justice for victims. And we will continue to pull every lever to bring down the backlog so that people no longer have to wait years for their day in court. Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill is also, as I said, about making our justice system work better for victims and survivors. And I know that this part of the bill commands a good degree of consensus across this House. It introduces vital reforms on giving evidence to challenge harmful myths about rape and sexual violence.

Based on Law Commission research, such as the preconceptions about how a victim should behave or respond. We also make special measures easier to access and simpler for practitioners to navigate so that victims feel safer, better supported and able to give their best evidence. The government also remains committed to repealing the presumption of parental involvement within the Children Act 1989, alongside a national rollout of child focussed courts. This measure strengthens our approach to protecting children from the harm posed by abusive parents, and today we are joined by Claire Throssell, who have had the privilege of meeting and who has campaigned so bravely, bravely and tirelessly.

Forgive me for this change. Following the tragic murder of her sons Jack and Paul, and I also want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge for her tireless work on this campaign. Madam Deputy Speaker and the time I have left, let me now turn to the rest of the government amendments and new clauses being brought forward at this stage. Madam Deputy Speaker, fairness must be the foundation of any justice system. People must be able to trust.

They will be treated equally before the law, whoever they are and wherever they come from. Before introducing this bill, we carried out a full equality impact assessment, and while that assessment found no evidence of discrimination arising from this reforms, we are aware that long standing disparities remain in the criminal justice system. People from black and minority ethnic backgrounds are more likely to be victims of crime, whilst defendants from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds are also more likely to be remanded into custody before trial.

So when we talk about tackling delays, it's not simply a question of efficiency, it also becomes a question of fairness. We also know that gaps in data make these disparities harder to understand and therefore tackle limitations highlighted nearly a decade ago by my friend and colleague, the right hon. Member for Tottenham in the Lammy Review. That is why we are bringing forward new clause 23 and consequential amendments 35 to 37, which give this new clause effect. This requires an independent review of the court reforms in this Bill, considering whether differences in treatment or outcomes experienced by offenders from different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds are exacerbated as a result.

The Lord Chancellor will appoint an independent reviewer within six months of the first reforms taking effect, and there will be an initial report within 12 months and a full report within five years, which Parliament will have the opportunity to consider, and that the government will formally respond to. I will now turn briefly to four technical government amendments. The First Amendment. 38 schedule two clarifies that new audio recording requirements in the magistrates courts appeals will not apply to single justice procedure cases.

These cases are generally dealt with on a computer without an oral hearing to record. Government amendments 39 to 41 to schedule two makes further changes arising from the new permission stage for appeals, ensuring magistrates courts have the necessary powers over bail and costs, including to return an appellant to custody where appropriate. Government amendments 29 to 31 to clause eight. Clarify that where the court can exclude sexual behaviour, evidence that would require significant satellite litigation to be relied upon.

This essentially follows the Law Commission's recommendation that the extent to which the evidence will distract the fact finder from the main issues in the case is relevant to the evidence. Admissibility. Government amendment 32 to clause ten makes clear that a victim's failure to report a previous allegation of a sexual offence cannot by itself provide a basis for suggesting in court that the allegation was false. There must be additional evidence capable of supporting such an assertion. And finally, government amendments 42 to 44 to schedule three replaces three mentions of the Chancellor of the High Court with a new terminology.

President of the Business and Property Division, clause 18 and schedule three make a range of changes to the current provisions for senior judicial leadership of the tribunals in order to unify tribunals and courts in England and Wales under the leadership of the Lady Chief Justice and reform, the role of the Senior President of Tribunals. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will now turn briefly to amendments tabled by other members in relation to the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle and the Member for Chichester, who I know will speak to amendments which relate to a sunset clause to repeal the regulations to repeal the measures if they are found to be ineffective.

As I've said, this package of measures is principled and pragmatic. They are not simply a short term emergency fix. They recognise that fundamental changes, both in crime evidence and the nature of technology, requires that we put our courts on a sustainable footing for the 21st century. We believe in these reforms and we think they are here for the long term. Our ambition therefore extends beyond simply reducing court delays. But in delivering lasting improvements about how the justice system operates, including a better balance between the interests of victims and defendants.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I close by returning to the central purpose of this bill. We inherited a criminal justice system under severe pressure. Victims, witnesses and defendants facing unacceptable delays and some victims dropping out of the process altogether. As I said, I think of Morwenna Lowman. This bill is a serious and practical response to the challenges we face. Rather than bury our head in the sand, it confronts that problem on every single front investment, modernisation and reform. It will ensure we rebuild a justice system that is fit for the pressures of the modern age, whilst remaining grounded in the fundamental principles of fairness and the rule of law that English and Welsh law has always stood for.

Our task is not simply to reduce the delays that exist today, but build a sustainable justice system for the future, and I look forward to hearing contributions from across the chamber and responding to the points raised in what I hope will be a thoughtful and constructive debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The independent review. Question is that new clause 23 be read a second time. Shadow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be read a second time. Shadow Minister Doctor Kieran Mullan. Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's my pleasure to take part in It's my pleasure to take part in the further consideration of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. As we repeat as we reach Report stage. repeat as we reach Report stage. Madam Deputy Speaker, Not for the first time with this ministerial team, with this Justice Secretary and with this Prime Minister, what we were told was necessary has turned out to be unnecessary.

What we were told was impossible is now possible. What we were told was unavoidable, was avoidable after all, because this Minister told us again and again at Second Reading and throughout the Bill Committee, that each and every one of the measures in this bill was the only way to get on top of the court backlogs, each and every part of their proposals, but apparently not, because only days ago, the Justice Secretary appeared on national television to announce a significant U-turn. The government is dropping clause three.

We were told that this new division of theirs, of Judge-only trials, was the only way in which the Crown Court backlog could be brought down, and it couldn't be brought down without it. Yet now Ministers inform us that removing this very provision will actually allow the work to proceed faster. We welcome this decision. I welcome the fact that the Justice Secretary put his name to our amendment, removing clause three. But how we got here matters, because this is not the first time this ministerial team and this Justice Secretary have let their backbenchers defend the indefensible and then drop the minute this same ministerial team, the same Justice Secretary, told us the release of various serious sexual and violent offenders was an absolute necessity, that they had no other choice than to put victims through the distress and upset that they did over the summer.

And then they did. Why does this matter? Most of the time in politics, in this place, we are debating choices which choice we should make as MPs, as different parties, weighing up the pros and cons of the options. But sometimes Ministers attempt to cut through that to secure the support of MPs. And they do that by saying they have no choice. When MPs resist, when they tell them their concerns over what the government is proposing, Ministers have a fundamental duty to this House, to their own backbench colleagues in particular, and that is a duty to test that proposition that there is no choice to destruction, only the Ministers have the army of civil servants or the data, the costings, the honest advice.

When a Minister tells their own MPs they have no choice. Surely it must mean exactly that. That is how they secure the support of their backbench colleagues. But these Ministers have failed in that duty and have failed their colleagues. Ministerial credibility is a precious resource and this Minister has exhausted hers. If clause three was never truly required to tackle court delays, we
17:01
17:01
17:01
17:01
17:01
Yasmin Qureshi Portrait Yasmin Qureshi MP (Bolton South and Walkden, Labour)
-
-
clause six doubles magistrates maximum sentencing powers up to 24 months. This means complex high stake cases including sexual assault, actual bodily harm, burglary will be retained. In summary, courts explaining defendants to two year prison sentences without ever having access to a jury. Clause seven in schedule two dismantle the schedule two dismantle the automatic right of appeal from the Magistrates Court to the Crown Court. Instead of a full rehearing before a judge and lay magistrates, wrongly convicted individuals will face a restricted permission barrier on written papers alone.

It should be clear that, taken together, we are still facing a fundamental attack on the existing rights to a jury trial in this country. These provisions still represent a sweeping contraction of access to jury trial and summary justice safeguards. The opposition from legal professions, victims groups and civil liberties organisations remain as firm today as it as it was on Second Reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. So as somebody who has had people elect to have a jury and is people elect to have a jury and is now awaiting a trial till 2029 on a simple order breach, I, I ask him if he is in his defence of jury trials. Does he think a victim should be able to say whether they want it to be tried by a jury or want it to be tried by a jury or just the defendant? Because that's the system that we have today in this country.

And in light of his this country. And in light of his his desire to see jury trials, does he think that the system should be changed so that anyone can just say,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no, I want it to be heard in front of a jury. Doctor Kieran Mullan. What we're talking about is where we draw the ledger, because I where we draw the ledger, because I don't think that I don't think I don't think I don't think that the don't think I don't think that the member opposite would suggest we should have everything done by magistrates. Why not have everything done by magistrates if it's fundamentally unfair to allow people to have a jury trial, why not let everything be done by not let everything be done by magistrates? It's unfair on them.

The victims don't have a say on whether it's a jury trial and the point that they're making. The point that we're clear about is this is an unprecedented erosion of that right, an unprecedented erosion of that right. And it wasn't in their manifesto up until recently. It was largely opposed by very large numbers of their own MPs. And based on a premise of necessity that, I'm afraid is paper thin on the on the basis that they've turned around and said things that they had to do to get the backlog down, it turns out they didn't have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to do anyway. Emily Darlington thank you very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Emily Darlington thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think the hon. Member misses the point of the question. That was just raised. The question he seems to misunderstand is the fact that the misunderstand is the fact that the right to choose a jury trial is being used by perpetrators to being used by perpetrators to continue the abuse on the victim survivors, and does he think the state should be party to continuing that abuse and allowing them to play the system through a jury

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trial selection or an appeals process? Yes. Karen. I listen very closely to the words that the member opposite use, words that the member opposite use, and we heard this again and again from Labour members during the Committee stage. She talked about perpetrators may have a reminder perpetrators may have a reminder that defendants are not guilty until found guilty. And the same erosion of rights is for innocent erosion of rights is for innocent people too, and that members opposite repeatedly forget that just because you're accused doesn't make you a perpetrator.

And I ask make you a perpetrator. And I ask her to think about that carefully. OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I can I thank the Minister for giving way? Will he agree with me that justice must not only be me that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done? And one of the key cornerstones of getting that justice is being tried by your peers. And giving that to a defendant builds confidence in a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

defendant builds confidence in a jury system. Yes. Doctor Kieran Mullan. And he's absolutely right. And as I pointed out at the start, and as I pointed out at the start, and as again, members opposite have highlighted, it isn't just people concerned about defendants that have raised concerns about these proposals. Victims as well. Victims groups wrote an extensive letter to the Secretary of State and to the Prime Minister, asking them to think twice about the erosion of jury trials. And so any criticisms that they make of me, I'm afraid, will then have to be levelled at the victims that don't agree with them.

Victims are not all in one voice on this issue, and we should respect that instead of assuming every single victim agrees with them, which they don't. And so, as I said, the erosions that we've seen in relation to this are significant. And when it comes to this government in which trust is trust is so low, they also seek for themselves an extraordinary power to do what they set out to do. In clause three through the back door by clause four, where not only will they be introducing Judge-only trials in the Crown Court for what they describe as lengthy and complex cases, but giving themselves the power to add to the list of eligible cases through order alone, bypassing the fullest scrutiny of Parliament.

Quite extraordinary from a government that, when in opposition, concerned itself greatly with the proper use of delegated legislation. We remain as concerned as everybody is about the Crown Court backlog. We know victims and innocent defendants are suffering as a result, but so much of this bill won't help and may make matters worse. That is the reality. And I notice that the Minister was happy to say in committee repeatedly that opposing these measures does not in any way suggest that people don't have a concern for victims.

And I hope that she sticks to that line during the rest of this debate, and encourage all of her colleagues to listen to the words that she expressed in committee. Being concerned about an erosion of jury trial rights does not in any way mean we don't care about victims. And I hope the Minister repeats that later. I was able to visit the Supreme Court yesterday, and I encourage any members mulling this over, to head to the exhibition space and take a look at the replica of the Magna Carta.

Read for yourself the words illuminated, illuminated against the wall that at its heart laid down that the highest form of justice, the best form of justice, is justice delivered by your peers. And this brings me to the position of members opposite. Not just yet. Prior to this partial U-turn, dozens of Labour backbenchers, including 37 MPs who signed a public letter, expressed deep opposition to the bill's proposals to curtail jury trials. They rightly described the stripping of jury rights as madness that would cause more problems than it solved.

Members on the benches opposite spoke forcefully about the unique value of the jury. Yet today, following the removal of just one clause, just one element of this damaging bill, the government expects those same members to walk through the lobbies in support of it. I ask those members directly what has actually changed. Clause one still abolishes the right of an ordinary citizen to elect a jury trial. Clause six still pushes serious cases into summary courts, where backlogs are already surging and clause seven still cuts off automatic appeals.

If removing the right to elect a jury trial in either way cases was wrong before, it remains wrong today. Dropping one element of a bad package does not make the remaining elements good law. During Committee stage, opposition members and backbenchers put forward a series of modest, constructive amendments designed to insert basic safeguards into the Bill, and the government rejected every single one. We tabled amendments to preserve a natural justice exception, ensuring that where a defendant could demonstrate that a summary only trial would result in a clear breach of natural justice, a jury trial would remain available.

The Ministers defeated those amendments. We pressed the government on the severe misalignment in legal aid. A defendant in the Crown Court benefits from higher legal aid eligibility thresholds. The government rejected those amendments. Everything we sought to do to protect natural justice and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to worsen the impact of this bill was blocked. Yeah. I thank the hon. Member for for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for for being generous with his time. I would like to ask what what his would like to ask what what his government did in 14 years to ensure that people were tried by their peers, because that is their peers, because that is exactly what magistrates are there to do. And I know all too well because my dad served as a because my dad served as a magistrate for over 40 years in in Warwickshire, and I am really proud to stand here and say that because magistrates courts are the bedrock of our justice system.

And and, and his government did nothing to protect that. And this is exactly what we're doing, investing in more magistrates so that more people can be tried by their peers and supporting those magistrates in doing that job effectively. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The member asked what we did to preserve the right to trial by jury. We brought the backlog in the Crown We brought the backlog in the Crown courts down to lower prior to the pandemic than the one we inherited from the previous government. So from the previous government. So our record prior to the pandemic on the Crown Court backlog was better than the previous Labour government's, which is something

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they all conveniently seem to forget. Yeah. I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend. He's making a very powerful argument in defence of jury trials, and members are rightly thinking about the impact on on victims and defendants. But would he agree with me that there are also significant implications for the judiciary themselves, that the erosion of jury trial at the moment, jury trials very often stand between the public contemplation of a trial and indeed the defendant or the convicted and the judge.

And by removing that shield between the two, the judge, their prejudices, their demographics, how they are selected becomes more and more a focus of public contemplation and may, in the end, lead to political interference in the selection of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

judges. He's right on both points. And as he was speaking, the Secretary as he was speaking, the Secretary of State in charge said, we've removed that clause, which again, perhaps he doesn't understand his own bill. You're retaining judge-only trials for complex and judge-only trials for complex and lengthy cases and retaining a power to use delegated legislation to allow judges alone to sit on those allow judges alone to sit on those cases. So exactly the sort of scenario that the member talks about would be produced.

And again, about would be produced. And again, magistrates have a degree of confidence in community support in proportion to the use of their powers. If we significantly increase the use of the powers, the pressure and scrutiny of the magistrates, I'm afraid, is also likely to increase. And I'm picking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

up on that point. I do really want to make sure that the House fully understands. That is the third.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is the third. Time I. Think I've heard the shadow Minister say you. It's not my legislation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislation. Thank you. Lucky you, Madam Deputy Speaker. But indeed, I'll take that point. The schedule one take that point. The schedule one powers that I've talked about are a significant. Henry, the eighth power under proposed Statutory Instrument powers. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State will have the authority to add further categories of offences to schedule one by secondary legislation. I'm not aware of any time before in this Parliament where, using secondary legislation, the Secretary of State could erode and remove the right to a jury trial from a particular defendant.

That is completely unprecedented and indefensible. Mr. speaker, the opposition does not merely criticise this bad package of legislation. We have repeatedly sought to put forward practical, evidence based alternatives that tackle the actual delays without taking a sledgehammer to our constitutional rights. The government must fix the operational failures that currently waste thousands of court hours every year. Last year, between 23 and 26% of Crown Court trials were ineffective. Rather than stripping citizens of jury, trial rights Ministers should be focussed instead on prisoner transport.

That's the failures in prisoner transport that stopped hundreds of trials being derailed simply because defendants are late to the dock. They must keep all existing courtrooms open and fully funded, and use new AI tools for disclosure and listing that expand live video participation. Madam Speaker, the the Ministers are Chuntering say they're doing that. If they're doing that, why is the Crown Court backlog going up the ceiling, not succeeding in the measures that you're bringing forward? And a number of things are actually getting worse.

Second, we must improve case management and incentivise earlier case resolution instead of forcing complex cases into the overburdened summary courts, where backlogs extraordinarily, the Minister claimed there wasn't a backlog in the magistrates courts. I don't know how she decides what is or isn't a backlog, but the record number of cases up in 10% in one year is a backlog by any other measure. I visited Liverpool Crown Court Madam Deputy Speaker. The wait to trial in Liverpool Crown Court is roughly half the wait for trial in other parts of the country.

The government should replicate the proactive case management model successfully pioneered in courts like Liverpool, Preston and Cardiff were active. CPS case ownership and early trial readiness reviews have driven down backlogs, and our sunset clause draws the closest attention to the true motivations of this government. If the government sincerely, as it has argued repeatedly to its backbenchers, feel these measures are necessary, a necessity to bring the backlog down, our clause is quite clear when the backlog is down to the pre-COVID average for a period of four quarters, then these damaging rights eroding measures should be withdrawn, and I don't expect the government will support that today because actually, fundamentally, they don't have the same faith we do in the importance and value of a jury trial.

The government's partial U-turn demonstrates its sustained scrutiny can force a rethink, but a partial U-turn is not enough. The central flaws of this legislation remain the abolition of the right to elect trial by jury, the risky expansion of summary jurisdiction, the restriction of appeal rights and the creation of secondary powers to expand juryless trials. We should not erode centuries of procedural safeguards to achieve marginal administrative speed. I urge members across the House, especially those who have previously spoken out against these measures, to stand by their previous words, to stand by their principles and reject these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remaining clauses. Tonight. Karl Turner very much indeed. Madam Deputy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy. Speaker, can I begin by welcoming the Justice Secretary to welcoming the Justice Secretary to his place, and can I thank him, Madam Deputy Speaker, for his Madam Deputy Speaker, for his engagement with me over recent weeks, but more particularly, could weeks, but more particularly, could I thank him for the appointment of Holly Lynch, the former Member of Parliament for Halifax, who apparently I goodness knows why, is still a big fan of me. Madam Deputy Speaker, despite the fact that if I paused at these policies in previous months.

Goodness me, Madam Deputy Speaker, a lot's changed since I addressed this House on this bill. And that's not just the bill itself. I welcome the removal of clause three, the idea of the Crown Court Bench Division. But let's not pretend that it's because of rebels or because of the opposition across the House, or because of the Bar Council or the Criminal Bar Association or the Law Society, or indeed, I'm told, the Lady Chief Justice herself being opposed.

The reality is, Madam Deputy Speaker, that c c, b d was completely, unbelievably unworkable. That was the reality of it. And that's what members across this House warned the government about. It wouldn't have worked. It couldn't have worked. It will never work. So I welcome the fact that the government have done the right thing. They've listened to those of us who were bitterly opposed to the idea of C, C, B, d they've done the right thing.

But I regret to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I can support this bill today. I can't not in its current form. The reality is by doing away with the right to elect, what will happen is the backlog which exists in the magistrates court, 380,000 and rising. The backlog, as I understand it in the Crown Court is 80,000 and fairly static and probably falling. The problem will be transferred. Madam Deputy Speaker, from the Crown Court, the government say they estimate 25,000 fewer cases will be heard in the Crown Court, and 5500 trials will be moved effectively from the Crown Court to be heard at summary trial in the magistrates court.

Well, that just removes transfers a problem from the Crown Court into the magistrates court. Well, I don't care what we call it, whether
17:06
17:06
17:07
Andrew Mitchell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Andrew Mitchell MP (Sutton Coldfield, Conservative)
-
-
That's 380,000 criminal cases where complainants are waiting for their trial, the outcome to be concluded, 380,000 cases and rising. Now, I agree a trial in the magistrates takes a lot quicker than a trial in the Crown Court. Of course it does. Its swift summary justice. It's fast and that's why we need to be very cautious. Madam Deputy Speaker, about what category of case is heard before a bench of magistrates in the magistrates court. It matters because the accused rights are at stake.

The accused liberty is at stake and that's why we limit the time. The power of magistrates on sentencing in the way that we do in this England, this system in England and Wales. So I can't support clauses one and two of the Bill. Clause four. Judge-only trials look, I'm concerned about this, Madam Deputy Speaker and I'm worried as well because the government are in listening mode. I'm grateful to them. But Jonathan Fisher, King's counsel, was independent reviewer.

He's reviewed this and he said it makes no difference. It is true to say that there's been a very complex and lengthy fraud trial in the Crown Court, but that doesn't necessarily seem a immediately jump to the conclusion that the jury didn't understand. I'm sure the members of the jury understood very well. The question might be, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether the judge properly understood, because it was the judge who dismissed the jury and decided to call it a day and start all over.

It is a concern to me that we this is the thin end of the wedge for me, and I think the problem we have is the powers are available to the government to keep pushing forward with more quote unquote complex cases. I give way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the former shadow attorney General. Extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and he's talking about Gentleman, and he's talking about complex and lengthy trials. I wonder, has he considered the wonder, has he considered the effect on the Court of Appeal, of making those types of trial judge only because if I've understood the only because if I've understood the government's proposals correctly, they wish to require a judge to they wish to require a judge to give reasons for conviction. Juries need to give no reasons for conviction.

Does he think that will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

change the rate and frequency of appeals to the Court of Appeal in cases like that? Karl Turner the right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Karl Turner the right hon. Gentleman makes a very. Good point. Of course it does. When a judge is required to give reason, counsel for the appellant reason, counsel for the appellant by then is poring over the judge's statement, looking at every single statement, looking at every single line. Clever people like the hon. Gentleman over there, the very eminent King's counsel. I forget the right hon. Gentleman seat, but people will be instructed. Lawyers will be instructed to pore over the judgement of the judge in those cases.

And, of course, the likelihood of an appeal will increase the beauty of a jury trial, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that the men and women, the ordinary people, picked at random citizens, ordinary people summoned to the court to hear a trial as a member of a jury, go home at the end of the case, and very rarely, certainly not publicly, never speak about that case again. There's no requirement to give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reasons in that scenario. Of course, I give way. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Talking about appeals, if elected trials do not happen and if elected trials do not happen and they are summarily dealt with, there is a prospect, a good there is a prospect, a good prospect, that those appeals will also find them way into the Crown Court, which would not allay the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Court, which would not allay the concerns that the government wants to address. Does he agree? Karl Turner. I agree completely, Madam Deputy Speaker and he makes the point very strongly indeed. Clause six magistrates sentencing powers. I can't support the idea of the sentencing powers of magistrates to be between 18 and 24 months. Madam Deputy Speaker, Not without a credible plan to address the dire, desperate need to recruit magistrates legal advisers as well court staff and lawyers.

It just risks transferring the pressure rather than solving the backlog. That's the reality of where we're going with this bill. Which brings me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the anomaly in this bill as the way the bill is drafted currently, it provides a fairly obvious problem, actually, a scenario whereby a defendant of good character, no previous convictions, never been arrested, interviewed, charged, prosecuted or convicted. What's the point, Madam Deputy Speaker convicted of a criminal offence is likely by virtue of the sentencing guidelines.

On an either way, offence to be tried in front of a magistrates court. Yet the defendant, with numerous previous convictions, numerous previous convictions, by virtue of the fact that that offending behaviour on the guidelines exceeds the three year threshold, gets the benefit of a Crown Court trial. Now let's just picture the scenario and either way, offence triable. Either way. Offence section 47ABH fairly serious assault. Madam Deputy Speaker, serious assault in a domestic scenario.

Defendant A no previous convictions. Never been convicted by a criminal court. Defendant sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I with the hon. Gentleman give way. Jess Phillips. Because a domestic abuser has no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because a domestic abuser has no prior convictions, does not mean he does not have priors. And actually

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it does not mean he has good character. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. She's absolutely right. Of course, very often in my experience course, very often in my experience that offenders appear in incredibly serious cases of violence in domestic scenarios, have never had previous convictions. But imagine this scenario. Just imagine the fairness of this scenario. Defendant A never, ever been convicted of a criminal offence at all, charged with a section 47ABH appears in a summary trial for a section 47.

Very serious assault, actually an ABH. But the defendant with numerous convictions. The defendant who over his adult life. And let's be honest, it's mainly men who commit domestic assaults. That's the truth of it. In reality, the defendant B with numerous convictions over a period of many years, gets the benefit of a trial in front of a jury. How is that possibly? Well, it's a benefit. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm hearing why is it a benefit? Because the reality is, madam.

Well, not, I'm told, by a sedentary position, and I I've got an awful lot of time for my hon. Friend, I truly have. She's a mate of mine, as it happens. Madam Deputy Speaker. But there is a benefit. And the reality is this when a defendant appears in a summary trial before a bench of magistrates or indeed a district judge, it's swift, fast summary justice. The evidence is heard, but the evidence is not heard and presented in the same way as a crown court.

That's just the truth. A Crown Court trial and that scenario would last 4 or 5, potentially into the second week. Defence evidence. There's an opportunity to call defend evidence. There's legal aid available for experts. These reports potentially by for the defence, these reports for the prosecution as well. Potentially it's about equality before the law. That's the reality of the scenario. Madam Deputy Speaker And that is something that I cannot believe is a consequence which is intended by this government, this Labour government.

Madam Deputy Speaker, And that's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

why I say I can't possibly support it. Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Is he aware of the rape crisis report that actually says that juries bring misconceptions and bias into the system and are less bias into the system and are less likely than to convict? And I'm sure he's not talking about that being the benefit, is he?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for the intervention. I didn't I'll be honest, I didn't know about the report, but I'm keen to go and have a look. The benefit of a jury trial will give way to the Minister Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Remind members. As I said in my opening speech, a number of victims, women's victims, rights groups, women's victims, rights groups, women's victims rights groups were the leading proponents of the criticism to get rid of jury trials. criticism to get rid of jury trials. So again, to make out that victims have a singular view on this and they're unhappy with it. There are different opinions amongst victims

**** Possible New Speaker ****

different opinions amongst victims groups, and many of them agree with the member opposite. Karl Turner view about the presumption of context. Yeah. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. I'm not going to get into the whys and wherefores of this particular juncture of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, but there's an easy fix for the scenario, which I've described. My amendment, amendment 47 says, where a defendant has no previous convictions and the court has decided that the case is suitable for summary trial, that defendant should be entitled to elect to the Crown Court to have their trial in the Crown Court.

I don't think the numbers will be very big. I think it's possible, impossible probably, for the MoJ to do modelling. I'll have to say the 16 years that I've been a member of this House have been involved in criminal justice matters and debating criminal justice issues. I've got to say, I've rarely seen modelling from the MoJ, which has been anything near accurate, Madam Deputy Speaker but even if they could model suspect they can't because those that data is not kept, the numbers would be tiny.

Why? Because point 4% point 4% of all cases convictions from the magistrates court are appealed. 0.4% yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, 41% of the point 4% is tiny. Number 41% of those cases. The conviction is overturned in the Crown Court because they've been a wrong decision, and the Bar Council produced data now current more up to date data, which suggests that that number of 41% is actually 56% now. So more than half of the cases which are appealed from the magistrates to the Crown Court for a rehearing end up with the defendant who's been convicted in the magistrate acquitted in the Crown Court.

So why do I say there's a benefit? Madam Deputy Speaker of a Crown Court hearing? It speaks for itself. Madam Deputy Speaker, what could the government do instead? I think there's plenty, Madam Deputy Speaker, there could implement the relevant recommendations from the Leveson Review. The relevant recommendations from the Leveson Review that could improve the coordination between police CPS the courts to progress and identify unnecessary prosecutions earlier. It does happen to be a fact that prosecutions sometimes end, because actually the CPS, the Crown, throw the towel in.

Madam Deputy Speaker, there are lots to welcome in this bill and I do, but there's too much in the bill for me to support at this current time. I just finally want to say a few words of gratitude. I want to thank the Prime Minister because from the very outset of my opposition to the worst excesses of this bill, the Prime Minister was there supporting me in the background. Similarly, Lord Sidique Khan was there texting and encouraging and supporting of me when it mattered.

But my biggest thank you of all, Madam Deputy Speaker, is reserved for the hon. Member for Warrington North because the truth is air, bravery, standing up, waving around anonymity, explaining a personal situation of the criminal justice system. In the face of all of that pressure that was being exerted on members who had the audacity, that's the reality. To say that these measures were not suitable for a Labour Party in a Labour government to be implementing.

We suffered pressure exerted upon us, and that member, the hon. Member for Warrington North, should. Real bravery, real determination and for that I will forever respect her.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just emphasise to members that votes will come at 6:00, which leaves us very little time and leaves us very little time and inevitably not all members are going to get in. Liberal Democrat spokesperson Jess Brown-Fuller

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spokesperson Jess Brown-Fuller thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The entire criminal justice. System is on the brink of collapse. We can all agree today collapse. We can all agree today that the current backlog in our Crown courts is unacceptable, untenable and unsustainable. The untenable and unsustainable. The situation we face a backlog sitting at over 80,000 cases and victims of rape waiting on average 424 days for their case to complete, is the direct result of the historic and monumental failings of successive governments.

Whether it is a lack of prison places, soaring reoffending rates or the horrendous backlog in the Crown courts. With a growing backlog in the magistrates. It's a national emergency waiting to happen. But the government's plans to address this situation have been equally dangerous under Keir Starmer. This government led us

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Down a path. Oh, he's not a member anymore.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh, he's not a member anymore. Apologies, Jess Brown-Fuller. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. Under Keir Starmer, this government. Led us down a path towards.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Curtailing jury trials, presenting it as the only way to deal with the backlog. This was deal with the backlog. This was despite widespread opposition from the legal profession and Parliament, including from their own benches, and the absence of any coherent modelling or trialling. To demonstrate the impact of the proposed Crown Court. Bench Division political capital was wasted pursuing a solution that was never feasible. What we are presented with today is still fundamentally a flawed plan. We remain deeply concerned about the
17:12
Marie Tidball Portrait Dr Marie Tidball MP (Penistone and Stocksbridge, Labour)
-
-
pressure that these changes will place on magistrates courts. The plans for those charged with either way offences to lose their right to way offences to lose their right to elect trial by jury, alongside the increases in sentencing powers and the removal of the right to appeal, will place immense and dangerous pressure on magistrates courts, pressure on magistrates courts, while simultaneously removing vital safeguards. The government now predicts that an additional 25,000 predicts that an additional 25,000 cases will be added to magistrates court caseload each year, and the current rate of increase in the backlog of open cases is expected to be 9%, exceeding that of the Crown Court backlog.

Whilst increased complexity also raises questions regarding the suitability of summary justice to deal with these cases, this is a point that's been raised by the Bar Council and others, and I also have profound concerns about the experiences of victims. In summary, justice as well. It is not just the Crown Court where victims are so often failed. The Minister spoke very powerfully about Morwenna. I remember Morwenna as powerful testimony. I'm thinking today about Georgia, whose case in the magistrates court was postponed four times in a row, which took her months and months of building herself up to that moment and then being totally failed because she didn't get her day in court.

So the government has done little to address those concerns, which is why amendment 11, tabled in my name remains on the amendment paper, and that would prevent magistrates sentencing powers from being increased beyond 12 months. The Liberal Democrats also fundamentally oppose the removal of the automatic right to appeal decisions made by magistrates. This is a vital safeguard for summary justice, where lay magistrates are expected to make decisions, decisions with significant and real consequences. And on the whole we all agree they make these decisions very well, with fewer than 1% of cases being appealed.

But of those cases, the latest figures show that 56% were successful. So we are now expecting magistrates courts to hear more complex cases, carrying higher sentences. And at the same time as the government is bluntly removing this protection against those miscarriages of justice. So the government wants to speed up the process within the system. But changing the appeals process at this point is unnecessary and frankly dangerous. And the reasoning, as per their own response, is, if we do not reform the appeals process, we expect absolute volumes of appeals to the Crown Court to increase, given the impact of other reforms, to retain more cases in magistrates court.

Let's just reflect on that for a moment. Over half of current appeals are currently successful, and because they believe this number may increase, the government is satisfied to remove that. How can the Minister defend a position that removes that vital safeguard? In summary, justice, while also accepting that the safeguard would be more needed than ever? There is also scant provision in this Bill for, or consideration of the implications for legal representation in Magistrates Court. Currently, there are differing income thresholds for legal aid between the Crown and Magistrates courts.

Shifting cases from the Crown courts will mean that many more defendants, who may be accused of crimes carrying sentences of up to 24 months, will be ineligible for legal aid, leaving them unrepresented. Lee Barron Leveson and the Other Place reflected in his review that the differing thresholds for legal aid could be creating a perverse incentive for a defendant to choose a crown court. But the government have rejected Baron Leveson's recommendation in their response yesterday. Not only does this have a profound effect on fairness in our justice system, but it also affects the government's assumptions about how quickly the backlogs can be cleared because a lack of legal aid impedes efficiency and will slow down cases.

It leaves victims and defendants waiting once again. This is why we have tabled amendment 18, which links legal aid to the severity of the sentence rather than the venue of the trial, and we have written to every member of the House asking them to support this amendment. New clause 20 tabled in my name, Madam Deputy Speaker, requires all new contracts for court related services to include performance penalties to put an end to these sham contracts, which are currently failing to deliver prisoners on time.

We in the Liberal Democrats also believe that opportunities have been missed to maximise the use of time within the existing court structure. There is scope to increase the number of trials heard in selected courtrooms across England and Wales from 1 to 2 a day. This approach was trialled during Covid and it resulted in 3.5 trials per week being cleared, compared with fewer than 0.9 trials in courtrooms operating under standard hours, and new clause four calls for a review of the feasibility of hearing two trials a day in selected courtrooms, split between morning and afternoon sessions, with each trial sitting for four hours.

Solutions such as this, which have not been explored by this government, as confirmed during the Bill committee, would help supercharge the Crown Court process with a specific focus on clearing the backlog. I'll happily

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. I'm extremely grateful. To her for giving way, and I recognise her enthusiasm for making recognise her enthusiasm for making the criminal courts work more efficiently. But can I put to her a practical problem with the practical problem with the solutions she's proposing? If the courts were to start at 9:00 in the morning, especially, and even worse, morning, especially, and even worse, if we weren't able to resolve the problems you identified before, which is that the prisoners aren't which is that the prisoners aren't always brought to court on time.

She will recognise that from the point of view of those of us who've represented criminal clients in the criminal courts, you don't start the day at the time the court starts, you start a lot earlier, and the opportunity to speak to your client, to discuss the case properly with them, and perhaps to discuss a way of resolving the case without the need for a trial is extremely valuable time. Does she recognise that's a problem?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jess Brown-Fuller absolutely. I think the hon. Member makes a really important point about the really important point about the Pecs contract and making sure that defendants are delivered to court defendants are delivered to court on time. But I also recognise that not all defendants that are going into a crown court are being held into a crown court are being held on remand. There are also defendants who are on bail who can get themselves, and that would be up to the listing officers to make up to the listing officers to make sure that those cases are potentially heard in the mornings, which would then take off the pressure that the Pecs contracts clearly have in delivering people to start at a 10 a.m.

slot. Instead, those defendants might be arriving for a 2 p.m. slot in the afternoon. But he raises an important point and gives me a lovely opportunity to explain why I have thought about that and how we would overcome that. And New clause two supports the implementation of these courts to fast track rape and serious sexual offences, and we have heard powerful testimony across the House during the passage of this bill about the need for rape and serious sexual offences courts, something that we also on these benches called for.

It is therefore so welcome when the government announced its plans to implement them, but puzzling as to why it has not included or supported the provisions in this bill, because there is no point in waiting. These courts should be implemented urgently to bring an end to the disgraceful waits that these victims are facing. And the government also announced, when they agreed to roll out these courts, that all judges presiding over them will undergo specialist, trauma informed training. Recognising the government's decision not to include domestic abuse cases in these courts.

That would surely strengthen the case for having universal specialist, trauma informed training for all of the judiciary, and that is something we've been calling for throughout all stages of this bill. New clause 11 would give victims the right to receive transcripts of all judicial summings up and bail decisions relevant to their case, and amendment 15 is particularly relevant given the direction of this bill, and it would ensure that magistrates court transcripts are free for victims and accessible within 14 days. Madam Deputy Speaker, on the issue of transcripts, the government has made real progress, which I welcome.

Many victims choose not to attend the entirety of their hearing or trial, and even when they do attend, being able to process the events of a court case afterwards provides a valuable opportunity to better understand why those decisions were made. Transcripts. Being freely accessible aids in moving forward with one's life, and at every turn, the Liberal Democrats will continue to push the government to go further. And finally, I turn to New Clause 17, tabled in My name. The Courts Act 2003 introduced His Majesty's Inspectorate of Court Administration, which was established in 2005 but then closed in 2010.

A 2022 Justice Select Committee report found that the argument for closing it had not stood the test of time, and called for the re-establishment of an inspectorate body. Baron Leveson also recommended a recommended a mechanism to inspect Hmcts in his review, which was rejected by the government. This is a particularly important time to introduce the additional oversight that a courts Inspectorate would provide, a position that is also supported by the Victims Commissioner. Madam Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, the government has approached this issue in the wrong way, pushing unworkable measures opposed by those working in the legal sector who have to deliver these reforms and eroding the safeguards that protect those that come into contact with the criminal justice system, be it defendants or victims.

The bill we have today makes dangerous changes which will have little effect on the backlog, and it's why we in the Liberal Democrats, unfortunately, will not be able to support it, especially with the good clauses at the end, which deal with the serious issues

**** Possible New Speaker ****

around presumption. Chair of the Justice Select Committee. Catherine Atkinson thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee. Catherine Atkinson thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I first put on my barrister's robes and my horsehair barrister's robes and my horsehair wig nearly 20 years ago, victims and defendants weren't commonly and defendants weren't commonly waiting years for trial. Victims of rape and serious sexual assault rape and serious sexual assault weren't seeing their cases adjourned at the last minute, multiple times, and it wasn't common to see significant numbers of defendants in magistrates courts facing custodial sentences without lawyers representing themselves.

Years of austerity, court closures, pandemic, pandemic pressures, court sitting day limits and increasingly complex evidence have driven the Crown Court backlog to up to 80,000 cases, and removing the limits on court sitting days has not been enough. The backlog is still going up and our criminal justice system remains in crisis. So I welcome that this bill is now back before the House as further action is needed. And I thank the government for responding last week to the Justice Committee's June report on this bill.

I welcome the Government Amendment three, which directly answers the concerns raised by the committee and members across this House regarding the proposed Crown Court Bench Division, where a judge without a jury would have decided cases. The committee raised a number of other concerns, and I want to focus on three. The impact on magistrates courts delays, how they will determine whether cases stay with them or grow to go to the Crown Court and how it will impact the already too high numbers of people representing themselves in our criminal courts.

In order to see the backlog in the Crown Court coming down in this Parliament, as the government intends, the reforms are to be brought forward sooner, and I want to see rapid action. But we cannot ignore the storm that is gathering in our magistrates courts. Clause six doubles magistrates sentencing powers to up to 24 months custody, shifting significant caseloads out of the Crown Court. But we are already seeing the backlogs in magistrates courts climbing month on month. Even without these reforms, the workload in the magistrates courts over the last three years has increased by 65%, and the committee made clear that without significant additional support, our local courts will not be able to cope.

It is positive that the government is confident that they're on track to meet their target of 21,000 magistrates taking the numbers back to where they were in 2014, and I welcome additional recruitment of trainee legal advisers and district judges. But, Madam Speaker, will this be enough? Will it happen fast enough? And do we even have enough physical courts to cope with demand? When 165 magistrates courts were

**** Possible New Speaker ****

closed between 2010 and 2020? I will give way. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Isn't there another problem? Even if we had the capacity at the magistrates Court where trials would be taken away from the Crown Court, isn't the elephant in the room that we don't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have enough lawyers? Catherine Atkinson I thank I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. And while there are some on these benches, there are many coming through the ranks, but we do need to ensure that they are going into the criminal justice system as well, and I do. I am concerned that we are not seeing enough taking that path, accelerating reforms means accelerating the strain on our magistrates courts. So the Minister, will the Minister bring forward target dates to match this accelerated timeline, and precisely what capacity will be added to the magistrates courts before this wave of work arrives, removing the right to elect in either way offences drives an even bigger wave of work into the magistrates courts, and I understand the government's concern that more and more defendants are electing jury trials, many exploiting the Crown Court delays, betting that victims and witnesses will tire and pull out.

And I've spoken to lawyers and judges who share that frustration. But if the right to elect is removed, then the allocation guidelines that the magistrates apply in deciding whether or not defendants should face a magistrates court or a jury trial should be reviewed. Currently, the magistrates only send cases to the Crown Court on two narrow grounds. That sentencing will be more than they have the power to impose, or that it is too complex. The Justice Select Committee warned that this was not enough and it's too inflexible.

Just three examples as to what might lead magistrates to consider it. Just to send to the Crown Court one where the defendant is of good character, with no previous convictions, where their conviction would potentially pose exceptional hardship to others. So a single parent where custody would force their children into care, or where victims have justifiable reasons for also wanting a jury trial. In cases like this, like these, limited rigid rules fall short. And that is why I tabled amendment 69, which would grant the magistrates court a more flexible discretion to send a case to the Crown Court whenever the interests of justice demand it.

We should trust our magistrates with that judgement. Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are also seeing far, far too many defendants representing themselves in the magistrates courts because they earn too much to qualify for legal aid. Our Legal Aid report found that as many as 48% of defendants
17:17
None Portrait
-

appeared in 2023 without representation. For Imprisonable summary only offences. And we found that today an adult working full time at national minimum wage may earn too much to qualify for legal aid in the magistrates court. So we aid in the magistrates court. So we have low paid workers walking into courtrooms without a lawyer to courtrooms without a lawyer to advise and guide them where they don't understand the rules and where the consequences if they lose could mean they lose everything their job, their home, their family.

Yeah, this may be an inherited crisis, but making it worse is a choice. Legal aid means tests are tougher in the magistrates courts than the Crown courts. And the government's equality assessment acknowledged that the bill could mean that defendants who currently get legal aid in the Crown Court wouldn't. In the Magistrates court, Baron Leveson and the justice Committee called for the threshold in the magistrates court to be increased to stop that happening. But the government's response, published yesterday, as we have heard, rejected that recommendation and said that that only look at thresholds once the changes in the bill have been implemented.

So I have tabled amendment 70, which is based on the committee's recommendation, that would require the government to increase legal aid thresholds in the magistrates courts before the removal of the right to elect can be implemented, and I would urge the Minister to consider giving us that commitment today, because otherwise the House is being asked to double the magistrates sentencing powers and remove the right to elect, without any reassurances, the defendants, who cannot afford to pay privately,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will be legally represented. I will give way. I'm confident I should just turned the page that she's probably turned the page that she's probably going to also go on to the fact that, at the same time, the government are proposing removing the automatic right of appeal, and the automatic right of appeal, and if you have no legal background and you can't navigate a system that is totally alien to you, you're not totally alien to you, you're not going to know how to follow the process or know what legal backing you could have if you did have grounds for appeal.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

grounds for appeal. I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am very conscious of the time that there is for this very important legislation, and so I am turning the page to conclude. Madam Deputy Speaker, may I return to where I started and welcome the government's commitment to bringing down the backlog? But if we sweep the queue away from the steps of the Crown Court, only to lengthen the line around the block at the local magistrates court, we don't serve that aim and we will continue

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to fail. The victims of crime and defendants alike. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And with a five minute time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And with a five minute time limit from after the next speaker, sir. Geoffrey Cox thank you. I draw my attention. Your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, and attention to the House, to my entry in the Register of Members Interests. It Register of Members Interests. It has been a peculiar pleasure to listen to the two speeches from the benches opposite both the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East in the speech, if I may say so, of the hon.

Lady, the chairman of the Select Committee for Derbyshire North has been a treat to listen to, and I feel almost that it would be no better than I could say than to say, listen to both of them. But it would be wrong of me to say that this bill is one that I would oppose in its entirety. The truth is that you can see that in its. Some of its provisions there are very useful and reasonable directions of travel. But personally, I don't have the profoundest objection to the appeal to the Crown Court for grounds to be given.

I think that would be a reasonable thing to require, provided the hon. Lady, the chairman of the Select Committee. Warnings are heeded, and that those who have to fill out that appeal are given the opportunity of advice. And, as was said, I think on these benches on this side, the problem is there's a lack of legal advisers in the magistrates court, what we used to call magistrates courts clerks. And that brings me to another way in which I should commend the Minister and commend the government, the initiative to drive forward a enhancement of the resources of the magistrates Court can only be a good thing.

The recruitment of more magistrates, which I must warn the hon. Lady we looked at years ago when I sat in the position that she sits. It's a social. Economic factors which are affecting the diminution of those willing and able to put themselves forward for this onerous type of public service. So it isn't going to be remediable just by brave words and advertisements. It's going to have to be a sustained campaign, and it will not happen even in the term that she will serve as Minister.

Long may that be continued. That wasn't a wish, that was an observation. But nevertheless, nevertheless, it was it was heartfelt. But I have to say that with those cautious, cautious commendations given, I have to return to the very focus and centre of this bill. It's a bit like asking us to be grateful to the crocodile who leaves us our head after it's taken our legs. The reality is that the right of election, of trial by jury, is at the very heart of the right itself.

And since the 17th century, Madam Deputy Speaker, governments have colours. All colours that have come and gone have continued to respect that as a right, not as a concession or a privilege afforded by the state to a defendant. It is perfectly true that in Scotland that's the approach they take. In Scotland, it is the court that decides whether or not the defendant should enjoy a right of trial by jury. But in England, Madam Deputy Speaker, it has always been a right, a right given, broadly speaking, to anybody accused of an offence serious enough to warrant 12 more than 12 months imprisonment and, for the first time in English legal and political history, a government has decided to breach that right and to
17:20
Jess Phillips Portrait Jess Phillips MP (Birmingham Yardley, Labour)
-
-
make it decide the decision, reside with the representatives of the with the representatives of the state, and that places out of the hands of a powerless defendant some hands of a powerless defendant some of the most powerless in our society. Some of them may very well be guilty. Many of them may very be guilty. Many of them may very well be guilty. But the system that we have adopted over the centuries, Madam Deputy Speaker, does not legislate so much for the guilty, but for the innocent.

Caught up in a system. And so many examples in history have shown how the innocent can be caught up in this system. And it is for the innocent that the criminal justice system is ultimately designed for their vindication, and to require against them the level and burden and standard and the presumption of innocence which the criminal justice system enforces. Because time is short, I will give way to the hon. Lady, right hon. Lady,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hon. Lady, but only she. But only, as I keep. Saying.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Saying. The what he's saying about it, the system being designed for the innocent is very compelling. The innocent is very compelling. The system is absolutely not designed for the person who is absolutely innocent in the system, and that is the victim. No part of the system asks them to be able to elect where asks them to be able to elect where the trial might go. No part of the system asks them if they think it should be appealed. The innocent actually, the real innocent.

The innocent gets no say.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I that invites a long answer, which I haven't got time now to give. But any defendant who now to give. But any defendant who appears before a court enjoys the presumption of innocence, and it's upon that basis that any system has to proceed. And if you. In England the right has been accorded to those who have this presumption, who enjoy this presumption of innocence, to decide where they innocence, to decide where they should be tried. And the moment it is taken for an offence that carries above 12 months imprisonment, and any abrogation of that right removes the power from the individual and hands it to the state.

And in England, peculiarly in England it has always been regarded as the right of a defendant. And make no mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is an historic Bill. For this reason, to remove and abrogate the right of an election to for trial by jury of your peers has the. Exactly the effect that the hon. Member from Kingston upon Hull East has said a person of good character, a professional person, an employee in the workplace accused of theft from his employer.

All of these would have had the right to say no. I wish to have the careful and meticulous process that the Crown Court provides, not a swift and summary justice, but the Magistrate's Court provides, and yet that person may suffer for the remaining years of their life. The most profound impact upon their history. A member of this House accused, tried before the Magistrates Court, despite the impact and consequences that that might produce. And yet in the magistrates Court, their only criteria will be mighty receive more than two years.

Many such offences would not have imprisonment, and that is broadly the criteria that supplied by the magistrates. And so I strongly support if this egregious act is to be taken by this House, then I strongly support that. The chairman of the Select Committee's recommendation is taken on board by the Minister, because it is only if the magistrates have the express ability to consider. If you are of good character, if you are. Have a profession. If. It would mean you'd be disqualified forever from whatever profession it is you are in, or expelled from your work, in your employment magnet.

Massive implications for your the rest of your life. Unless the magistrates are able to take that into account, how can it be fair or proper to impose upon them a system of summary justice that does not, at its heart, is not able to achieve the kind of levels of fairness that a Crown Court trial does, not only because legal aid is available, but because of the kind of forensic scrutiny the allegation is placed under. And that is why the automatic right of appeal has always been provided, even where the sentence would be less than 12 months, because it is always been acknowledged that the kind of justice distributed in the magistrates court is necessarily swift and necessarily.

Summary. There are not the provisions for the disclosure of unused material. What is to be done about those? If offences are now going to be tried, that might carry a two year imprisonment. None of these things have yet been thought through. Within this Bill, there has simply been a transference from the Crown to the magistrates courts, in breach of a provision and a right that has been respected in this country for 300 years. So I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, listen to the right.

On to the Member for Kingston and Hull East. Listen to the hon. Lady, the chairman of the Select Committee from Derby North. They spoke the milk of human wisdom, and I suspect the fact that it came from them. I suspect that the fact they came from them is not wholly, wholly unrelated to the fact that each of them have years of experience in professional practice in the courts. Heed them. I urge the Minister, even if she is to take the step that I profoundly oppose and regard as being an historic mistake.

The abrogation and dilution of the right to trial by jury no longer making it a right, but a but a concession made by the state to the individual. But if that is what she's going to do, then please listen. I urge her to the to the comment, the recommendations and warnings given by her own side for to be able to have before you somebody for the first time before a court facing a two year sentence of imprisonment of good character, and the magistrates, unable to consider such a factor, would be the profoundest injustice in many cases and risks over the coming years.

All those appalling, wearisome, grievous experiences of realising that injustice has actually been done and the whole system that we have devised over the centuries has been designed to avoid that at all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

costs. Yasmin Qureshi thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yasmin Qureshi thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm coming to this debate from experience. I spent 15 debate from experience. I spent 15 years as a prosecutor, and during that time I was designated as a that time I was designated as a sexual abuse prosecutor. So that meant I dealt with a lot of cases meant I dealt with a lot of cases to do with sexual abuse and of course, domestic violence and others. I also then defended as well, both in the in the magistrates court as well as obviously in the Crown Court.

And I welcome the government's decision to get rid of clause three. I also welcome the government's decision to introduce a reserve court and the money that's going to go with it to make sure it happens. So I'm very grateful for the fact that the government has listened. But the central plank of my argument is, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that it is theme that somehow restricting jury trials is the panacea to solving the court backlogs, both in the magistrates court as well as in the Crown Court, and that, with respect is not the case.

The reason we have a backlog, both in the magistrates court and in the Crown Court, are virtually identical. Firstly, Covid played a massive part in it, but so did court closures in the magistrates court as well as in the Crown Court. Judicial sitting day is being cut massively in the Crown Court and of course, not enough justices, enough courtroom being sitting in the magistrates court as well, because we have a record shortage of lay magistrates as well. In addition, the cuts in legal aid to defendants, both in the magistrates court and the Crown Court has caused problems in that quite often in the Crown Court, defendants don't get to know what they're doing until they have sorted out their monies, and then they can get legal advice from lawyers.

And in the magistrates court, a lot of people attend who are not represented at the same time, and we must not forget the fact that the police and other bodies in the criminal justice system have also caused delays in the sense that evidence is not ready when trial starts, especially unused materials, forensic evidence. Quite often police have not been discussed. And I know even now a lot of lawyers who are in court find that on the day of the trial, they find there's gaping hole in evidence.

And that is something we don't talk about. Therefore, there is a capacity issue in other parts of the criminal justice system, which all must be fulfilled as well. And of course, the prison services, the people who produce defendants to courts have also had a problem because quite often defendants don't get produced in time, which then impacts on trials and therefore get adjourned to other days. So the backlog is caused by these factors, not because of either way offences. Defendants have been electing a Crown Court trial.

So what I would say is that the government has started, right. They've spent money on having more judicial de sitting. I would ask them to go further, to have even more sitting days open up even more courtrooms, both in the magistrates court and the Crown Court, and, of course, ensure that proper legal provision for everyone. And of course, the other things I've mentioned, I think these things together will bring the court backlog down. The other thing that I'm concerned about is in this bill, though, whoever and this has been discussed by others previously, that if you are convicted in the magistrates court at the moment, you have automatic right of appeal against a sentence under conviction.

Most people who appear in the magistrates court are unrepresented. And if you need, as the Bill currently states, that you need to make a reasoned argument to the judge to get permission to leave to appeal, there's no way ordinary lay person is going to be able to draft those complicated legal arguments to justify why their conviction or sentence should be taken further, especially when it comes to conviction. I know if I had to draft grounds for appeal, it would take me hours and days.

And so I can't imagine an ordinary person being able to do that, because they'll have to say, well, fundamentally you're wrong in so many aspects. So I would say that, again, because of that, we have a unfairness taking place would take place in the magistrates court if those people were not given their right. And we've heard that 56% of the cases people are successful as well. So it's a system that's there for a purpose, and it helps. Now, coming back to the courts as well, I know it's been talked and some of my colleagues have talked about the victims.

Of course, we all protect the victim. But as the hon. Member for Warrington North herself said.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The order, sir. Andrew Mitchell thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Andrew Mitchell thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to draw the House's attention to a new clause 22, which I have tabled together 22, which I have tabled together with the hon. Lady for Yardley, my parliamentary neighbour, whose parliamentary neighbour, whose absence from the front bench is a matter of regret to all of us on matter of regret to all of us on these benches. I should. I should also like to thank both the Lord Chancellor and the shadow Lord Chancellor for engaging with us on
17:25
Neil Shastri-Hurst Portrait Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst MP (Solihull West and Shirley, Conservative)
-
-
these issues, and the new clause to which I refer would restrict immunity from civil suit for police immunity from civil suit for police officers in relation to certain conduct in preparation for criminal conduct in preparation for criminal court proceedings. I want to draw the House's attention to the deeply the House's attention to the deeply troubling development in our law. Last year, the Court of Appeal handed down a judgement that, in my handed down a judgement that, in my view, risks placing police forces beyond proper accountability for serious wrongdoing committed during the preparation of criminal cases.

If left unaddressed, this new legal principle could make it far harder for victims of police misconduct to obtain justice, even where the harm they have suffered is severe and life changing. This doctrine has been described as a form of police misconduct immunity. We all know that the rule of law depends on a simple principle. No one is above the law. Not politicians, not public officials, not the police. That is why the amendment I have tabled, together with the hon. Member for Yardley, would restore accountability and make clear that there cannot be one rule for the police and another for everyone else.

The issue arises directly from the 2025 Court of Appeal case. Chief Constable of Sussex Police and CPS VXGY and I know that the hon. Lady is going to refer to the case. The case of x, g y when she comes to speak. If she catches your eye, she was forced to flee again, having had the address given the the victim of abuse who gave her confidential address. Refuge to the Sussex Police and that address was later disclosed in court exposing her location to the abuser.

The Court of Appeal answered the question by extended what is known as core immunity. Historically, this immunity was narrow but existed to protect witnesses and advocates for what they say and do in court, allowing them to give evidence freely without fear of being sued. But the court's judgement went much further. It expanded that protection beyond the courtroom and into the wider process of criminal investigation and prosecution preparation. In practical terms, it means that certain police actions connected to a future prosecution may now be shielded from legal challenge.

Even where those actions cause significant harm. The court's ruling therefore, raises serious concerns about whether victims will be able to seek redress when police misconduct, negligent human rights breaches or serious errors occur. And that is why this case matters far beyond the individual victims involved. I want to illustrate the practical consequences of this doctrine and the human costs through another case with which I have been closely involved for some years. That is the case of Ali Kololo. Mr. Kololo is a Kenyan forest dweller and woodcutter who was wrongfully convicted in 2013 in connection with the murder of a British tourist and the kidnapping of that tourist spouse, Judith Tebbutt.

These were grave crimes at the time, I was engaged as Secretary of State for International Development and the government's response to the kidnapping through Cobra. But we now know that Ali Kololo was innocent. A Kenyan court has since overturned his conviction. The evidence showed that he had become a scapegoat in a deeply flawed investigation. And what makes this case particularly troubling is that the Metropolitan Police played a significant role in supporting that investigation. An Independent office for Police Conduct found that a senior Metropolitan Police officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct.

The investigation concluded that the evidence provided by the officer had the potential to mislead the court beyond because the important forensic information had been omitted. The consequences for Mr. Kololo were catastrophic. He spent 11 years in prison. He faced a death sentence. He endured abuse, illness and separation from his family. He lost years of his life that can never be returned. Although his conviction was eventually quashed, he was and he was released. He has yet to receive redress for the harm that he suffered.

Let me be clear the original principle of witness immunity serves an important purpose. Witnesses should be able to give evidence without fear of personal litigation. Our justice system depends upon that protection. But extending immunity far beyond the courtroom and into the wider conduct of criminal investigations risks creating an accountability

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gap. This is not Order, order. Doctor Marie Tidball. Thank you, Madam Deputy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy. Speaker, clause 17 of the bill, Jack and Paul's Law. Fulfils my constituent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fulfils my constituent. Claire Throstles promise to her two beautiful boys after they were killed in a house fire set alight killed in a house fire set alight by their known domestically abusive father during a court ordered father during a court ordered contact visit, Claire promised her sons that no more children should lose their lives like they did at the hands of an abusive parent. For nearly 12 years, she has campaigned relentlessly to honour that promise. When I first met Claire, I told her that if I was elected, I would do all I could to help her fulfil that promise.

So it is a pleasure to have her in the chamber with us today. Colleagues across the House, I urge you to support this bill and ensure no more children die like Claire's sons did, and that no more towns like our hometown of Penistone will be left to grieve. Clause 17 will repeal the presumption of parental involvement in the Children Act 1989, with our government putting children's best interests first and tackling the pro contact culture, which prioritises parental involvement over children's welfare.

This is urgent. Domestic abuse continues to be every day business in the family courts, featuring in 90% of the cases reviewed by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner in 2025. Being a parent is a privilege, not a right. And when a parent poses a serious risk to a child, the law must act. And yet, conservative governments had a decade to act. After the tragic murder of Claire Boyce and her campaign to change the law. But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way, thought. Giving way. I would just like to ask whether she agrees with me, ask whether she agrees with me, that it is staggering that the shadow Minister didn't even mention an amendment that has been tabled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an amendment that has been tabled with his name attached to it in his opening remarks. I do. I do indeed agree with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do. I do indeed agree with the hon. Lady because the Tories failed to act while they were in to act while they were in government, despite the fact that it was a conservative government that commissioned the harm report published in 2020, which stated that presumption should not remain in its present form and recommended addressing its detrimental effects. The report specifically said that the court pro contact culture operates as a barrier addressing domestic abuse with presumption, reinforcing that culture and children's voices being muted or unheard, leaving children invisible and silenced like those referred to only as child A or B.

In serious case reviews. But conservative governments did nothing with the retention of presumption continuing to be fatal. Since Jack and Paul's murders in 20 1419. More children that we know of have died at the hands of known domestically abusive parents, including Sara Sharif. This makes a total of 68 child homicides since Women's Aid started researching this issue. And yet today, the Conservatives have the audacity to attempt to remove Jack and Paul's law from this bill with their amendment 67.

The audacity to ignore or report their previous government commissioned and table this amendment. After the inaction of no less than five conservative Prime Ministers. I will not stand for it. Claire Throssell, my fearless constituent, will not stand for it. The people of Penistone and Stocksbridge, so many of whom have stood behind Claire and held her up, will not stand for it. I ask this house to show that it will not stand for it either, that it will vote to finally repeal the presumption of contact in law, to demonstrate that this House believes that every decision this government makes in the family courts and justice system must prioritise children's safety, wellbeing and their right to grow up free from harm.

At the heart of Jack and Paul's law is a simple principle. A child's safety must always come first. As the Minister for victims has said, removing the presumption of parental involvement will mean courts approach every case on what is based on what is best for that individual child. Where a parent poses a risk, court will continue to be able to restrict their involvement. Children have a right to live free from harm. Claire's loss was the ultimate loss for any parent, but the violence, which ended with Jack and Paul being murdered by her ex-husband, had started with his violence against her.

Other measures in this bill will cumulatively act as a shield and a sword for victims like Claire. Two years ago, in my Westminster Hall debate on presumption, I implored the courts Minister to let us not just imagine a world where the voices of children are put at the heart of our family court system, but also to legislate for it so that children such as Jack and Paul are listened to, not ignored. For a world where childhood is free from fear and oppression, and where they live, the lives they deserve to live, that Minister listened.

Today we have the opportunity to vote for this clause and this bill, so we no longer need to imagine that world, but make it a reality.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sarah Pochin thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I make my contribution this afternoon? As someone who served as a magistrate someone who served as a magistrate for 20 years, I am deeply concerned about increasing the magistrates about increasing the magistrates sentencing powers to two years of custody. This must be accompanied by rigorous training because in by rigorous training because in reality, you get good and bad, experienced and inexperienced magistrate benches. And for a magistrate benches. And for a layperson to remove the liberty of another is one of the biggest decisions you can make.

I am also concerned about the presumption of suspension on custodial sentences of up to 12 months. That is what it says in the guidelines. However, in training they are currently. Magistrates are currently being told of a presumption of up to 18 sentences of up to 18 months. Punishment should not be done down because of insufficient prison places. Furthermore, the government is leaving the requirements of the community orders in the hands of probation. How can they be qualified to do this when they are, you know, they they are not trained to do so like the magistrates.

Even more troubling is the fact that the probation service is being given the powers to cancel the community orders if they feel that the offender has sufficiently been rehabilitated. At a time when the probation service has never been so overwhelmed and underfunded, both the policies of presumption and presumptive suspension of sentences and removing the magistrates powers to decide on community orders betray justice for victims. Thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you. Jess Phillips thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise. There are Deputy Speaker, I rise. There are so many things in this bill that I could rise to talk about, but I shall start by following up where shall start by following up where my right hon. Friend from the royal town of Sutton Coldfield. I'm from the royal town of Birmingham the royal town of Birmingham Yardley. Left off and I suppose to just get members to understand what just get members to understand what we are seeking to change and clarifying the law, really that has changed is that when we are in here, we don't get sued for the things that we say.

But until I walk into this, this building and all the work that I am doing before anything I say, I wouldn't say it on X because I wouldn't go on it, but like I can, I can be held accountable for my work, I can civil actions can be taken against me for work that leads up to it. And what the judgement that my hon. Friend has talked about has meant is that in cases where police are making or the CPS are making mistakes in all the time, that leads up to them entering into that courtroom.

Of course, they should have immunity like any witness does, but that immunity cannot cover them against civil action for everything that happened in the case. If I had a pound for every time I have seen terrible mistakes made by police officers or the CPS, well, I could get rid of your backlog, not your backlog. Madam Deputy Speaker, once the nations. I just want to be really clear about how dangerous the sort of the overreach of the court decision to allow this immunity would have and to lean on some cases that I know have affected the front bench to change the law.

And these were legal cases taken by victims of rape and domestic abuse and other forms of sexual violence that have now changed the laws of our land. They were based on civil actions taken by those victims against police on CPS such as Jade blue, the survivor of rape, who waived her anonymity and bought a claim against the CPS after they made an erroneous decision to discontinue the proceedings against her abuser. The consequence of Jade's civil action and campaign and her successful claim against the CPS, which could be threatened by this new overreach in the law, which I hope the front bench will tell us how they intend to sort out, is that in in in a prior bill that the Minister has spoken to, we the government, have rolled out the early Victims Right to Review scheme on the basis of a civil action taken by a rape victim.

If we do not allow for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, who who, for example, or any victim actually, or anyone, frankly, who is treated poorly by the police and the CPS to take civil action against them. We are missing the opportunity in this place to make the laws that are better, as well as just. It's a deeply frankly, if I can be held accountable, so should a copper. And so should the CPS. And so I. I understand there is a Supreme Court judgement awaiting.

But I would be interested to hear what the front bench can say to allay the fears of victims of domestic abuse, all. And sexual violence all over the country who might have their address given out wrongly, and then have no other recourse to civil action for the danger that they have been put in, for example. So I would be interested to hear that. I just want to make I mean, I the powerful speech by my hon. Friend and the years of working myself with Claire Throssell, I find it I find it a tiny bit as the, the, the shadow Minister has stood up and tried to say that victims groups all think don't all think the same about the jewellery part of this bill.

I can tell him now that victims group all think the same thing about the presumption of contact, and the fact that he didn't even mention it in his remarks, that he has laid an amendment that would really genuinely endanger victims of domestic abuse across our country, I think is I think it well, I don't even know what I'm allowed to say and what I'm not allowed to say, but I think it's a bit cowardly, should have should have stood by his words and argued the case.

I would also like to say, just on a final point, that as a victim who has been dragged back to court on a completely unmeritorious appeal case by people who stalk me so that they can get me in another room, I feel pleased by the changes, and I so often in these debates, think that this building thinks that the very worst thing that could ever happen to a person was for them to be accused of rape. I think the worst thing that can ever happen to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you is that you are raped and no one believes you. Hear, hear. York Outer Neil Shastri-Hurst.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I draw the House's attention to the fact that I'm a member of the Bar of England I'm a member of the Bar of England and Wales, and my wife is an employment judge, notwithstanding some noble and commendable elements some noble and commendable elements of this Bill, particularly in clauses 12 through to 17 in its totality, I'm afraid this is a bad bill. It was a bad bill when it came before the House for Second Reading.

It was a bad bill when it left Committee stage. And without significant refinement, it will be
17:30
Kirith Entwistle Portrait Kirith Entwistle MP (Bolton North East, Labour)
-
-
a bad piece of law should it come on to the statute books. Of course, this is not the Lord Chancellor's this is not the Lord Chancellor's legislation. This was inherited by him from his predecessor, and I think it is right to welcome. It would be churlish not to the efforts that he has put forward around government Amendment three around government Amendment three to recognise that clause three is unsustainable. He has listened to the legal profession, he's listened to this House and most importantly, he's listened to the public who raised serious and significant concerns.

But I'm afraid it does not go far enough, Madam Deputy Speaker, because if this bill is the answer, then the exam question is fundamentally wrong, and that can be no clearer than in clause six. And that is why I'm very supportive of amendment seven. In the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, which seeks to remove clause six because, as we have heard already, this merely moves the problem from one part of the system to another. It pushes, I think, on a conservative basis, some 25,000 cases into the magistrates court.

About 5500 of those are likely to be trials. These are not necessarily straightforward trials. These are trials that may take more than a day or two, if not longer, to be heard. And we're asking a under-resourced and ill equipped magistrates court to deal with them. That is not the way to deal with the backlog that in the last year in the magistrates court raised by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more than 9.5%, I will give way. Grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I think I'm right for giving way. I think I'm right in saying that a magistrate is required to sit 15 days a year as a required to sit 15 days a year as a lay magistrate. Very often magistrates can sit for a day at a magistrates can sit for a day at a time, a day every other week. The scenario which the government presents is expecting a lay presents is expecting a lay magistrate to sit for a day, two days, three days, potentially into

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a second week. Do you agree that's unsustainable? My hon. Friend the hon. Member,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend the hon. Member, as always, has his finger on the pulse on these issues, because, of course, it narrows the pool of potential magistrates who are able potential magistrates who are able to deal with these cases by virtue of the time commitments that would be foisted upon them. I want to be foisted upon them. I want to spend a little bit of time in respect of clause four, because this deals with complex and lengthy this deals with complex and lengthy cases.

What in essence, it does through schedule 3ZA is confine these to fraud or fraud aligned cases. However, importantly, there is a provision that the Secretary of State can increase the number of offences that are contained within this particular provision. The danger of that is that there is a slow accretion of the offences that would be encapsulated by it. It is not beyond the realms of possibility, for example, that misconduct in a public office could be added to that list, and it fails to recognise the very important work that was done by Jonathan Fisher KC in his independent review, who pointed out that these cases are not held up because of a jury.

They would be delayed because a judge has to weigh up the evidence, has to consider it right up a judgement and reach it. It also fundamentally undermines the issue that facts of dishonesty, and these are as set out in the schedule. Cases around dishonesty are matters for judgement by the ordinary citizen, and to remove the jury element risks the civic ownership of these cases and their engagement within the criminal justice system to be eroded. It also has the chilling effect that you can develop a powerful narrative around powerful defendants, that these cases are being heard behind closed doors.

And it stems from a single case. It stems from a single case from 2005, the Jubilee Line case, which, when reviewed, came down to the very sensible conclusion. This was down to the the poor strategy of the CPS in the the process of the case and not down to jury trials themselves, and therefore amendment four, again tabled. In the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle is eminently sensible. If the House is not with me on that.

However, there is an alternative, which is amendment 52, by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk. The Shadow Justice Secretary, which seeks to limit the scope of this provision to trials where all the offences a defendant is charged in are those that are captured by schedule 3ZA. That seems eminently sensible. In those circumstances. I want to just mention for a moment the rule of law, because if the rule of law is to be taken into account, it must mean that we have an impartial system of adjudication, and that in turn means a fair hearing, which in turn must mean there is the ability to challenge and therefore amendment 54 must be right.

It must be right that in complex or lengthy cases, a defendant has an opportunity to challenge the decision that the case is not to be heard by a judge sitting alone. In the short time I have remaining, I just want to spend a few moments on New Clause 25. This bill was brought before the House on the proviso. The narrative that we heard coming out from government repeatedly was that this was to deal with the backlog in the Crown Court.

It appears, from the remarks

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the Minister, who knows? I have I have enormous respect for her that this is more of an ideological argument. So the question today is argument. So the question today is whether members of this House want to do this to deal with a backlog, a specific problem, in which case a a specific problem, in which case a sunset clause is entirely an eminently sensible. Or are we making an ideological argument that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

making an ideological argument that I think is much more chilling on our. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kirith Entwistle thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am speaking today as a victim of domestic abuse who has found going through the court system especially triggering and on behalf of constituents who have shared their harrowing experiences with me, one who wrote to me and said that the system still allows a father to weaponize the child, to throw accusations whilst protecting his position. While none of the issues I raised got any acknowledgement. And another who felt that the process itself has repeatedly failed to meet the standards expected of our justice and child protection systems.

I'm going to start by looking at new clause six on victim led intensive case management, and I'd like to stress that this is an issue across all courts. Recent experience of the courts is that special measures are still not being properly implemented. A lack of common sense approach to communication is a problem. Still, in 2026, when great technological advances have been made. And I'd like to commend the Member for Chichester on her many amendments seeking to improve experiences for victims, namely on judicial training, as outlined in her new clauses 7 to 9.

And I'd like to also stress that it should be all members of the judiciary always who have to access training and in fact, that they should have to hear from victim survivors first hand of what their experiences are like as part of that training, because it doesn't matter how many times somebody tells me that they understand what I'm going through or that they acknowledge what I've been through, they really don't. Unless they have lived it themselves or they know somebody who has.

The phrase trauma informed is incredibly powerful and crucial here, and it should always be trauma informed training. Which brings me on to new clause 13 and the duty to provide trauma informed training, which I also think needs to include looking at the way that we communicate what will happen in court with victims, as well as the impact those proceedings will have on victims themselves. And I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that there are severe issues around diversity and representation across all levels of the judiciary, and I'd be interested to hear more about what our government is doing to ensure better representation.

Neil Coyle 16 looks at remote participant remote participation. And as someone who has been through this very recently as a victim, we absolutely need to include an assessment into special measures here as well, and look at whether these are adequately communicated to victims. In my case, they were not. I experienced an online hearing recently where I had my perpetrator staring at me the entire time. I wasn't able to blur the background on my screen, and I wasn't able to hide his face. And then the hearing was adjourned because the relevant documents didn't reach the right parties on time.

Despite the fact that email exists and has done for some time. On that point, I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for her bravery in standing up today and sharing her really powerful story, sharing her really powerful story, but also highlighting that special measures doesn't work if people don't know that it's available to don't know that it's available to them during the bill committee. I made the argument that special measures should be the standard, measures should be the standard, and then if somebody chooses to face their perpetrator in court, they can absolutely ask for those they can absolutely ask for those things to be removed, but they should just be there as a standard.

Does she agree with me that that's something that we could very easily roll out across all of our courts, but it would mean that every victim

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is protected from from the moment they arrive. I thank her for that intervention. I do absolutely agree. I think that should be looked at as I think that should be looked at as being a standard measure. I did ask for special measures, but when I turned up at court, they weren't turned up at court, they weren't implemented. So I had to walk past my perpetrator before going into the courtroom. And that's what I'm the courtroom. And that's what I'm experiencing as a member of Parliament.

I dread to think what I do know, what some of my do know, what some of my constituents are experiencing. On New Clause 24. I'd like to commend my hon. Friend, the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, for ensuring children's voices and views are enshrined in the family courts. I know Women's Aid are here, as well as the formidable Claire Throssell, and I'd like to commend my incredible friend, the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge as well, on her tireless efforts in making this happen. The pro contact culture is embedded into the court system, and it puts too many children at unnecessary risk.

And I'm really, really pleased to see that the government is removing this. I'm also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley has addressed the issue of Post-separation abuse in the form of his amendment and how the courts have facilitated that, and I'd like to thank him for being a strong ally and for standing up for his constituents. He and I have both experienced a deluge of constituents contacting us about the abuse that they are facing and their experiences of the court system, and it is always good to have his support.

I'm really grateful that this government is taking steps to go further for victims by introducing the Victims Helpline, addressing the issue of the automatic right to appeal so that victims are not retraumatized and the establishment of specialist courts. But I did want to put on record my experiences as a victim and those of my constituents to ensure that the system truly supports all victims. That ensures victims are genuinely heard, properly communicated with, that they know what their rights are and what is available to them, and that we are all shielded from further triggering and traumatic experiences involving our abusers.

Because, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am fed up of people and institutions telling me that they understand and then going on to take action. That tells me that they don't. I'm fed up being told that they are familiar with domestic abuse or coercive control, but then telling me that it actually doesn't matter. I'm fed up of being feeling ignored and dismissed, and so are my constituents. Our justice system exists to protect victims, not enable perpetrators. And we should always, always remember that.

And we are still allowing our perceptions about how good a person looks on paper to cloud our judgements. Madam Deputy Speaker, Perpetrators walk amongst us. They are police officers. They are teachers. They are fathers. They are mothers. They are. They are here in every aspect of our daily lives. And we cannot judge somebody because of how good they look on paper and give them the benefit of the doubt. Because of that, we have to look at the facts. We have to ensure victims are heard, and we absolutely, crucially, need to make sure that their voices are put at the heart of every decision that we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make, and that they are properly and adequately supported at every single step of the way. Thank you. And with an immediate three

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And with an immediate three minute time limit, sir. Ashley Fox Madam. Deputy Speaker, I want to start

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker, I want to start by expressing my relief that the government has removed clause. Three from the bill. I congratulate the Lord Chancellor congratulate the Lord Chancellor for performing this U-turn so swiftly upon taking office. Now, in earlier debates on this bill, the earlier debates on this bill, the courts Minister said that curtailing the right to a jury trial was a good thing in any event,
17:36
Ashley Fox Portrait Sir Ashley Fox MP (Bridgwater, Conservative)
-
-
and that she would go ahead with the change even if there wasn't a court backlog. So what caused her court backlog. So what caused her to change her mind? Perhaps, Madam Deputy Speaker, it was the change of Prime Minister. Now, the hon. Lady is a skilled orator. I'm quite sure she will manage to persuade the Lord Chancellor that she meant the Lord Chancellor that she meant something completely different, that she always supported his position, and her rise through ranks of government will continue.

We on these benches wish her well. The Crown Court backlog is a serious challenge, and both victims and defendants deserve timely justice. Throughout this debate, Ministers have struggled to demonstrate that curtailing jury trials would meaningfully solve the problem. I still have concerns about clauses one, two, four, five, six and seven of this bill which serve to add restrictions to jury trials and transfer more power to magistrates courts. That is why I support new clause 25, tabled by my hon.

Friend the Shadow Justice Secretary, which seeks to put a sunset clause in this bill. This would see those remaining restrictions on jury trials proposed by the government, ending when the backlog is reduced to its pre-COVID level. I would urge the government to be cautious about the expansion of the powers of magistrates. The evidence is not clear that this will result in the reduction of the backlog. Where is the the assurance that increased jurisdiction will not simply create new delays in different courts? Thousands of additional magistrates will be required in the coming years.

Yet previous recruitment efforts have failed. What will be different this time? The Justice Select Committee described these targets as unrealistic. So perhaps the Minister should consult her new Solicitor General and ask what his views on the subject are. The government still intends to remove the right to a jury trial for those charged with either way offence. I oppose that and I support amendment one proposed by the Shadow Justice Secretary. This poses a particularly grave threat to those who would face professional ruin if they were convicted of an offence of dishonesty.

Solicitors, barristers, members of Parliament, for example, would all have their careers destroyed where they convicted of theft, which isn't either way offence. So that is why I support the sentiments between amendment 47, proposed by the Member for Kingston upon Hull East and Amendment 69 proposed by the chair of the Select Committee. I appreciate that we will not be voting on those amendment tonight, but I do hope that members of the House of Lords will look at this issue again when they come to consider the Bill.
17:39
Lee Barron Portrait Lee Barron MP (Corby and East Northamptonshire, Labour)
-
-
Lee Barron. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. Just to raise three issues. As a magistrate for 20 years, I think one of the things that's led to the problems things that's led to the problems has been the closure of so many courts across the estate, and one of the things I think needs to be involved in the mix of this is to potentially reopen some of those sites in order to be able to get the magistrates courts up and running. In terms of the right to elect a court.

I mean, I don't. I was opposed to clause three as as as as, as most will know, and the Minister will know. But I never got we wasn't a red line for me in relation to electing what court people or the right to elect. And the reason that it didn't is in Scotland. It doesn't happen. I don't see their constitutional skies falling in upon their system. So to me, it wasn't really the issue that I was going to, as I say, have a red line around.

But I do want to raise an issue. Madam Speaker, a Deputy Speaker if I may, in relation to some changes I'd like to see in relation to the victim contact scheme at the moment. At present, the Victim Contact scheme doesn't allow victims to be advised of whether or not an offender has changed their name, or whether or not an offender has changed their appearance. So it's not the information which is routinely shared with victims because it's considered to be sensitive personal data, and means that there is a presumption that it will not be disclosed and there is lawful reason to do so.

Well, take the family, for instance. In 2003, Mick Heslop was violently murdered in his home in Corby. Ricky Stewart was convicted of the murder and received a mandatory life sentence. When he was released in July 2024. He changed his name to Robbie Wilson. Nobody informed the family of that. The family were absolutely unaware that he had changed his name. The omission, they say, has undermined their ability to understand movements, monitor their own safety and engage meaningfully with the victim contract scheme.

In addition to that, in 1986, Adam Stein murdered six year old Colette Gallagher. He was. He has changed his appearance and his name multiple times and collects younger sisters, Lauren and Claire fear for their own safety if he's ever granted parole again. Don't know what he looks like. Don't know what his name is. Family. Not aware these people are living in plain sight. And I think that's a loophole that we need to close in order to make sure that we remove the presumption that it won't be disclosed, to the presumption that it will be so that families know.

Because if you put the shoe on, the other foot is he was murdered by her husband as their two young daughters slept in the room next door is his mum, Helena Sharrocks was granted special guardianship order. There's a request in to change the children's names. They've said no because the father who murdered the mother has had a say in it. That is wrong, that is unjust and we need to change it.
17:42
Rebecca Smith Portrait Rebecca Smith MP (South West Devon, Conservative)
-
-
Rebecca Smith thank. Clause 17 would repeal the presumption of parental involvement contained in section one two A of the Children Act, 1989. That the Children Act, 1989. That presumption currently provides that unless the contrary is shown, the involvement of each parent in the life of the child will further the child's welfare. Now, amendment 67, in the name of my hon. Friends, would keep the presumption that parental involvement is beneficial for the welfare of the child. It's my belief that our legal system should reflect the fact that in most cases, a child benefits from having both parents involved in their life.

Clause 17 would do the opposite. It sends a serious social signal that the active involvement of both parents is no longer our expected starting point when considering a child's welfare. Yes, I just wanted to finish my sentence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the hon. Member not agree with the harm report commissioned by her own government, which found, by her own government, which found, on the basis of the evidence, that, in fact, this presumption creates a pro contact culture, which means pro contact culture, which means that the voices of children are hidden and unheard. And the hidden and unheard. And the evidence from women at Zayed demonstrates that 68 children have presumption.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

presumption. Yeah. I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and for her powerful speech earlier. But ultimately, the impact assessment for this bill says that there would be no impact. And I believe that the impact on families more broadly is is not worth the change. Ynys Mon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the members pointed out, as she said, the impact assessment says that this particular measure on its own won't make any on its own won't make any difference to the harm of children. That's what the impact assessment says. But we absolutely recognise that as a whole. The checklist in that as a whole. The checklist in the way in which it's working does need to be reformed, but we think a more wholesale reform of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

checklist is more appropriate than just attracting interest in one particular element of it. Exactly. And I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, Friend for that intervention, because my concern is that in some cases, this clause would increase the state's power to erase one parent from a child's life, and we know that that is often their father. Clause 17 rebalances the relationship between parents and the state. No, I've already given way twice. I'll lose time. I won't have any.

I won't get any more time. I'm very sorry. We must avoid a situation where the law views children as the state's ultimate responsibility, whilst parents must justify their involvement on a case by case basis. And we must also avoid anything that presumes that the state makes a good or better parent than the actual parents themselves. All that to say, of course, the state should intervene when a child is at risk, but our default position should be that wherever it is safe and appropriate, children benefit from the love and guidance of both of their parents.

The state should only step in when there is clear evidence to do so, and we're not refuting that point this evening. If we remove this principle from the law, we take another step towards a system in which parental involvement becomes discretionary and the state's role becomes paramount. And I do not believe that this is a healthy direction for family justice. I recognise, of course, that this is a sensitive issue for survivors of domestic abuse. To be clear, there is no absolute right to contact under existing law.

Courts already have the power to restrict unsafe contact. The presumption of parental involvement is already qualified by risk of harm to the child. So why do we need this clause at all? Surely we should be ensuring together across this House that current safeguards work properly instead? As I said in a recent debate, Madam Deputy Speaker on fathers and male role models, there is already a widespread perception that family courts make it difficult for fathers to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children.

One possible solution would be a child centred parental relationship test. This test would direct courts to consider the quality and sustainability of the child's relationship with each parent. It would help courts distinguish between safe contact and harmful contact. As things stand, there is a real risk that clause 17 will weaken, not strengthen children's relationships with safe parents without addressing the current failures that leave children exposed to their unsafe ones. Fundamentally, parental involvement is a relationship recognised by the state, not a privilege granted by the state.

Both parents matter and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we should not be afraid to say it. Josh Fenton-Glynn and Deputy Speaker, I'd like to address my Speaker, I'd like to address my remarks to clause 17 on the presumption of contact. Now, my involvement in this started with a involvement in this started with a letter from the constituency, a mother trying to protect her, her child from an abusive ex-partner. child from an abusive ex-partner. And in these cases, the court can play a role in retraumatising people and even be a tool of that abuse.

Since I first spoke out about it, I've heard from countless victims, and I want to say to them, thank you for telling your story. Sorry that the justice system has failed failed you for so long. We will make progress and we will not allow the opposition to ignore your lived experience and the hard evidence that has been given to us by people who work on the front line. I want to pay tribute to Claire Throssell in the gallery today. Her boys, Jack and Paul, were killed by her abusive ex partner in horrific circumstances.

No mother should have had to have shown the strength that Claire has shown. But she's changed the law and she's saved lives. And I will
17:48
Josh Fenton-Glynn Portrait Josh Fenton-Glynn MP (Calder Valley, Labour)
-
-
vote today to make sure that the opposition do not block this legacy. The presumption of parental The presumption of parental involvement is so damaging because it's allowed abuse to continue it's allowed abuse to continue through the courts. Safety of children must always be the top children must always be the top priority. Over the past 30 years, 68 children have died because the presumption of involvement was applied when it never should have been. That 68 children who should have grown up.

But their lives were taken from them. I am proud that this bill will ensure that that terrible number never rises again. But changing the law can only be the start. Judges, magistrates and Kafka operators operate within the culture that has been set by the laws we have at the moment. The Judicial College must take that on board. In the almost two years I've been working on this, the worst opinion I've heard has been from a family magistrate who told me about his his friend's experience of the parental alienation myth.

Ignoring the evidence, letting his anecdotes override it. Survivors in Calder Valley tell me that they fear not being believed, being blamed, or being pushed into unsafe arrangements. They fear the drive to drop off their children with an abusive ex-partner. They fear the agonising wait for their child to be returned to them safe. For too long, the judicial system has felt unreliable as a deeply traumatic tool of abusers. This government has committed to halving violence against women. This change is a step towards that.

There's more to come, but our courts must put victims and children at the centre

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the decisions. Thank you. And I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I. Will be starting wind up at 552. So with the last two minutes. Sarah Russell thank you, Madam Deputy Russell thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I draw attention to my declaration of interest as a declaration of interest as a solicitor. I continue to have two concerns about this bill as drafted, concerns about this bill as drafted, and I'm very, very grateful to the government for changing their position around clause three. I entirely agree with my friend, the Member for Corby, who said that the right to elect is being abused and probably isn't critical.

But there
17:50
Sarah Russell Portrait Sarah Russell MP (Congleton, Labour)
-
-
are two things that are. I support are two things that are. I support amendment 70 by my hon. Friend, the Member for Derby North, around the importance of legal aid in being importance of legal aid in being extended in the magistrates court. As solicitors, we have a saying, which is that the lawyer who which is that the lawyer who represents themselves has a fool for a client. So as solicitors we do not attempt to represent do not attempt to represent ourselves even in our areas of interest.

And I have given employment law advice to an employment lawyer. Yet we expect lay people to go into the magistrates court with now sentencing powers of up to two years, with no legal advice and representation when, as Justice Select Committee, we asked what evaluation had been made of the impact on unrepresented litigants in person on the Crown Court backlog. The answer from the MoJ was that no evaluation had been done. Of that, may I say that I feel very strongly that we need to look at that as one of the causes of delay.

The second matter that I want to draw attention to is that sentences under the unduly lenient sentencing scheme only apply in the Crown Court. When we double the magistrates courts potential sentencing powers to two years, we will take very large numbers of offences out of the purview of the unduly lenient sentencing scheme overnight. So fear of domestic violence, stalking involving fear of violence, coercive and controlling behaviour. First time many first time sexual offences will be likely to attract sentences of less than two years.

There will be heard in the magistrates court and if those sentences are unduly lenient, there will be nothing that we can do about it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And to wind up Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And to wind up Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, we live in an era of problem solving, not point scoring. And indeed, as the Courts Minister, that has always been my focus. No bigger challenge in my portfolio than the unacceptable, portfolio than the unacceptable, indeed intolerable delays in our criminal courts. And that has always been the approach. The to to do politics is ultimately to make choices. And the choices that we
17:52
Sarah Sackman Portrait Sarah Sackman MP, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Finchley and Golders Green, Labour)
-
-
have made as a government are around the action that is needed to reform our criminal justice system, reform our criminal justice system, to invest in it and to modernise it so that it is fit for purpose. And so that it is fit for purpose. And whilst I always enjoy and I'm sorry that he's not here, the oratory of the Member for Torridge and Tavistock, he talks about our ancient rights. Magna Carta is absolutely clear to no one. Will we ever deny or delay right or justice, and that is a recognition that timeliness is an essential ingredient of the thing that the state must guarantee, which is a fair trial and a trial that arrives for a victim today in 2029 or 2030, is neither fair on the victim or defendant alike.

It was said that we should try to invest well, we've done that. We've lifted the cap on sitting days and we've made record investment in legal aid and in our court estate. It was said we should look at the Liverpool model and I've been to Liverpool. It is indeed an excellent model and we're entrenching many of those practices in the new national listing framework. In the introduction of case progression officers, it was said that we should make prison vans run on time and we are pulling out all the stops to do just that.

Asking local authorities, TfL and others to open up bus lanes whilst ensuring that Pecs actually does its job. But the fact is, the opposition and those on the opposition benches, they say Nightingale courts, they say let's work longer days. But it doesn't recognise the fact that the court day doesn't start at 10 or 1030, as we know that judges and barristers are working around the clock, around the court day to prepare and get the show on the road. We cannot ignore the conclusions of the independent review of Criminal courts, which there is no single solution.

It needs to be investment, there needs to be modernisation and we're doing both those things. But there also needs to be structural reforms as well. And I do want to thank members across the House for the valuable contributions in the context of this debate, which have raised some really important themes, which I've got to address. The first is the impact that these changes will have on our magistrates courts, whether it was the Member for Solihull West and Shirley Derby North, East Warwickshire and Bedworth who talked so credibly about the contribution of her own father as a magistrate, those who act as magistrates, who volunteer their time, do an incredible job.

They bring local voices, lay voices into our justice system, something that is incredibly precious. But it's right. It's right that we are challenged and held accountable for whether we are increasing capacity in the magistrates to absorb the additional work. And indeed we are, whether it is the recruitment drive that we are making, not an unrealistic one. As the Member for Bridgwater put to me, but actually a credible one to get back to where we once were in just as recently as 2014, of 21,000 magistrates.

And I'm pleased to report to the House that we are on track. The recruitment of additional 166 legal advisers since April 2025, an additional 100 district judges. This is what I mean when I say we are rebuilding our justice system from the bottom up. So the impact on magistrates courts and capacity, yes, it's important. And yes, we are doing it. And the Member for Runcorn made the point about training and it's a really good one. The Judicial College is working overtime to ensure that magistrates and district judges alike are trained so that they are able to exercise the sentencing powers, which this bill would give them.

The second excellent point that was made was around the allocation to where trials should be heard, whether that be in the magistrates or in the Crown Court. And now the Member for Kingston upon Hull East. He and I have had our differences in the course of this debate, but I've always respected his voice in this debate, and I've always listened. The Member for Derby North makes a similar point around the allocation process. Let me be clear. The exercise that we are committing to in this bill is the same as has always existed in primary legislation, whereby the court will look at allocation deadlines, guidelines published by the Sentencing Council.

So sentencing and likely sentence is a relevant factor. But so too will hearing representations from both sides the prosecution and the defence, the prosecution being able to bring in that victim's perspective, not just on likely sentence, but on the seriousness and complexity of the case at hand. Given the procedural, legal and factual complexity and any aggravating factors, that holistic exercise will determine whether a case should be heard so that the determining factor is the seriousness of the case, rather than the identity of the defendant.

The next point that was very forcefully made and well made by the hon. Member for Chichester, for Derby North, for Congleton and 1 or 2 others in relation to new clauses, 18 and 17 was in relation to legal aid. There is no greater champion of access to justice and the importance of legal aid than, than than than this government and myself. I am a powerful advocate for legal aid, not least because I saw firsthand when I was in practice before coming to this place, the vital importance that it plays in our justice system.

That is precisely why one of the first steps we took, and that I took as a Minister, was to invest in our criminal legal aid system, £116 million for criminal solicitors, an additional £34 million for criminal legal aid. For advocates. That investment is important, but it won't go all the way and I recognise that. That is why we need to review the support that we give to unrepresented defendants in our magistrates courts or indeed in the Crown Court in the rare cases that that arises.

But as I've said in our response to the Leveson Review, we will look again at those thresholds once these reforms have been embedded. I do want to address new clause 22 very briefly in relation to police accountability. I'm sorry, I've got to be very brief, but he will be aware, and the Member for Birmingham Yardley will be aware that there is currently a case before the Supreme Court relating to this matter. So he will understand that the government has to carefully consider the outcome of that before giving a full response to the issue raised around police accountability.

I do want to conclude around what I said, around the removal of the right to elect. This bill is designed to bring down the backlog. It is designed to deliver timely justice, but it's also about building a better and fairer system, one in which the court triages cases, not the defendant. That is about redressing the balance of power between defendant and victim. It's also about the improvements we make in terms of open justice, enhancing transparency, expanding the use of transcripts, improving the laws of evidence, improving training for court staff and judiciary in terms of having trauma informed.

As the Member for Bolton North East implored us to do, to govern is to choose. We are making that choice in the Courts and Tribunals Bill. What we deliver is not only timely justice but a fairer justice system, and one which puts what has been the pride of the world, the English and Welsh

**** Possible New Speaker ****

justice system, back on its feet. Hey. The question is that New clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that New clause 23 be read a second time. As many as are of that opinion say aye. Of as are of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. The question is that new clause 23 be added to the bill. As many as are added to the bill. As many as are of that opinion say aye. entrepreneur, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it.

New clause 25 is being selected for a separate decision. I call the shadow formally.
18:00
None Portrait Division
-

To move. >> The question is that new clause 25 be added to the Bill. As many as are of that opinion say I. >> I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Of the contrary, no. no. The The question The question is, The question is, as The question is, as on The question is, as on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order Paper, as many as are of the opinion, say I, I no. Tellers for the ayes David

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tellers for the ayes David Simmonds Rebecca Smith Tellers for the noes Gregor Poynton Harpreet Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 189 the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

North to the left 306. The ayes to the right were. 189

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were. 189 the nurse to the left were 306 so the nurse have it. The nurse have the nurse have it. The nurse have it unlocked. Amendment one has been selected for separate decision. I call the shadow Minister to move the amendment formally. Can we can we have some quiet, please? Order. The question. Is that amendment one be made, as many are that opinion, say I,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know. The The question The question is, The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of opinion, say aye. Of the contrary, no. no. Tellers for the ayes David Simmonds Rebecca Smith Tellers for the noes Gregor Poynton Order. Order. Order. Order. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 196. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noes to the left 304. The I to the right were 196 the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The I to the right were 196 the nurse to the left were 304 so the nurse have it. The nurse have it nurse have it. The nurse have it unlock. I call the Minister to move government amendment three and 24 to 28 formally. The question is that government amendments three and 24 to 28 be made. As many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

Amendment 18 has been selected for separate decision. I call Jess Brown-Fuller to move the amendment formally. The question is that amendment 18 be made as many as are of that opinion say I of the contrary, no. no Question Question is. You don't do that. I'm on my feet. Sit down please. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion say I of the contrary, no. no tellers for the ayes Bobby Dean Paul Foster Tellers for the noes.

Gregor Poynton

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The ayes to the right. 89. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 89. The north to the left. 312.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

north to the left. 312. The ayes to the right were 89. The noes to the left. 312. So the noes have it. The nurse have it unlocked. I call the Minister to move government amendment 29 to 44 formerly. The question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 29 to 44 be made as many as are of that opinion, say I. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Of the country, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now move on to Third Reading. Consideration completed. Third

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reading. Now Minister to move. Third Reading. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that this bill be now read a third time. But before I turn to the substance of this important
18:41
Alex Norris Portrait Rt Hon Alex Norris MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Nottingham North and Kimberley, Labour )
-
-
bill, I would like to recognise those who helped bring it to this stage. Those, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, who have sat in the Deputy Speaker, who have sat in the chair, both in this chamber and in committee, the excellent clerks of the House who serve us so well, the the House who serve us so well, the whips on all sides, of course, the Honourable and right hon. Members who served on the Bill Committee and did so with such vigour, and my and did so with such vigour, and my hon.

Friend the Minister for courts. My predecessor. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham and, Friend the Member for Tottenham and, of course, members from across this House for their contributions to this debate today and at previous stages, especially those who have shared their or their constituents experiences. And, you know that those legal professionals from outside of here have engaged with us. Also, I'd like to give a specific recognition, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the artist formerly known as Sir Brian Leveson, who, of course, during this process has been elevated as the noble Lord Liverpool for his landmark review.

What a public servant he is, what work he did in his review. And I want to recognise those efforts in this space, but frankly, in many other aspects of British life as well. It's a real pleasure to work with him and we are grateful for his work that very much underpins this bill. And of course, crucially, the victims and survivors who have shaped these reforms, including those who join us today who should be very proud of what they have done, because I know that it comes at a cost for them to bring their stories forward, to make change, but we are very, very lucky that they do so, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a bill with victims at its heart.

Its purpose is urgent, and it is long overdue. That's to make sure that justice in this country is fast and is fair, because victims today are facing intolerable delays. People suffer appalling crimes. They summon extraordinary courage to come forward. They relive their most traumatic experiences, and they put their trust in the system that justice will be done. And what happens next is that they wait and they wait and they wait. Trials are pushed back. Cases drift further into the future years of anxiety before a trial can even begin.

Whilst confidence in the system drains away. And all too often victims give up because the process is unbearable. Madam Deputy Speaker, as my hon. Friend said, and as the age old maxim goes, justice delayed is justice denied. This government cannot and will not accept that. And this is a bill that grips the previous grips, a problem that the previous government simply would not. And it tackles the record and rising Crown Court backlog that we inherited that sits now at nearly 81,000 cases, more than double the level in 2019.

And it is, I'm afraid, a testament to the Conservative Party's record in government for their failure to grasp the nettle, to tackle the reform needed to wrestle our criminal justice system back on track. And again, we've seen today they simply deny their reality, refuse to reconcile with their record. But let's be very, very clear. Left unchecked on modelling shows exactly where this trajectory leads. Even deeper delays, collapsing confidence and a justice system that cannot fulfil its most basic promise that justice will be done swiftly and fairly, and this government will not normalise that delay and allow victims, witnesses and defendants to bear the burden of a system under strain.

We cannot continue to try to meet 21st century pressures with the 20th century model. Now, we've heard in the previous debate that throughout this process, we've heard colleagues call for greater investment. They are right. We are investing at record levels with unlimited sitting days for our criminal courts. Others have called for modernisation. They are right and we are modernising greater use of technology. AI to maximise the capacity we have to speed up justice and to ensure that our system responds to the changing nature of crime.

With massive increases in digital evidence and demands on court time. But again, investment alone will not solve the crisis. Modernisation alone will not solve it either, and has, as the noble Lord Liverpool made clear, and as all the evidence shows, it's only when we add to this structural reform in the form of pragmatic changes that we really begin to turn the tide on the backlog, and that is what this bill will deliver. And, yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I make no apologies for this, that we looked again myself as a new Lord Chancellor.

My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, as a new Prime Minister, of course, we looked again at some of the measures included in this bill, and we listened to the strength of feeling from across this House and from across the legal sector. And we have made changes which mean now that almost all defendants facing trial in the Crown Court will continue to be tried by a jury. But this bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, is not solely about bringing down the backlog. It's about making the system work better.

I'm proud that during the proceedings on this legislation, outside of this bill, we've been already able to bring forward measures to improve victims experiences of court, with new specialist courts for survivors of rape and sexual offences. I want to recognise, as other colleagues did, the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North in previous stages in bringing us to this point, but this bill goes further to supporting that wider effort, challenging the damaging myths that are so often silenced rape victims, making it easier for victims to access the special measures they need so they can give their best and proper evidence.

And, crucially, in the family courts, it will finally repeal the presumption of parental involvement because the safety of children must always come first. I would recognise the incredible efforts of Claire Throssell to bring this forward, to make this change a reality today. That's come again at extraordinary cost. But I you know, I hope that this is a day of of pride of what is a significant step forwards. Madam Deputy Speaker, much debate around this bill has invoked tradition, but the history of our justice system has never been the history of standing still.

It's always been a history of adaptation, of institutions evolving to meet the demands of a changing society and a changing age, those timeless values that applied in a modern context. And we are acting to put the interests of the British people first, because the status quo, which take our courts to a point of no return, which continues to deny fast, fair justice to those who need it, which damages public confidence, damages public consent, is simply unacceptable to us, and we are the only ones with heard in the stages.

All the stages of debate this. We are the only ones on this side of the House with the courage to address these challenges head on. That's why we're pulling every lever within our power to rebuild a court system capable of delivering justice fairly swiftly and sustainably. This bill chooses that path because the cost of doing nothing is simply too high. And with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
18:48
Nick Timothy Portrait Nick Timothy MP (West Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
The question is that the bill be read now. Read the third time, Shadow Minister. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, time and time again. For more than time and time again. For more than a year now, Ministers have come to the despatch box and told the House that their attack on jury trials was essential to making the courts work efficiently. Time and again, we told them more than 100 of their colleagues on the benches opposite told them they were wrong, that the right to a trial by jury is an ancient English right, a vital part of our national inheritance, a necessary safeguard against the might of the state.

They ignored us. They said we didn't understand. They briefed against their colleagues. And in the case of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East smeared him disgracefully. And now they admit that they were wrong and we were right. All those Ministers and Labour MPs who stuck to the government line in the face of all the evidence, should reflect on the limits of blind party allegiance and the instructions of their whips, because it makes them look very foolish. Today, I want to remind the courts Minister, in particular, of our exchange in the House in June, when I told her that the incoming leader of the Labour Party, now the Prime Minister, was going to scrap her prized policy, she told the House I misunderstood his position.

The right hon. Member for Makerfield, she said, did not, in fact, oppose their assault on jury trials. And yet here they are, with their policy largely abandoned and her authority as courts Minister lies in pieces like Monty Python's Black Knight. She declared in June, I move for no man. As her policy lost one limb, she insisted it was but a scratch as it lost another, she claimed it was just a flesh wound and now this bill is left completely dismembered.

The courts Minister has gone from insisting I'm invincible to finally saying, all right, we'll call it a draw. But it's not a draw. It's a very serious defeat, and it's a victory for our constitutional settlement, our rights under the crown, and the sacred principle that no one shall be convicted and deprived of their liberty except by a jury of their peers. This was a battle that should never have been fought. In the last year, the 17,601 sitting days were lost because Crown Court rooms sat empty.

Around 16% of Crown courts are not sitting on average on any given day. We've repeatedly called for the government to get the court sitting throughout the year. That is how they should cut backlogs, not by attacking juries. Madam Deputy Speaker, I said the attack on juries had been largely abandoned, but the government hasn't completely given up and there remain serious problems with this bill. It will remove the right of defendants to elect a jury in either way cases, and it will increase the sentencing power of magistrates courts so more cases are heard there.

But the magistrates backlog has reached 380,000 open cases and 9% increase on the previous year. The government hasn't told us what additional resources will be given to magistrates to manage this increase in workload, nor what new safeguards will ensure justice. Indeed, there has been no assessment of the likely effect of this change on appeal rates, and we know of appeals against verdicts given by magistrates. Up to 56% are allowed. The bill will also remove jurors from what it calls complex and lengthy trials, normally said to be cases involving fraud.

The independent reviewer of fraud, Jonathan Fisher KC, concluded there was no justification for this change. But clause four doesn't only concern fraud trials. The government seeks to extend the scope of Judge-only trials to other complex cases in later years, and to do so by secondary legislation. This would give the government the power to resume its attack on jury trials without proper scrutiny or debate. This proposal is a disgrace, and we reject it emphatically. The Bill, as amended, would also establish a review of the court system with the specific remit of considering inequality of outcome based on racial identity.

Once again, the party opposite is trying to engineer judicial outcomes based on identity, rather than treating us all as free individuals accountable before the law. We will resist this and stand for the principle that it is only our actions that matter, not who and what we are. Madam Deputy Speaker, we on this side of the House are committed to the ancient right to trial by jury. But while the principle of jury trials is sacrosanct, there is increasing evidence from recent cases that juries may, in some examples, have been compromised by the political or religious bias of some jury members.

We've seen the acquittal of violent thugs, including the man who smashed a female police officer's spine, apparently because he was a member of Palestine Action. We've seen vandals from Just Stop Oil found not guilty, despite clear evidence of their guilt. And many in the legal profession are concerned that this is an increasing trend in courts across the country. If those who break our laws walk free because jurors feel kinship towards them, or because the cause for which the defendant committed a crime is just then justice is no longer blind.

That flies in the face of the rule of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

law, and it must be stopped. I will give one. Thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He mentions that many in the legal profession are in the legal profession are sounding the alarm about the perceived bias of juries. Can he please state which legal please state which legal organisations have expressed that view to him?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, if the hon. Lady listened, I said individual barristers. I I said individual barristers. I didn't say organisations and and and the Justice Secretary and others ought to listen to those professionals who experienced the justice system every day. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government's handling of this bill has been a shambles from start to finish. It still contains dangerous provisions which limit the right to elect, to appeal, to allow Ministers to attack jury trials by secondary legislation and to put more cases through the magistrates courts.

So we will vote to reject this bill to preserve equality before the law and the right to a fair trial. Can you try answering questions?
18:54
None Portrait Division
-

The question is that the bill >> The question is that the bill now be read the third time, as many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. >> Know. The The question The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that we can say, I of the contrary, no. know. Tell us for the I's Gregor Poynton Harpreet Uppal Tellers for the noes Blake

**** Possible New Speaker ****

UQ.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All the. All the. All All the. All of All the. All of us.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All the. All of us. The I's the right 301 the Noes to the left 193.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the left 193. The ayes to the right with 301 the nurse to the left were 193. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. We must now take the motion related to deferred divisions. Minister to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is the motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the motion relating to deferred divisions, as many as are of that opinion say aye. of the contrary, no. I think aye. of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Order. We now come to the carry over extension motion from. For the over extension motion from. For the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, I. I remind the House that this is a I remind the House that this is a procedural motion. I encourage members to focus their remarks on the issue of the carry over extension.

I also remind the House that Mr. Speaker granted an ongoing waiver to allow limited reference to active legal proceedings relating to historic troubles related deaths. We now come to motion number three on Northern Ireland Troubles Bill carry over

**** Possible New Speaker ****

extension. Secretary of State to move. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move the
19:09
19:09
Chris Bryant Portrait Rt Hon Chris Bryant MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
ones during the troubles, often in the most awful circumstances imaginable. Daddy's mammy's brothers, sons, daughters, more brothers, sons, daughters, more than 3500 of them, 90% of them murdered by paramilitaries. It's about families living for decades with doubts, uncertainty and unacknowledged grief. Families desperate for answers about what desperate for answers about what happened to their loved ones, answers that might help them understand the how, the why, and even the who answers that might help provide some degree of comfort.

We're joined, or we will be joined in a few moments in the gallery today by Mo, Pat, Jennifer, and Laura, all of whom lost loved ones during the troubles and who have bravely, admirably and heartbreakingly spent years trying to find the truth of what happened. They deserve answers. Let's not forget that more than a thousand of those who were killed were members of our security forces serving under Operation Banner, or targeted by the IRA in military barracks and towns across England, 25% of the investigations involve victims from the military.

A further 17% relate to victims who were police officers. So I'm determined that veterans families will get answers to the Hillsborough families had to wait far too long, and so too have many families across Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We promised in our manifesto that we would put that right, and that is what we're going to do. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My cousin was murdered. 10th of December 1971, 75 years

**** Possible New Speaker ****

10th of December 1971, 75 years ago. He was murdered. Alongside him was his uncle, Daniel McCormick, a Protestant and a Roman Catholic. But they both served in uniform. Nobody, nobody in 55 years this Nobody, nobody in 55 years this December the 10th, nobody. And 55 years has ever been made accountable. The people, the three man IRA team that killed those two man IRA team that killed those two gentlemen. And that morning, on the 10th of December, they run across the border to sanctuary and safety.

So with great respect, Secretary, you tell me as my family that we can have we can have justice. We don't see justice. 55 years waiting for justice. But I don't believe it. And can you tell me honestly, for all of the families and I can name many, many other ones who have been murdered over the years as well, I think of the four other men, one person made accountable, but the people who killed that, the four other men at Ballydugan and some 36 years ago, no one accountable for their murders.

I, on behalf of the victims, on behalf of my family, on behalf of all the families South Dorset, we need justice. And I want justice for my family. And I want justice for every one of those victims who served in uniform. Or you see men, UDR men, British army who give their lives for this province and for this country. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Madam Deputy Speaker, I, I pay tribute to the way the hon. Gentleman has presented his case, Gentleman has presented his case, because it's remarkably similar to what I heard from others this afternoon. And I've heard repeatedly in Northern Ireland. There's one man I've met whose There's one man I've met whose father served and was murdered, and he meets the man who he knows he meets the man who he knows murdered his father every single week in Marks and Spencers.

It's not even been acknowledged in any tribunal of any kind. And that's why it's so important that we get answers for people, because the kind of pain that the hon. Gentleman shows is the kind of pain that exists in so many families, and many of them are, are families who lost, loved ones who served. I remember going to the RUC Memorial Garden. It's very, very touching because it has, decade after decade, the the names of the RUC officers who were killed.

And for decade after decade, it's like 3 or 4, 3 or 4, six, eight and then dozens, dozens and dozens. And many of those families have never had an answer. And if there's one thing I feel very strongly, after all the communications and the conversations I've had with individuals and veterans groups over the last few months, it is that there isn't one set of group people, which is families. And there's another set of people, which is veterans. Actually the largest group of families of veterans families.

And they deserve answers to. Madam Deputy Speaker, we went further in our manifesto. We committed to replace the previous government's Legacy Act. Why? Because it was legally flawed. It offered equal immunity to terrorists as to our armed forces, and it didn't carry the confidence of communities in Northern Ireland. So I pay warm tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South, for negotiating the joint framework with the Irish Government and for introducing and working to improve the Bill, and for all he did to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

repair, trust and address the hurt that was caused by the previous Legacy Act. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Yesterday, following extensive engagement with bereaved families and veterans associations, I tabled and veterans associations, I tabled a series of amendments and these can only be considered. Madam Deputy Speaker, if we agree the Deputy Speaker, if we agree the motion tonight. One thing that has been clear in our discussions with veterans is that few ever wanted immunity at all, either for the armed forces alone or for veterans and terrorists. Indeed, many saw the previous government's immunity provisions, which were conditional as implying an equivalence between their actions and the actions of terrorists.

So we will amend the bill to bar the Commission and coroners from treating the lawful actions of the security services as equivalent to the actions of paramilitaries. Moreover, because our soldiers operated in a unique operational context during the troubles, and because the use of lethal force was lawful in certain circumstances to prevent harm, we will seek to amend the Bill to ensure that factors such as soldiers training, experience and, crucially, the orders they were operating under must be taken into account in any investigation.

The Shadow Secretary of State and my hon. Friend for Worsley and Eccles and the hon. Members for North Down and South Holland and The Deepings made these points in previous debates, so I hope they will gain cross-party support. We have also listened, Madam Deputy Speaker, to concerns raised by the right hon. Member for Belfast East. The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington and the hon. Member for North Antrim, Upper Bann, Lagan Valley and others over the on the run letters.

These never provided immunity from prosecution, but we will put in black and white in the bill that these letters cannot be used to prevent or frustrate potential prosecutions where there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing, wrongdoing by terrorists, such letters will never act as a barrier to them being convicted. We have also heard the cries for dignity from families who have never even been able to get death certificates. We want to make that easier, and we will give oversight of the Commission's work to His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, which will improve the efficiency of investigations and thereby the process for victims and families.

There is more we can do. Madam Deputy Speaker, if this motion is allowed tonight, the men and women who serve in our armed forces represent the very best of our country. They volunteered to place themselves in harm's way, accepting significant personal hardship and sacrifice on behalf of this country, as did their families. In return for their service, they are entitled to expect that the state will support them and their loved ones throughout their military careers and, crucially, long after their service has ended.

Where a service member has made the ultimate sacrifice. This commitment includes giving their bereaved families the opportunity to establish the circumstances of their loved ones death. Which is what? Which is what we will create through the Legacy Commission. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, the Member for Aldershot, who unfortunately can't be here today because of a family situation who. But since this bill was introduced, she has fought for the veterans in her constituency and she has played a key role in bringing about a number of changes to the bill.

In the amendments that we've talked about, she has, alongside the members for Southend East and Rochford, for Swindon North, for South Ribble, and the Member for Halesowen argued for greater protections for individuals to prevent an endless cycle of what I call rinse and repeat. We have heard those concerns and brought forward significant amendments to address them. First off, a provision that no process that has already been undergone can be repeated by the Commission or, crucially, by a coroner, unless it is essential, which is a very high bar, much higher than in previous legislation, because, for instance, there is new information or a new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forensic process. I wasn't sure whether that came out there. Sorry Secretary state for giving way. Could he set out in greater

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. Could he set out in greater detail for us what the word essential is going to mean in law? Well, as you all know, the word

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, as you all know, the word essential. So in the Legacy Act, the word that is used is necessary, which is a much lower bar essential. which is a much lower bar essential. Traditionally in in lots of legal judgements already is a higher bar. The kind of thing that we're The kind of thing that we're talking about is where there is a new forensic process which wasn't available 30 years ago. So for instance, you might be able to examine a, a fingerprint on a, on a piece of shrapnel much more effectively today than you could previously, or where there is literally a new piece of information that's, that's the kind of thing, but it is essential to be able to conduct the work of the organisation.

And secondly, Madam Deputy Speaker, a new provision that the Legacy Commission must obtain and review any information it needs from the state itself before it considers even whether to request an individual to come as a witness. And thirdly, another new provision that the Legacy Commission must not request information from a witness unless it has considered whether compelling new evidence exists or the likelihood of a witness being able to provide new information. Fourthly, putting the protection from cold calling into law and strengthening the provision for remote attendance, ensuring it applies to all aspects of the Commission's work.

And fifthly, prosecutions in troubles related cases are rare, and I expect them to be rare. But to provide greater assurance and confidence in decisions to prosecute any future prosecutions of serious troubles related offences will require the consent of the Attorney General, acting quasi judiciously. This will apply regardless of whether the offence relates to state or non-state actors. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who I know was committed to making this change both inside and outside of government, and to rightly pointed out that there is precedent for this approach, and it in no way changes the thresholds required to proceed with the prosecution or the prosecutor's independence.

In considering the evidence before them, I have also tabled a number of amendments in relation to the Legacy Commissions Victims and Survivors Advisory Group, providing clarity that former paramilitaries cannot be appointed to the group and that former service personnel, many of whom are also victims, must be represented. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Legacy Acts immunity scheme was previously being repealed from statute, excuse me, by a remedial order to enable Parliament to consider the changes we are making in the round.

We will now repeal it through the Bill. This addresses a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to whom I am grateful. Of course. Can I say. How much I appreciated the joint letter that he and the Defence Secretary sent to colleagues, which I think has pacified a lot of our I think has pacified a lot of our concerns. However, what he is describing is a wholesale filleting describing is a wholesale filleting of the legislation. Is he going to comment on why that legislation was drafted in the way that it did in drafted in the way that it did in the first place, and apologise to those service men, many of them in their 70s now, who have been deeply troubled by the fear that they're going to be a victim of the 3:00 knock.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, look, I arrived in post a few months ago and I sat down with few months ago and I sat down with the defence secretary. We looked at some of the amendments that had already actually been drawn up by my right hon. Friend, and we were my right hon. Friend, and we were convinced that we needed to go a little bit further than that. So, for instance, the amendment in relation to the Attorney General is a new amendment. The amendment in relation to compelling new evidence.

Likewise. And I'm I really do want to proceed as much as I possibly can in a consensual way across the whole of the House. That's why I provided as many opportunities to take people through all the details of all the amendments as I possibly can to the opposition and to other political parties as well. I you know, sometimes we need to get our legislation right. I think one of the problems was that we had a very long period when these some of these amendments could have been dealt with several months ago, and we might have got to a better place sooner, and then we wouldn't have needed the carry over motion either.

But I think there's there's not much point in crying over spilt milk. It's much better just to try and get the bill right. And which is precisely what I'm trying to do. And indeed, I should say, actually, this is an important point to say to the hon. Gentleman. And all of the amendments we have tabled are wholly consistent with our human rights obligations and the fundamental principle that everyone is equal before the law. Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker Oh, Lord. Yes. What substantive difference does he think the Attorney General's consent will make to a decision of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this kind? Well, obviously it was a it was a material consideration for us as a material consideration for us as to whether whether this was the right step to go down, because for all the obvious reasons that maybe others will adduce in the debate later on. But it was very keenly felt by a lot of those in the veterans community that it would be much better if this decision were not being made just by the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland, and that it would be better if it were made here.

Now, obviously, the the the the standard prosecutorial question, in other words, is it more than 50% likelihood of getting a successful conviction? And secondly, is it in the public interest? That doesn't change at all. The attorney General will be acting in a quasi judicial function, as she is very keen to point out. But I think that this does provide a degree, and I've had this back from a large numbers of veterans. It does provide a degree of confidence to and reassurance to to those who have been worrying about this.

And of course, it applies equally to anybody who might be investigated, for instance, and might be prosecuted, for instance, for being involved in the M62 bomb or the Guildford pub bombing. So I take the point that he's making, but it was one of the things that was asked for where, where, where possible. I've tried to make the argument as strongly as I possibly can on behalf of the veterans, to make sure that we get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the bill right. Yes, of course. The Secretary of State for giving way in terms of the giving way in terms of the Commission Advisory Board, who makes the final decision on who goes on to that, and can he also assure me that. Well, it's good to know that no paramilitaries will be know that no paramilitaries will be allowed on that board. Can he also assure me that political parties that have supported violence and that have supported violence and those paramilitaries will not be members of that political party, Sinn Fein will not allow to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

allowed on to that commissioning board. He makes a very good point. And and indeed, it's a point he made to me yesterday as well. And it's the Secretary of State who makes the Secretary of State who makes the decision about who who sits on the on that board, on the advisory group. The advisory group is a key group. The advisory group is a key distinction between the Legacy Commission. I think one of the things that I've heard, again, loud things that I've heard, again, loud and clear and repeatedly, is that this is that this whole process needs to be focussed on the families and the victims.

And the only way you can secure that is if you have an effective advisory group. And he's quite right about there shouldn't be anybody on there who espouses or has espoused the use of violence. And that will be one of the key responsibilities that the Secretary of State would have to ensure. We're saying that at least one member of the. There can be between 3 and 7 members of the advisory group. And we're saying that at least one of those must be a veteran or a former member of the police or one of their representatives.

And of course, it might be more than that. Madam Deputy Speaker, cooperation and sharing of records by the Irish authorities. And this may meet the point that was being made earlier on. I think maybe the key to obtaining information for families about the circumstances in which their loved ones died and and who was responsible for the precise reason that sometimes people are willing just one say sometimes what happened was that somebody popped over the border and did the killing and then returned.

And that's why I think it's very important that one of the things that my right hon. Friend secured in the agreement with the Irish government was their full cooperation in this process. Well, I was just going to give way there first, and then I'll give way to the others, if that's all right. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very clearly, my own family members are aware of the three IRA murderers who skipped across the murderers who skipped across the border, who stayed across the border but didn't return home. And border but didn't return home. And but also, can I just put on the record Gerry Mcmonagle, involved in the murder of Lexi Cummings in the murder of Lexi Cummings in Strabane in 1982. He escaped across the border. Not only did he escape across the border, he became the mayor of Donegal County Council.

Now there's a person who should be accountable for his actions. He escaped because there was a wrong notification done by the police in relation to to the summons, and he was able to run a record, get on a motorbike, cross a border and live a new life. Also, the two superintendents murdered the border as well. Garda collusion, collusion from the Republic of Ireland government. There has to be accountability for those people in the who give evidence has to be accountability for those people in government at that time who overseen it and did nothing about it.

So the role for the Republic of Ireland, for the government. But it's a big role to play. Let's make sure we keep their feet to the fire

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and keep the heat on the back of their neck. Well, this is precisely the point I was making, which is that we, the Irish government, needs to we, the Irish government, needs to step up to the plate and provide answers. And where it fails to do so, we will, of course, want to so, we will, of course, want to take issue with them assertively. But that's the key difference that But that's the key difference that I think my right hon. Friend made is making sure that the Irish government is introducing government is introducing legislation which will require them to cooperate in this process, and, in many cases, provide the answers which are which are essential to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the kind of person that he refers then. We'll do the Secretary of State

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We'll do the Secretary of State and the Garda Legacy Unit has been much lauded, particularly by his much lauded, particularly by his predecessor. It formed part of the framework that was published last year, and it was meant to be year, and it was meant to be operative from January. Is he aware that they have failed to provide any answers? Any responses, answer the telephone or respond to emails with any information from that date to this? Is he aware that there was a public perception that they were providing information until we challenged Helen McEntee as the Minister responsible? She then said that there would be no information passed at all until the legal uncertainties were cleared.

They were cleared by Dillon in Supreme Court. They have been cleared or when this legislation passes, and yet they continue to investigate cases. They continue to seek answers for families and they are getting no response whatsoever. Does he have an indication that they will provide those answers, either following tonight or next Tuesday?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm going to come on to some of the answers precisely to those questions in just a moment. But questions in just a moment. But I've spoken to Helen McEntee myself repeatedly and made some of these points and and for that matter, to points and and for that matter, to Jim O'Callaghan as well in the Irish government, it's very important that the Irish government plays its part, because otherwise plays its part, because otherwise what's the point? But but he makes a very strong point.

He's made these points to me before as well, these points to me before as well, and I have made them to the Irish Government. I give way to the hon. progress.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Secretary of State is great. Store by the southern authorities in the Republic of Ireland cooperating. But did we not yesterday have a classic example of the duplicity of the Dublin the duplicity of the Dublin government, when, in the Omagh inquiry it emerged that they'd sat inquiry it emerged that they'd sat for 28 years on an intelligence document which indicated that the document which indicated that the night before the Omagh bomb, there was a phone call to Finner Camp of the Irish Army indicating that the bomb was coming.

With the declaration. Omar. Omar. Omar and it was never passed on that night to the RUC and sat upon until now with with the allowing to grow the narrative that in fact it was the RUC that had been negligent when. When it was quite clear that the southern authorities had held back

**** Possible New Speaker ****

information which could have avoided that horrendous bomb. Right. Well, I read the reports that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I read the reports that the hon. Member has refers to, and of course, they are very disturbing. And there is an ongoing inquiry, And there is an ongoing inquiry, and it's not my job to do the job, the work of the inquiry. But it is absolutely the job of the Irish absolutely the job of the Irish government to provide all the information that the inquiry needs to be able to do its job to be able to do its job effectively. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Irish Government has set out the framework for its own legislation, and we want to see that progress swiftly in parallel with ours.

And I know that in previous debates, there was some question about whether we had to complete our legislation, and then the Irish government was going to do its legislation and to give further assurance, we will require the Secretary of State to lay a written ministerial statement before the full commencement of the troubles Bill, outlining the progress made by the UK and Irish governments, and I have spoken directly to Minister McEntee, and she has said repeatedly now in public that they will march in lockstep with us in terms of legislation, with the aim of having both of our sets of legislation come into force on the same day.

Madam Deputy Speaker, Committee stage will be next week, and colleagues will want to consider all these matters in depth. But I do want to end by urging everyone not to underestimate the importance of us enabling our enabling families to get the answers that they require. We've already heard. We've already heard amongst our own members in the chamber the pain and the grief and the anguish and sometimes sense of revenge and anger that comes with the fissures that opened up many, many years ago.

And I cannot tell members how many times I have heard those same calls, often from people who lost members in the armed forces serving under Operation Banner, and often from people who served in the RUC. And there was a moment, I suppose, when the Good Friday Agreement came about, when everybody thought, we've done our work now, peace has come. The last couple of weeks have shown that peace can sometimes be a very thin veneer, and sometimes the people who bore the biggest brunt of that peace, who had to sort of suck it up with the families who had lost loved ones, and they've never managed to get answers.

I don't think we can ever really build a strong future for Northern Ireland unless we fully understand the past. And understanding the past means making sure that we get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

answers for people in. The question is, as on the Order Paper I call shadow Secretary of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper I call shadow Secretary of State Alex Burghart. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Secretary of State for his comments and the briefing that his team gave mine at the start of this week. And mine at the start of this week. And I want to say at the outset that I can see that he and his team have worked very hard to try and make worked very hard to try and make improvements to this bill.

But I am afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the bill is a mess. That mess is attested to by the fact that we are still debating it when it was introduced a year ago tomorrow, and we have yet to breach Committee stage, it is attested to by the fact that we are debating a carryover motion tonight for the second time. It is attested to by the fact that the government in April told us that it was going to submit its amendments after six months of delay, but only published them yesterday after another six months.

And just look at them. Madam Deputy Speaker, 144 government amendments now making a pack of about 300 119 pages. This is a mess. In the process of becoming a bigger mess. And I know the Secretary of State has been handed this mess. I know it is not of his making, and that he has been given the unenviable task of fixing it. But this bill. But this is the case that it cannot be fixed because the fundamentals are wrong.

And however much one scrubs off some of the worst corners and the worst excesses, the fundamentals are still there. Next week we will have a chance to debate some of these amendments, though the amount of time set aside for the debate of this legislation and so many amendments is wholly unequal to the task, for reasons I cannot understand, the government has effectively denied the House Report stage. That is to say that only an hour has been set aside for report, and it is inevitable that Committee stage will eat that away entirely.

As a backbencher, I know the Secretary of State was a defender of the the role of this House in scrutiny. I think it's very upsetting that we are not going to be able to give this bill proper treatment in the Commons, and it will have to. It will only get proper scrutiny in the Lords. This, of course, is only a minor quibble in the face of the problems in the Bill itself. In simple terms, Madam Deputy Speaker, we cannot support this legislation because it reopens the door to vexatious litigation against those who served in Northern Ireland during the troubles.

In the long time in which this Bill has been on the table office, a number of cases have come to public attention which illustrate both the problem that requires fixing and the inadequacy of the government's response. In November last year, we debated the findings in the case against soldier F from Bloody Sunday. He was found not guilty after the longest and most detailed inquiry in British legal history, judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown Court that even after such an investigation, the evidence fell well short of the standard required.

He said a 53 year old statement cannot be cross-examined. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman a moment, but I will finish my sentence, he said. Because I was in the middle of. I was in the middle of speaking. He said. 53 year old statement cannot be cross-examined, nor can I assess the demeanour of a sheet of A4 paper. It is becoming vanishingly difficult to get convictions. The. Give way to the hon. Gentleman.
19:37
Alex Burghart Portrait Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)
-
-
For the Member for giving way. We are so grateful that he actually mentioned a victim in his speech with three minutes in, not one minute, and he talked about soldier F, who murdered lots of people on Bloody Sunday along with his colleagues, unarmed people, unarmed people proven by a British Prime Minister, appointed a court of tribunal and understood and recognised and supported by a Tory Prime Minister. Well, he mentioned some of the victims of soldier F or some of the other victims that we should be talking about tonight, instead of people who were willingly, openly going into streets and shooting people down who didn't have a gun in their hand.

That's what happened.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So the hon. Gentleman, if he had waited a moment, would have heard me talk about the victims, the victims, the victims who suffered victims, the victims who suffered so much are being promised the given the promise of convictions that will never come, they will never come. That even when we have the most detailed inquiry in the most detailed inquiry in British legal history, no conviction comes. And yet this House is now expected to believe that this legislation before us is that this legislation before us is going to open the road to all of these convictions.

It won't happen. It is a promise that will not be fulfilled. But that does not mean that soldiers who did their duty did nothing, but their duty will not be pulled through the courts

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time and time again. In February last year. The whole point. Of this House. In February last

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of this House. In February last year, this House debated the terrible ruling in the case of Kano terrible ruling in the case of Kano from 1992. On that occasion, for men known as terrorists, known as a known terrorist. Madam Deputy known terrorist. Madam Deputy Speaker, armed with semi-automatic weapons and a Dushka machine gun, attacked an RUC police station and attacked an RUC police station and then moved on to commit further crimes. They called themselves an army. They carried weapons of war they sought to kill, and they operated entirely outside of the bounds of the law.

And yet we were asked to believe that the use of lethal force against them was not justified. These men will now be subject to unjust and unfair scrutiny of the decisions that they had to make in exceptionally difficult circumstances. Decades ago. The case of soldier B, a former SAS officer, has been raised repeatedly in this House. In 2024, a coroner ruled that he had been justified in using lethal force in coke in 1991. Then, in 2025, the case was taken to the High Court in Belfast, where it was thrown out by a judge who described it as ludicrous and said it should never have come to court.

Despite this, in April this year, the case went to the Court of Appeal, where it was again thrown out, and then last month an attempt was mounted to take it to the Supreme Court. And that attempt is ongoing. Soldier B soldier B has been dragged through the courts for five and a half years. When the legal system in this country admits that the case against him is ludicrous, this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happy to give way. I would just gently point out to him that that's under his legislation. All of that is under

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislation. All of that is under his legislation, yes. Under yours. And I am giving him an example of the things that will not be stopped by his that this will continue. And this bill, the bill that is before us, does not solve this problem. No, the the solve this problem. No, the the honourable the hon. Lady says, our problem, our problem, our legislation drew a line in the sand that meant things like that would never happen again. That course, that that that case had already started.

And if the hon. Lady was familiar with the Legacy Act, she would know where the line in the sand was drawn. I'll give way to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the hon. Gentleman. That's just what thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want clarification on whether the want clarification on whether the problem that you state is access to the Supreme Court. The problem that they.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The problem that he states we cannot have you creeping into this Alex Burghart. Not even.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not even. I wasn't patronising the right hon. Lady. Can I remind members that debate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I remind members that debate in this chamber occurs through the chair? I will not have unseemly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

yelling at each other across those despatch boxes. Alex Burghart apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was pointing out Deputy Speaker, I was pointing out to the hon. Lady of the gentleman in question exactly the sort of problems that the Legacy Act was designed to solve. There was designed to solve. There was obviously a cut off point, which meant that it did. There was obviously, as I'm sure right honourable, I'm sure the honourable, honourable, I'm sure the honourable, I'm sure that the hon. Members know the Legacy Act had a cut off point and that cases that had already and that cases that had already started were not caught by that.

But I am giving an example of similar cases that are now going to come, now going to come because of their legislation, as Philip Barton KC has written in The spectator this week, the government's attempts to solve this and the government's proposed protections are wholly inadequate to the task. They fail on their own test because the Bill and the government's amendments, I quote, will permit repeat investigations. As Philip Barton KC says in, in in where the the right hon.

Gentleman Secretary of State earlier raised the case of the word essential, and he he talked about new evidence, as Philip Barton has pointed out, any lawyer worth their salt can find new evidence. This is an extremely low bar. It might sound like a high bar, but it is an extremely low bar. All the while this has been going on this year, and the more that we have been dealing with this legislation, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, set up by the Legacy Act has been doing its work, and a few weeks ago, the I published its first report, which laid out the details of Mr.

Kelly's murder by the IRA in 1977. This was an information recovery exercise that concluded that no perpetrators were ever likely to be identified, but it still provided still provided answers to questions that have haunted Mr. Kelly's family for half a century. His daughter described in extremely moving terms how the report moved the family into a space of serenity and light, all anger taken away. But now, just as the ICR has started working as intended, the government is to reprogramme it into what two generals today have described as essentially a criminal investigations body charged with collecting evidence to a criminal standard, despite the fact that we know that the chance of prosecutions is incredibly unlikely, those who work in the ICR are desperately concerned that this will lead to a massive increase in their workload, with no increase in funding, and that this will inevitably mean long delays and distraction away from the core information recovery exercise, which was intended to be their central function.

The government benches may not want to take the case that I am making against this bill from me, I understand that, but they should take it from the retired generals and soldiers who have repeatedly spoken out and happy to give way to the hon. Lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank I, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving the giving way. The. He's talking a lot about veterans and and the roles of those veterans. My concern is, veterans. My concern is, particularly in the rest of my constituents, the constituents are actually those who never who served actually those who never who served but never got to be veterans because they did not survive the because they did not survive the service in Northern Ireland. What those those families want is the truth.

And they want a truth that is that is Undebatable. Would he not recognise that? Actually, we should be talking about the victims and the the victims and those who the survivors, rather than trying to make this a false absolutely a false dichotomy of, of, of, of where there is greater levels of like, there were more than one victim.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You know, the, the hon. Lady speaks powerfully on this point. She's absolutely right that many victims were veterans were people victims were veterans were people who served. And but as you know, I was saying about the way in which was saying about the way in which it works and is now being seen to work. It can be used by families, work. It can be used by families, by victims families, regardless of, you know, who they were when they were killed, can be used in order were killed, can be used in order to assist in that information recovery process.

And one of the advantages of is that it is a non-adversarial system that has enabled, already started to enable families to find out things they didn't know before. She is absolutely right. That process is very valuable, and it's why it was put in the Legacy Act by the last government. The. I hope that those opposite and anybody in the House who is thinking of supporting the continuation of this legislation will listen to. There are two retired generals who wrote today saying that the government should stop pretending that its amendments offer veterans meaningful protections.

The consequence of continuing down this route will be that some men, like soldier B, not soldier B himself, but men like soldier B into the future who served decades ago, will spend years in the jaws of vexatious litigation that victims will not receive the justice that they are being promised by this legislation and that many, many more people, many, many more veterans, will continue to live with that nagging sense that those using lawfare may come for them, and they are already being punished by the idea of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislation. The failings of this bill give way to the honourable. The hon. Member for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member for giving way. But would he agree that his party's Legacy Act actually gave no Legacy Act actually gave no protection whatsoever to veterans families because it was found to be unlawful, and let

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unlawful, and let those families down. Appeal it, and he will know that her government, when it came in, her government, when it came in, did not appeal the case against that and did not appeal the case against that. And in any and and in any case, if the. Whom we have a human rights framework which is wholly inadequate to dealing with cases that were decades ago, wholly inadequate, and it is clear that the current government would rather protect that framework than protect people from that period.

The failings of this bill, should it be passed, will be quickly seen and long felt. The House has the power to stop it tonight. If we do not, and the government persists, the next conservative administration will repeal it and once again draw a line under the troubles.
19:48
Tonia Antoniazzi Portrait Tonia Antoniazzi MP (Gower, Labour)
-
-
Well done Alex. >> Chair of the Select Committee, Tonia Antoniazzi. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And as chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, I've met many people Committee, I've met many people whose lives were forever shaped by the troubles and who, decades later, continue to search for the truth about what happened to their loved ones. And as the Secretary of State has mentioned today, I hosted the victims from and family families from Wave in Parliament, and they also had the opportunity to meet with the Prime Minister, which I was really pleased about.

And I'd like to just pay tribute to Jennifer, who was 12 when the IRA took over their family home and her father, Patsy, was abducted, then killed, and Pat Molloy, whose son John was 18 when he was killed on his way home, and Mo Norton, whose brother Terence, who was was serving at the time, was killed in the M62 bus bomb in 1974. And finally, Laura Burns, whose dad Robert was killed in their home. It's always emotional, Madam Deputy Speaker, listening to all victims.

So I would personally like to thank them for speaking to us today and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say thank you to them, because they are now in the gallery. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And but, Madam Deputy Speaker, as we debate, as we debate this bill today and consider the next bill today and consider the next steps in this process, we must keep those people at the forefront of our minds. My committee completed a our minds. My committee completed a year long inquiry into the legacy of the past at the end of last year. of the past at the end of last year. No, it was a serious and comprehensive piece of work, engaging extensively with all communities and revealing a strong cross-party consensus on a number of key issues and areas where the bill can be improved.

And our hope. Madam Deputy Speaker, is that the detailed evidence and recommendations contained in our report will help shape debate in this House and beyond. And so I would encourage all colleagues to review our report as we move through considerations of this bill. My committee heard powerful testimony from victims, survivors and families who continue to live with the consequences of the past. Many are still struggling to obtain answers, accountability and a measure of closure. We cannot build a more reconciled future without addressing the past.

And it is for that reason that we must ensure this bill is carried over so that Parliament has the time to give these issues the careful consideration that they deserve. There is still much that we need to do to improve this bill. That is clear to ensure that victims and survivors remain at its heart and to address the concerns raised during our inquiry. But time and again, Madam Deputy Speaker, witnesses pointed out to the importance of resources. Whatever structures Parliament creates, they will only succeed if they are properly funded.

Without adequate resources, expectations will be raised that cannot be met. We also heard concerns about whether victims and survivors voices will be fully reflected in the new arrangements. This process should never, Madam Deputy Speaker, be framed as a choice between different groups. The focus must remain on those who continue to carry the burden of loss and trauma. More broadly, questions remain about how the new system will work in practice. Who can access investigations, how information will be disclosed and whether confidence can be built in the process.

These issues go to the heart of public trust and in conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, while views differ on many aspects of legacy, one message came through clearly. People want a process that is properly resourced, commands public confidence and places victims and their families at its centre, at the centre. But the challenge now for the Secretary of State and the NIO is to deliver it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We owe it to those still carrying the legacy of the past to get this right. Thank you. Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Paul Kohler. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As has been said many times before and ignored just as often by my conservative colleagues, the Tories conservative colleagues, the Tories Legacy Act actually failed our veterans, drawing an unacceptable equivalence between the actions of those seeking to uphold and defend
19:52
Paul Kohler Portrait Mr Paul Kohler MP (Wimbledon, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
those seeking to uphold and defend peace and the rule of law, and the terrorists who sought to undermine it by maiming, murdering and doing all they could to encourage sectarian division and hatred. Now, of course, the Conservatives are trying to argue they are defending the interests of our brave veterans, but in reality, they are cynically using them to score political points. That's why so many veteran organisations will have nothing to do with their grandstanding. The Legacy Act failed to uphold our obligations under the.

At the time it was just collateral damage, but now it's become central to their ill conceived plan to leave the EC and thereby fatally undermine the Good Friday Agreement and the Brexit deal of which they are so unjustly proud. It also failed the communities of Northern Ireland. No political party from the unionist, nationalists or non-aligned tradition support the Conservatives flawed legislation which fundamentally failed to gain the support of those it was supposed to protect. Most devastatingly failed innocent victims and their families.

By barring the pathway to justice, truth and reconciliation. As we've seen throughout these debates, the Tories are still in denial of the Legacy Act's failings, just as they're in denial of their many other failings in government from Brexit, Brexit to their financial mismanagement. I'm sorry to say it's what we've come to expect from a once great party. Shameless. You

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should be ashamed. Face the Labour Party's willingness to deal with these feelings. Order! Mr. Carroll, please. Could you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Carroll, please. Could you focus your comments on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill? And not a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

dissertation of history? Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Labour Party's willingness to deal with these failings is therefore with these failings is therefore most welcome. At which point, may I. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, give my brief thanks to the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds South, who is the architect of the original bill for the courtesy and time he gave me when I first became my party's spokesperson for Northern Ireland, an approach which I'm pleased to acknowledge has also been followed normally by the Shadow Secretary and the new Secretary of State.

Now, although 156 government amendments landed with a thud in my inbox yesterday morning, we are not meant to be discussing those today under the mysterious procedure of this place, we are simply revisiting the carry over motion we passed before the end of the last parliamentary session. I'm sure there are good historic reasons for such repetition, but trust the Member for Christchurch and his fellow trailblazers. The modernisation committee will give due consideration to reforming many of our time wasting practices. The bill we are considering with the pill we are consequently considering today the same one we consider the last time we debated it, and that's my party will again be voting against the motion.

I've worked closely with veteran organisations like the British Legion, the SAS Regimental Association throughout my time as spokesperson on Northern Ireland, the anxiety regarding future threats of lawfare with veterans being dragged through repeated investigations has been at the heart of every conversation I have had. Against this background, clear and robust safeguards must be established. The original safeguards within the bill were vague and did not go far enough to ensure the process does not become the punishment. And I commend both the current Secretary of State and his predecessor for engaging with me on these issues, as they both promised.

The Secretary of State has now published the aforementioned draft of 156 amendments. However, there's now just a week before the Committee stage. This raises serious concerns about scrutiny, as we and the various veterans organisations wade through pages of bizarrely numbered and then renumbered government amendments. The devil, after all, is in the detail. Only today I had to ask the Secretary of State to point me in the direction of one of the most important amendments he did. Although I've now discovered a table, then I o helpfully produced, detailing the key ones.

That is indeed very useful. But what we and the veterans groups need is time to work through the implications of each amendment and talk to our veterans. That is simply not possible when you have only been given a week to do so. As the Secretary of State knows, I also have concerns. The scrutiny is being undertaken by Committee of the whole House. What this legislation requires is detailed line by line examination of each clause, but what we will have is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

two days of the usual pantomime in this chamber. Which I think it's a really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which I think it's a really important point to explain why we do a lot of Northern Ireland legislation, not in a committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislation, not in a committee upstairs. It's so that a lot of the members can actually take part in these debates. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I thank the Secretary Secretary's intervention, but I was coming to that. I'm told he's just told me again, the reason we have a Committee of the whole House is because of the need to include our colleagues representing Northern Ireland. However, I do not see why the absolutely legitimate point could not have been addressed by the three major parties giving up some of their places to MPs representing Northern Ireland constituencies. A solution I suggested and was ignored by the Secretary of State.

This legislation will have profound consequences for victims and veterans, ensuring we get it right as essential to maintain the confidence of communities across Northern Ireland. Alongside that of current and former members of the armed forces, our amendments propose clear statutory safeguards to prevent repeat investigations, and, it says materially new evidence so certified as necessary and proportionate, establish a presumption of remote participation that veterans are not compelled to relive traumatic experiences in person. Strictly essential, they also provide for anonymity, proper welfare support and regulated contact through official channels.

They additionally seek to ensure veterans views are properly represented to a guaranteed place on the Victim Survivors group and to establish an independent reviewer reporting annually to Parliament, ensuring protections are consequently consequently consistently applied, properly scrutinised and upheld in practice. The government's amendments do indeed seek to address many of these points, but we need to work through the detail of the drafting before we can say whether they achieve what is needed. For example, the clause requiring compelling new evidence to exist or be reasonably expected to exist before a witness can be contacted is already giving us cause for concern.

As the director of Investigations will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the sole judge of his own decision. Madam Speaker, I'm grateful to the hon. Gentleman who I enjoy the hon. Gentleman who I enjoy working with on the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee. I've also enjoyed listening to his many amendments and talking us many amendments and talking us through them. Does he not realise, though, that we won't be able to consider or vote on those amendments if he doesn't back this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments if he doesn't back this bill this evening or this motion this evening? The point is, the point is, I would say to the hon. Gentleman is would say to the hon. Gentleman is we only have a week to consider 156 amendments. That's not. And then we only have two days to discuss them. We need line by line scrutiny. This legislation does not exist in a vacuum. The House is aware of how tensions have increased in the wake of the decision to both allow the Drumcree march and then ban it.

Against that backdrop, it is even more important this legislation provides genuine routes to reconciliation to ensure future generations growing up in Northern Ireland no longer have to experience the divisions of the past. On that point, I am still disappointed by the lack of weight given to restorative justice in the Bill. This process cannot only be about legal mechanisms. The conceive of justice through an all too narrow lawyer's lens. That is why we have proposed a statutory duty to promote reconciliation alongside a framework for restorative justice.

This would offer victims and survivors where they choose to participate, the opportunity for truth telling and acknowledgement outside purely adversarial processes. For many, the primary question is not about punishment, it's about understanding. The recent report from the death of Rory O'Kelly, who was murdered by an IRA gunman, shows how important answers, not retribution, is key. His daughter, Frances, issued a powerful statement describing the catharsis and closure within the report brought to her and her brother Roger, who died shortly before its publication.

The work undertaken ensured that Roger did not die without knowing what had happened to his father. Yes, this is a form of restorative justice, but our amendments would allow more intensive forms of arginine.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would reserve his arguments about his reserve his arguments about his amendments for when this comes back in committee, and we could focus

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in committee, and we could focus this evening on the carryover extension. Paul Kohler Madam Deputy Speaker

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paul Kohler Madam Deputy Speaker would point out, with respect, the Secretary of State has told us much about his amendments during this about his amendments during this debate. I remain to be convinced this bill, even after the 156 order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Gentleman will confine his comments to the carryover his comments to the carryover extension, and he may gesture all he likes at the Secretary of State. Can I remind him I'm in the chair now?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now? Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I remain to be convinced this bill, I remain to be convinced this bill, even after 156 amendments, can deliver on its essential function. And I'm concerned that we cannot properly scrutinise the proposed wording to see if it will. For these reasons, we will continue to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

oppose this motion. Laura Anderson. Hear, hear. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm voting in favour of this carry over motion because we need to debate this and we need to have debate this and we need to have this bill. We need to have this for the future of peace in Northern Ireland. Not only are the victims Ireland. Not only are the victims of the terror attacks looking at this bill for us now, and many are with us here today, but also the with us here today, but also the eyes of the world are upon us.

This is an international issue. We cannot break. We have shown the way
20:02
Fleur Anderson Portrait Fleur Anderson MP (Putney, Labour)
-
-
in bringing peace here to Northern Ireland with the peace agreement, with the Good Friday Agreement, which is our. Is the Labour Party's which is our. Is the Labour Party's one of the proudest legacies that we have. And with the tireless work we have. And with the tireless work by community activists, by the members opposite in the different parties from Northern Ireland parties from Northern Ireland representing a future full of peace. But to do that, we need to understand the past. Madam Deputy Speaker And there are over a thousand families who have not got the answers about what happened to their loved ones.

That is a pain that's almost too hard to tell for those families. They don't know what happened in the last minutes of their loved ones lives. They don't know who committed those atrocities. They don't know where they are in many circumstances. And at that, pain is being passed on through themselves to future generations who they understandably are really worried about. Today, I also met with members of the Wave community in Belfast. Sandra Peake and Wave do an amazing job of addressing the trauma, the trauma that's continuing, and they do enable us as politicians to hear from some of the families and they were hard to hear.

But I want to share some of those words because that is why I support this carry over motion. It's on their behalf. It's important to get legacy right now, or it will keep affecting our children and future generations, is what one victim said. We it's important to have this motion debated and the right product set up so that we can move on. One person said my mum has been fighting for decades and she's now passed it on to me, but she should have the answers before it's too late.

Someone else said I really would like the truth. Who was responsible? People need the truth. People have been researching what happened, in some cases for 20 years or more for decades, and they know some of the names. They've been able to piece some of it together. There's always the concern that there might be an investigative journalist knocking on the door with some of the answers, but with no actual investigation to back it up with to say what really happened. One person said yes.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the very powerful message that the member has given. Does she have a concern, then, that moving have a concern, then, that moving away from I, CRIR and the work that has already been done, moving into a commission that that trust, a commission that that trust, that's that search for truth will actually be lost in some families, some veterans, some victims may

**** Possible New Speaker ****

some veterans, some victims may actually be put off the process because they see yet another body. Anderson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Anderson. Thank you. And I really welcome that question because I think this this act will enable us to build on the work of the ICRR and prove itself as as the investigations go forward. And if this bill doesn't isn't agreed to, these won't go forward at the pace that they need to then then that justice is stopped. But I think it will prove itself and that more families will come to the Commission in its new form, in a new, improved form.

And then more more families will have answers. Otherwise, if we don't have if we don't approve this carry over bill, that we don't approve the bill, that's going to be behind it, and we won't see that improvement for the for the Commission, they won't be able to continue doing the work. To many of the court cases, the the injunction have been stopped because of the Legacy Act. Too much justice has been stopped, and we now need this to go ahead at pace. And so that's why I'm supporting this motion tonight.

The conservative bill, the legacy bill, led to too much, as I've said, being stopped, too much being halted. More than 1000 police investigations, including investigations into deaths of over 200 members of our armed forces, civilians were stopped. It failed to win the confidence of families and victims. It shut down civil claims, it halted inquests. And so now we need that to this good work of peace and reconciliation to go ahead. At the same time, the government has rightly recognised, and I pay tribute to the former Secretary of State and the current Secretary of State for their work in delivering this, because this Bill rightly recognises the need to protect veterans.

The overwhelming majority of those who served during Operation Banner and several of my constituents have come to talk to me about what they did. They did that with courage, professionalism and distinction in extraordinarily difficult circumstances, and the bill's protections against unnecessary repeat investigations, recognition of operational realities and safeguards for witnesses will help to ensure that those who that there will be fairness for those who served our country honourably. More than a quarter of a century after the Good Friday Agreement, Northern Ireland has made extraordinary progress, as I have seen for myself.

But far too many families. The shadow of the troubles remains. We cannot change what happened or undo the enormous suffering that was inflicted, but we can ensure that families have the best possible chance of discovering the truth. That chance will only continue to wither away if there's more delays in this, because it will be harder to get the evidence, harder to talk to witnesses, and harder to get to the truth. So this government has chosen not to look away. Madam Deputy Speaker, it has chosen to act.

I therefore welcome this carry over motion and the bill that will follow and the commitment it represents to victims, to survivors, to families, to the whole of the Northern Irish community, that there can be justice.
20:08
Gavin Robinson Portrait Rt Hon Gavin Robinson MP (Belfast East, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
Thank you. pleasure to follow the former Minister and enjoyed working with her in that role. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is incumbent upon me to Speaker, it is incumbent upon me to make two initial points. The first is that we only have 30 minutes left in this 90 minute debate, and this is the first substantive Northern Ireland contribution. And because of that, I will keep my remarks as brief and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

uncharacteristically brief as I can. You're not on the clock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You're not on the clock. Can I also uncharacteristically welcome the tone of the Secretary welcome the tone of the Secretary of State in how he introduced this carry over motion? He. It should be no surprise to him that I lament no surprise to him that I lament that we are here debating this. I lament the fact that a government lament the fact that a government who came in with such a majority on a promise of repeal and replace is doing neither.

I resent the fact that it took 18 months for us to receive the bill a year ago. And our advice, my advice and the advice of my colleagues six, eight months ago was, if you're going to so substantively amend the government's own legislation, it would be better to withdraw it and reintroduce it with a level of coherency and consistency so people can look at it and understand its implications properly. What we have now is about one week, and I said this morning, and I'll say again, I think it is deeply unfortunate for victims, for innocent victims and for veterans to have but a week to consider and to comprehend the import of the amendments, scores of them, 60 additional pages in this book, and to understand the impact that will have on their quest and their rightful quest for truth and for justice.

The Secretary state will know if he's educated himself on these issues in the the history of him that we didn't support conditional immunity. We don't support those measures, and we are pleased to see some of the issues that the Secretary of State has opened today and released to the media and to parliamentarians yesterday. I lament that during the Legacy Act process that the former Secretary of State, now Brandon Lewis, did take on board a lot of the amendments that were tabled by myself and my colleagues, but couldn't do it in this House of Commons, in this representative House of Commons had to leave it to the House of Lords.

And here we have again, series of amendment after amendment after amendment where the government, thankfully, finally have listened to some of the amendments that I have tabled. My parliamentary colleagues from the Democratic Unionist Party have tabled and those behind me in the Ulster Unionist Party, Traditional Unionist, Voice, Independent and Alliance have done that but have tabled their own. Now, I don't understand, I don't understand why the Labour government resisted for so long, committing to legislate, to root out equivalence between those who upheld the law in Northern Ireland and those who sought to destroy law and order in Northern Ireland between veterans and paramilitaries.

I am glad that that is going to be put beyond doubt, because it was a statement of fact before and it should not surely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be grateful to my right to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Secretary of State has tried to achieve the same degree of achieve the same degree of assiduity and dexterity. A silk purse out of a sales ear. We've ended with something sudden, and it ended with something sudden, and it may not be a purse at all, but what's certain is we need more time to consider that it would be to consider that it would be preposterous to have such a short time to consider those amendments time to consider those amendments offered.

I, I, I suggest a goodwill, but goodwill needs to prevail, and we need much, much more time to consider this than the very short time that's been allocated next week.
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page