Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 29th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) on bringing this important and overdue consideration of CIL to Westminster Hall.

We have heard some powerful contributions, and it is clear that there is a widespread and serious problem. Families are facing bills of £40,000 to £70,000—in some cases over £200,000—for what often amounts to a missing form. That is an awful and unacceptable situation, and it can be life-ruining for those involved. The lack of appeal, the mounting interest and the threat of people losing their homes are all real injustices. The system is broken and needs to be changed.

The Liberal Democrats agree with much of the substance of what has been said, but I must be direct with the right hon. Gentleman: Waverley borough council’s CIL charging schedule, which sets all the rules for the charging of CIL, all the forms and all the processes were put in place by the Conservative council administration a few years ago. The Liberal Democrat authority is doing its best to manage the system that was put in place by its predecessors. His party had ample time in government to fix the issue and, as we have heard, did not do so.

On the question of the discretion available to councils, the position is fairly clear. In December 2025, the High Court handed down a judgment in Luck v. Bracknell Forest borough council, and was unequivocal that once a valid CIL charge has fallen due, councils cannot lawfully cancel it. Councils find themselves with no alternative. Depending on what lies behind the original mistake or inaccurate charge, councils simply cannot wipe away the charge, as the Court has determined.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

The CIL rules manage to be too inflexible and too vague at the same time. My constituent Ruth has had to pay a £38,000 CIL charge because unfortunately her husband did not submit the correct forms, as a result of what turned out to be Alzheimer’s. As my hon. Friend said, any potential refund would be technically against the law, and the Government say they cannot intervene in the case because the correct rules have been followed. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while waiting for further legislation, the Minister needs as a matter of urgency to issue new national CIL guidelines and give councils clarity, consistency and the ability to correct injustices where appropriate?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He makes the excellent suggestion that not only should we have guidance, but the regulations themselves need to be changed, in many of the ways that other hon. Members have already mentioned.

[Richard Foord]

Does my hon. Friend recall that our hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) tabled a new clause on CIL guidance for the debate on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, but unfortunately the Government did not accept it? Does my hon. Friend agree that we ought to look at other legislative opportunities to correct the wrongs?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Government should do that. There have been opportunities to do something about this; there are opportunities to change the law. He seems to have read the later part of my speech, and is quite right to mention our hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), who not only made that point in respect of that Bill but brought it to the attention of the Select Committee last year. Liberal Democrats in Parliament have been trying to get resolution and a change in the rules.

In Waverley, the council has gone further than the law requires. It has set up a discretionary review process, opening a few weeks from now in June, for householders who believe they have been wrongly charged. That is the right thing to do, acting within the limits of what the law allows it to do. But the council can only act up to and within the bounds of the law, which is rigid.

[Gregory Stafford]

Before the hon. Member moves on, I should correct what he said: CIL was introduced in Waverley in 2019, and the Liberal Democrats took over the council one month later. The idea that the Conservatives brought it in is utter nonsense. The Liberal Democrats have now had seven years to try to fix it, and they have not. I ask the hon. Member to use his influence on his fellow Liberal Democrats to encourage them to operate a system far more like those in other parts of the country that we heard about from my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), which operate with more flexibility.

[Gideon Amos]

The amount of flexibility that can be exercised depends on the nature of the error in the process that is being discussed, so not every council can operate the same redress in the same situation. The hon. Gentleman confirms that it was a Conservative administration that drew up the CIL charging schedule, the forms and all the processes that underlie and guide—in fact, not just guide but narrowly dictate—how the council exercises control over CIL. Where the hon. Gentleman is right is that the rules need to change. The best way to change them would be to change the regulations in this place.

That brings me to the Minister and the Government. The Minister has said, including when my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury raised the issue, that CIL was never intended to be applied in this way, and I believe he is right. He has named the Liberal Democrat authority in West Berkshire as a good example of exercising discretion where the law allows that to be done, but naming good examples is not enough, and we need to do more.

We need three things from the Government on this issue, and we need them in this Parliament. We need a statutory definition of what constitutes a minor administrative error, so that homeowners are not penalised by tens of thousands of pounds for a missed form. We need a statutory right of appeal against CIL charges, with clear limits for resolution, and a clear lawful basis on which councils can waive or refund charges in cases of genuine homeowner error. Currently, that option can be exercised only in certain cases, depending on the nature of the error involved. I am grateful that the Minister has indicated in previous discussions that the Government will act, but we need to see action.

While on the subject of CIL, we should be honest about the wider problem. All the Members who have spoken—I think they have all been hon. Gentlemen—were right that it is necessary to fund infrastructure, so the rationale behind CIL is worth while. As the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) pointed out, the CIL funds do need to be spent on delivering infrastructure.

The levy is a flat rate per square metre and bears no relation to the level of the uplift in land value before and after planning permission is granted. I confess that back in the 2000s when the measure was being put forward, I was part of a lively debate with bodies such as the British Property Federation, arguing that the levy should relate to the level of land value uplift. In some parts of the country, where we have clear viability challenges, there is very little land value uplift. The same level is charged as on a site with a massive land level uplift, where there is no viability problem. The state is missing out on land value uplift in places and the CIL is affecting viability in other places. We would suggest that the Government move towards a levy that relates to the land value increase that the landowner is gaining. That is necessary to fund schools, surgeries, GPs, roads, and all the rest of it.

The Minister is reportedly looking at the levy again; I urge him to be ambitious and make the changes we are arguing for. Patching the exemption rules is necessary, but it is not sufficient. The injustice that constituents are facing is real—we agree on that—but the schedule put in place by previous parties is what has guided Waverley’s actions. The council is doing what it lawfully can to address the issue, but the Government need to do the rest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeremy Hunt]

That is quite an unusual thing to be told by the Chair, Mr Turner. I thank you for chairing this important debate and I thank all hon. Members present for some excellent contributions. I particularly want to thank my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for his tenacious campaigning on this issue on behalf of my former constituents in Farnham and Haslemere. He made an excellent contribution. I also want to thank the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who typically gave a very thoughtful and clear exposition of the issues we face. I also thank hon. Members from other parties who have spoken and intervened.

Before I come on to the Minister’s comments, I want to comment on what was said by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), because it was directly about my own local authority. He was right to say that a council cannot lawfully cancel a charge after it has become liable, but that does beg the question why there have been countless injustices in some councils, but not in others, and that is because there has been an element of choice in the way local authorities have decided to go about things.

To make the point that I am not being party political here, Lib Dem West Berkshire has chosen to be reasonable, do the right thing and make sure there is justice for people unfairly caught in the CIL trap, but Lib Dem Waverley has not. It has been in power for seven years and Waverley residents, a number of whom are watching this debate, have suffered badly.

[Gideon Amos]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that residents need redress. I will simply place on the record again that the nature of the errors or mistakes in charging can be different from one authority to another, which was very much the case with West Berkshire, where the nature of the charges being made wrongly was a different procedural error and therefore a different remedy could be applied. I hope that, in the spirit of being non-tribal with which he began this debate, he will accept that that is actually a fact.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt]

I absolutely accept that. Again, in that spirit of being non-tribal, the hon. Gentleman will know the number of times that his party and other parties have talked about the 14 years in which we had opportunities to fix things that we did not fix, so he will appreciate that the Liberal Democrats in Waverley have had seven years to fix the issue and have failed to do so. That is why so many people from Waverley are looking at this debate carefully. But he is correct to say that all councils have to operate within the law.

I want to move on to the Minister’s comments. First, I thank him for the interest that he has shown right from the start. I want to put on the record that the number of people affected is relatively small in the grander scheme of things, and it would have been easy for the Minister to decide there were other priorities. It is about 100 families—maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less—so the Minister could easily have decided to focus on other areas, but he has not. He has spent an enormous amount of time trying to address this. That is the right and proper thing for a Minister in a democracy to do; if there is an injustice that even affects one person, it is incredibly important that Ministers take note, and he has really done that.

The Minister also clarified the problems with the 2014 exemptions introduced by the coalition Government, which were designed to ensure that householders were not caught up in these regulations, but did so through such a bureaucratic and cumbersome process that many inadvertently have been. The issue of particular complexity relates to householders’ immediate liability from the moment that building starts, which seems entirely reasonable for a professional developer, but entirely unreasonable for a homeowner who may not be aware of that element of the law.

It is extremely welcome that the Government are going to consult on the CIL regulations. As a former Government Minister, I feel a tremendous amount of frustration and pain at the need for endless consultations. They can be of value, but they also slow things down. I recognise that the Minister wants to do this fast—I did groan when he said, “as soon as possible,” but then when he said, “before the summer break,” I took some encouragement. I think this is something that is moving forward.

In the options that the Minister consults on—he cannot respond to this, but it is something to take away—could we find a way of removing homeowners from CIL liability altogether? That way we move away from a system that is purely based on the square meterage of a development, to one based on the type of person doing the development. Could we change the regulations so that homeowners can at least always apply for an exemption retrospectively if an error has been made? Not being able to do so offends natural justice, and was an unintended consequence of the complexity of the original regulations.

I am grateful to the Minister for confronting head-on the fact that for many people, this is about getting justice for something that has happened, not ensuring that injustice does not continue to happen. He has been very open with me about the legal complexities involved, and I know from my time as Health Secretary how difficult it is to reopen retrospective cases. The Minister’s Department has enormous influence over local authorities, however, not least through setting their grants, so if the Department chose, it could find a way to put councils under pressure, where there are outstanding CIL cases and injustice, so that those cases get solved.

I recognise that what I ask is not easy, but it is absolutely the case that local councils are extremely dependent on the Minister’s Department for large chunks of their financing. I ask him to consider what levers he has at his disposal to make this happen, while at the same time thanking him for his ongoing interest and determination to address the issue. The final thing I will say is that I know someone in the Public Gallery got up at 4 am to attend this debate. I thank that person and all the CIL Injustice Group for their tenacious campaigning to try to right a truly awful wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Given the massive immigration tribunal backlog left by the previous Government, would it not make more sense to lift the cap on non-salaried tribunal judges who are already recruited, and invest in court venues such as Taunton, instead of abolishing their role and doing massive damage to morale?

[Sarah Sackman]

Plainly, we have to address the backlogs in our immigration and asylum chamber. It is why we are maximising capacity in terms of sitting days and traditional recruitment. I had the pleasure of visiting the immigration and asylum chamber on Rosebury Avenue recently, and I saw the commendable work being done by the resident judge. We are focusing on a new appeals body, working with the Home Office. We think that is the better plan, and we will make sure it is properly resourced.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on defending trial by jury, which is a long-standing right that people have enjoyed—albeit only in certain circumstances—and we should think very seriously before taking it away. One hundred senior barristers and KCs have written to the Secretary of State to say that taking away this right for those cases would be an “irremediable error”, and many others have criticised the move.

When I visited the magistrates court in my constituency, magistrates told me of their challenges in recruiting, which must place serious doubts on the assumptions that have been made about the time savings that would result from this Bill. I also have serious concerns about the removal of the right to appeal those cases in the Crown court.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Criminal Bar Association says it is “fundamentally opposed” to restricting jury trials, with around 90% of criminal barristers being against these proposals. This was not in Labour’s manifesto, and there has been an admission that the plans are ideological rather than practical. Does the hon. Member agree that weakening trial by jury will not solve the crisis in our courts and risks undermining a safeguard that has protected our justice system for over 800 years?

[Gideon Amos]

I do. The hon. Member is right: the problem with these reforms is that they are not going to speed up the criminal justice system or solve the backlog issues. We have rehearsed all the challenges that the system faces—we know what they are, and they need to be addressed, but abolishing trial by jury for those affected will not do that.

Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may, I would like to spend a few minutes on a missed opportunity in this Bill: dealing with the state of our immigration and asylum system, which we all know the Conservatives left in an appalling state. The asylum backlog more than doubled in just two years, from 70,000 to 166,000 people waiting in 2022. Instead of processing those claims, the Conservatives opened over 400 asylum hotels. As the Government began clearing up the—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might like to stay within the scope of this Bill rather than discussing asylum hotels.

[Gideon Amos]

The point I wish to make, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that this Bill should address the challenge faced by the immigration system. Alongside the Bill, the Government have a parallel proposal to abolish the current system and to replace immigration tribunals with a new appeals system. I believe that that should be debated in the House and that it is relevant to this Bill, but I will move quickly through my points about this issue so as not to irritate you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This Bill offers an important opportunity to address the immigration system. I am concerned that the creation of a new body and the abolition of the appeals tribunal is not the right approach, and that it will devalue the tribunal judges who are ready and available to sit and hear more cases. I genuinely welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of an extra 26,000 sitting days for that chamber, but extra days will not be useful if there are not enough judges to sit for them. In the words of a judge who wrote to me,

“there are not enough judges and if the Home Office does not do the work quicker at their end, which is where the delay is, it makes no difference.”

There are enough immigration and asylum tribunal judges, but we need them to be allowed to sit for more than 220 capped days to deal with the backlog. I tabled a written question on this point. Those judges are prevented from being paid more than salaried judges, and therefore there is an effective cap on their sitting. Those are the kinds of issues that we need to deal with, as well as dealing with the backlog in the criminal courts and allowing our courts to be used for two sittings each day—am and pm—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester explained. Those are the kinds of measures that would speed up the criminal justice system, not the abolition of trial by jury for those cases that would be affected.

Some hon. Members have made the point that trial by jury is not necessarily a constitutional right in all cases, and we understand that. However, denigrating trial by jury as unimportant or a minor right does not help the argument of those who are seeking to abolish it for certain cases. Looking back, it has been called in case law a

“highly valued part of our unwritten constitution.”

Going back to the 18th century, Lord Justice Camden said that it was

“the foundation of our free constitution”.

In the 20th century, Lord Justice Devlin said that

“it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives”.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I fully agree that jury trials are a hugely important part of our justice system, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the way that summary offences, either-way offences and indictable-only offences are classified has altered over the years? That classification was changed in the 1970s and in the 1980s, and it is incorrect to try to portray our legal system as one that is unchanged in 800 years.

[Gideon Amos]

Of course I accept that the legal system has evolved and changed, and that the right to trial by jury has changed, but my concern is that in serious cases, where someone could be imprisoned for up to two years and their reputation destroyed, people would want to be tried by jury. Our legal system currently protects that right, but that would be swept away by this Bill.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

We already have judges who make decisions on cases where children are taken away from parents, so does the hon. Gentleman not consider those to be serious cases? Some 90% of cases are dealt with by magistrates, so does he say that justice is not achieved in those cases?

[Gideon Amos]

Of course magistrates do a vital job, but when I visited magistrates in my constituency, they explained that they seriously doubt that it will be possible to recruit sufficient people to meet Ministry of Justice estimates about cost saving and time saving.

To conclude, for me cases that will result in imprisonment of up to three years—or up to two years if they come before a magistrate—are serious enough to warrant the right of defendants to request a trial by jury. Those are the protections currently in place in law. We should hold on to those protections and defend them as a guarantee of our liberty in this House and in the country.

Jury Trials

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

I will give way once, but I am aware of time.

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman is an expert in this area, but if every lever needs to be pulled, should not the cap on sitting days be removed? That would make a far bigger difference to the process of clearing the backlog than removing jury trials.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am coming on to that. The number of sitting days has already increased substantially in comparison with what the last Government did, and I think that it should increase further, but I also think that when Sir Brian says “every lever”, that is exactly what he means.

The likely date for all the documents that I have mentioned to surface will be some time in the spring, ahead of the end of the current parliamentary Session, with the Bill carried over into the next Session and becoming law later this year.

On 14 October 2025, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) led a debate in Westminster Hall on

“the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1”.

I commend to Members the report of that debate, which was well informed and measured on all sides. I do not think that today’s debate will take the matter further in the absence of the documents that I have described, but here we are. In the meantime, there have been some loud protests about certain of Sir Brian’s proposals from parts of the legal profession and from some Members of this House. They include replacing the right to a rehearing of a case decided in the magistrates court with a limited right of appeal, and extending trial by judge and magistrates to more serious offences than is currently the practice of district judges in the magistrates and youth courts by creating a Crown court bench division.

The Government have said that they wish to go beyond Sir Brian’s proposal for a judge to sit with two magistrates in some cases currently tried by judge and jury, and allow a single judge to decide guilt or innocence in cases likely to attract a sentence of up to three years’ custody. They also go further than Sir Brian in proposing to extend magistrates’ sentencing powers to 18 or possibly 24 months, and removing entirely the defendant’s right to elect. Where the Government seek to go further than the independent review, they should set out clearly their reasons for so doing.

The most controversial proposal is to curtail the right to trial by jury in between a quarter and a half of cases where it is currently available, while retaining it for more serious offences. My own view is that trial by jury is not an absolute or immutable right. The availability of jury trial has varied and generally become more constricted over the ages, in criminal and civil cases—those involving defamation and inquests—through the reclassifying of offences from either way to summary only.

I am pro-jury. I think that a lay element in the criminal justice process is reassuring, introducing a more democratic element into a profession regarded by some as elitist and homogeneous. I think that the involvement of citizens in the criminal justice system, whether jurors or magistrates, is good not only for the individuals and the legal system but for society generally. However, where we draw the line between jury trial and other modes of trial is a matter of degree and judgment, not of legal or moral principle. I think that there is nothing wrong with reviewing the appropriate forum for trial, as has been done many times, whether in its own right or because it is a piece of the jigsaw that will create a better system overall. I would like to see more evidence to support the contention in Sir Brian’s review that significant time will be saved and a significant increase in the number of cases heard will result. I would like to hear that there is more money for sitting days, for trial counsel and for functioning courts; that courts are run more efficiently; that listing is as good at every Crown court as it is at the best; and that Serco and Amey deliver prisoners to court in good time to start the day’s proceedings, not halfway through the afternoon.

We are not going to get the answers to all these questions today, although I hope that we will before long. I prefer the Government amendment, which anticipates the provision of this information, to the Opposition motion, which prejudges what it will contain, and I acknowledge that the Government have already increased the budget and have already introduced greater-efficiency measures.

The Justice Committee is seized of this issue. We heard evidence from Sir Brian Leveson in November and interrogated the Lord Chancellor in December, and next week we will hear from opponents and supporters of the proposed reforms and from the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, who opened this debate. We may have some criticism of the Bill or of the Government’s response to the review and seek to amend, but, like the Government and, I think, Members in all parts of the House, we hear every week of fresh indignities heaped on victims of crime, and on defendants too, who are made to wait for years beyond what is humane, often in a physical or mental prison, for a resolution of their cases. Not to consider them is not to be serious either about the damage that delay is doing to individuals or about the damage that it is doing to confidence in our courts.

This is not a one-way valve; there are gains and losses, whatever course we take. For the present, I am prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt that they are looking for every possible measure to repair our battered justice system. I certainly prefer their honest endeavour to the gamesmanship of the Conservative party, which broke the system and now seeks to use its dilapidated condition as a political tool.

Sentencing Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

We need more prisons and prison places, but I find the Conservative case absolutely incoherent. They talk about being tough on crime, but they closed police stations, closed courts, cut the number of police officers and completely failed to deliver the number of prison places that they speak about—talking tough without delivering the goods. Frankly, that does not work and the country has had enough of it. We need to move on.

I recognise, however, that courts need to make greater use of community sentences. Courts need to be agile, and they need tools that deal harshly with persistent offending. Community sentences can do that. Defaulting to prison every time, almost fetishising prison, cares nothing about the victims of petty criminals who are sent to prison for short stays, where they learn more about crime than they had ever learnt in their whole lives, and then come out and reoffend. We heard no concern from Conservative Members about the victims of reoffending. Why not? It is not convenient for their argument that prison is always the answer. Community sentences, demonstrating that people are paying back to their community and society, can be a tough sentence and the right sentence.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that requiring an offender to look at the root causes of their offending is far from the easy option? Facing up to those life difficulties is very hard, but it is a really effective way of stopping the cycle of offending.

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Lady makes a compelling point about the depths to which that kind of sentencing can go. The lack of concern from Conservative Members about reoffending after short-term prison stays is surprising, to say the least.

Coming down hard on crime means we need to bring back proper community policing, quicker justice that halves the time between the offence and the sentence, and better and tougher supervision of community sentences, as set out in our Lib Dem manifesto. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) referred to our position on the Bill, which I wholeheartedly support, and he does a tremendous job.

In my Taunton and Wellington constituency, I am working with local businesses and the police to try to stamp out shops that are trading illegally. Time and again, police and trading standards raid premises and find counterfeit cigarettes or unlicensed alcohol, with evidence of sales to under-age youngsters. However, I have spoken to the police about this, and they find that the only person they can put before the courts is the individual behind the counter—a fall guy for the shadowy layers of owners who lie behind the business. Conniving and cowardly fraudsters are basically employing and putting behind the counter vulnerable people who often have little grasp of the law and the regulations that apply.

All criminal behaviour deserves to be punished, but sentencing the fall guy for up to 10 years in prison, as provided for in the Trade Marks Act 1994, does not effectively deal with the menace of dangerous goods being sold to our children. The convicted man or woman often deserves less blame than their employers, while those employers—the shadowy bosses—simply open a new business under a new name in the same shop and carry on trading illegally, with a different fall guy behind the counter.

Back in 2008, research in the British Medical Journal found that

“Smuggled tobacco kills four times more people than all illicit drugs combined”.

In 2018, the Mesothelioma Center reported on a study of counterfeit cigarettes imported into Australia from China which showed alarming results:

“Each cigarette is packed with up to 80 percent more nicotine and emits 130 percent more carbon monoxide. Worse still, many contain other impurities such as rat poison, traces of lead, dead flies, human and animal feces and asbestos.”

It is a menace that we have to deal with.

Why should those who are trading honestly—like my constituents who run shops, pubs and businesses, sustaining town centres and communities across Taunton and Wellington—and paying their taxes be forced to compete with criminal enterprises, for which it takes months and months to obtain a closure order under the current legal process? Is it not time to change the law to “one strike and you’re out” when it comes to shops trading in illegal substances? Why must it take months for such orders to be granted? Why can we not empower the police officers in my constituency, who are as frustrated as I am, to close down premises overnight? I hope that the Secretary of State will meet me to discuss that aspect of the legislation—I will explain that to him afterwards, if I have the chance, because I am not quite sure that he caught it. Being tough on this kind of crime should mean being swift with the punishment. That would put a stop to the behaviour immediately, and rightly send a shiver down the spine of any shop owner contemplating illegal sales.

In conclusion, although better supervision is needed, tough new community sentences including tagging are welcome to deter repeat offending. That will not increase the reoffending in the way that prison often does. There is, though, a wider lesson: sentencing reform alone is not enough when the real culprits are able to hide in the shadows. We need to strengthen the powers of the police and councils not only to prosecute the individuals at the counter, but to close down the premises that police know are repeatedly flouting the law. If we do not, we risk punishing the least powerful while allowing the real fraudsters to keep raking in their gains, to keep harming our children, and to keep evading their taxes.

Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right to make that point about digitisation and efficiency. Following the first phase of the spending review, I have funded ongoing work to improve digitisation of all our court processes, because, as my hon. Friend has said, we need to move away from our current paper-based and paper-heavy systems. Part 2 of Sir Brian Leveson’s work, which will produce a report in the autumn, will involve looking at cross-system efficiency as well. My hon. Friend is right about the need to increase productivity and efficiency, because that will be the final part of the puzzle if we are to sort out the backlog.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I welcome the announcement of the extra sitting days, and also the announcements about reform. I hope that the ancient right to trial by jury will remain.

Somerset Crown court in Taunton was closed in 2023, after work began in 2022 because items were falling on people’s heads from the ceiling. We have just been told that it will be closed for another year, during which victims of crime will have to travel tens of miles further. Some court users are even sleeping under a bush because they cannot travel back and forth. We need to get our Crown court open again, so will the Lord Chancellor please consider expediting these works?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman has a meeting with the courts Minister, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), to discuss the situation in Taunton.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to describe the situation as Conservative court chaos. Indeed, the full picture of the last Government’s terrible inheritance will become clear when we publish Crown court data later this week. Demand on the criminal courts is increasing at a faster rate than the actions we are able to take, and we must therefore go further. This Government understand the scale of the problem and are ready to confront it with the fundamental reforms that will be necessary.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

The Minister referred to court chaos. A tribunal judge and a court worker from my Taunton and Wellington constituency wrote to me. The tribunal judge said:

“tribunals are being cancelled every day as they say there are not enough judges to cover the cases. This is absolutely not the case,”

and

“People are waiting months for their benefit appeals in appalling poverty and again we cannot deal with the cases because of this limit”

on sitting days. What will the Minister do to increase sitting days in Taunton and Somerset courts?

[Sarah Sackman]

We are investing in increased court capacity and in the recruitment of 1,000 judges and tribunal members. As the Lord Chancellor said, we have increased the number of Crown court sitting days by 500, but it is not simply enough to increase court sitting days. We have to look at fundamental reform to address the serious backlogs we have inherited from the Conservative Government.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I thank everyone who has spoken so far. This has been a very respectful debate, and I do not think any of us here have not shed tears at the messages that our constituents have sent us this week. I have received so many profoundly moving letters, postcards, emails and other messages sent to my office, and numerous people have told me about their personal experiences of loved ones facing really hard choices at the end of their lives. It is very moving. This is a big decision for us.

Well-informed public opinion shows that a very large majority of people want the option to choose assisted dying in the circumstances envisaged by the Bill, and this level of public support reflects the fact that the law, as it stands, too often forces people to endure horrific deaths. I have heard so many stories from constituents of the trauma and pain that they have witnessed in loved ones. Too many people are affected by the current law in truly painful ways, and too many of those who are able to do so now seek unregulated, distressing and unsafe alternatives, because there are no legal options. Those who wish to end their lives at the point when their suffering from a terminal illness becomes unbearable may act too soon. They may take their own lives, and do so before they reach a point at which they require assistance—in secret, leaving a legacy of shock and confusion, instead of peacefully planning an ending to their final few months. Some of the testimony that I have seen from family members and partners who face the consequences of these secret decisions are truly heartbreaking, because the current law also makes it a prosecutable offence for anyone to advise or assist someone in this horrible situation in any way, thus putting at risk anyone who even knows.

Several people have also raised concerns about coercion with me, and I have listened very hard. I aim to cast a vote today that will protect people better. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) made, very well, the point that the Bill will be a clear improvement on the current law in respect of safeguards against potential coercion for terminally ill people, and we should all listen to that argument.

Like the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), I do have one constructive point to make. I think we should be discussing it during the Bill’s ensuing stages, which I hope we will vote for. It concerns the time limit. Other jurisdictions already allow for different time limits, or no time limits for terminally ill people, or a separate time limit for a number of well-known, specific neurological diseases, in which the period of terrible suffering can be much longer than six months.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Siân Berry]

I am sorry, but I have no time.

Like many other Members, my colleagues and I have heard many concerns expressed about the availability of palliative care. I hope that we are seeing the start of a much more open conversation about the practical problems that people face at the end of their lives—something we are generally not comfortable with talking about in this country—and about the provision that we do not currently make for people in anything like an adequate way. We must do better and, like other countries, make sure that we see improvements in palliative care at the same time as making this change. While we do not have to choose between the Bill and better palliative care, we do have to give dying people the right to choose which ending is right for them, so please, please, vote for the Bill today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

I am honoured to rise to lend my support to the Bill, and I am proud to support my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) as one of the Bill’s co-sponsors.

Data shows that in my city of Liverpool 74% of people are in favour of assisted dying. I have been privileged to correspond with and meet so many of my constituents who have shared with me their views and personal stories, spanning both sides of this important debate, and I thank them all. As we have heard today, there are strongly held beliefs on both sides of the House. I absolutely respect those with views that differ from my own, and hope that they respect my views, even if we disagree.

Since long before I entered this place, I have been an advocate of assisted dying, with the appropriate safeguards, to alleviate unnecessary suffering. My own mum cared for my dad during his cruel battle with cancer. Sadly, not even the best palliative care could provide him with a good death—and I do believe that there is such a thing as a good death. At its core, the Bill is sensible, safe and compassionate. But above all else it places human dignity at its heart.

In respect of palliative care, the Bill is not an either/or. Along with many other campaigners for assisted dying, I fully support improving palliative care. It has been proven that end of life care has improved in several countries because of assisted dying reform. I hope that, if the Bill passes, the UK will also belong on that list. Palliative experts, including those opposed to law change, admit that some people’s suffering is beyond the reach of even the best palliative care.

I do not believe that if the Bill finally becomes law, it will create a slippery slope. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) eloquently said, terminally ill adults in Oregon have had a legal option for assisted dying for more than 25 years, and not once has it been expanded to include other groups.

[Gideon Amos]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Paula Barker]

No. I am sorry, but I will not.

Every year, around 650 terminally ill people take their own lives, and countless others who are more affluent make the choice of the long, arduous journey to Switzerland, all without any protections in place. I do not want choice to be available only to those who can afford to pay. That is not just or equitable.

Finally, just like with many other private Members’ Bills that have gone before and looked to bring about social reform—such as those on abortion, divorce and the decriminalisation of homosexuality—this is an historic moment and an opportunity, if taken, to give real dignity to those who have reached the end of life and want a choice, while also respecting the views of those who do not want to take that choice.