What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
When the Iranians risked the lives of armed forces personnel by attacking RAF Akrotiri earlier this year, Labour Members took great pleasure in mocking the Leader of Opposition for suggesting that a direct attack required a direct response. Does this latest episode not prove that when we do not respond with force, our enemies are encouraged to come at us yet again?
It is a pleasure to take part in the further consideration of the Courts and Tribunals Bill as we reach Report stage. Not for the first time with this ministerial team, this Justice Secretary and this Prime Minister, what we were told was necessary has turned out to be unnecessary, what we were told was impossible is now possible, and what we were told was unavoidable was avoidable after all. This Minister told us again and again on Second Reading and throughout the Committee that each and every one of the measures in this Bill—each and every part of their proposals—was the only way to get on top of the court backlogs. But apparently not, because only days ago the Justice Secretary appeared on national television to announce a significant U-turn: the Government are dropping clause 3. We were told that their new division of judge-only trials was the only way the Crown court backlog could be brought down—that it could not be brought down without it. Yet now Ministers inform us that removing this very provision will actually allow the work to proceed faster. The Opposition welcome this decision. I welcome the fact that the Justice Secretary put his name to our amendment removing clause 3, but how we got here matters. It is not the first time that this ministerial team and this Justice Secretary have let their Back Benchers defend the indefensible and then drop them in it. This same ministerial team and this same Justice Secretary told us that the release of various serious sexual and violent offenders was an absolute necessity, that they had no choice other than to put victims through the distress and upset over the summer. And then they did have a choice. Why does this matter? Most of the time in politics in this place we are debating choices—which choice we should make as MPs and 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 by saying that they have no choice. When MPs resist and tell them their concerns over what the Government are proposing, Ministers have a fundamental duty to this House and to their own Back-Bench colleagues in particular. That duty is to test to destruction the proposition that there is no choice. Only the Ministers have the army of civil servants, the data, the costings and the honest advice. When a Minister tells their own MPs that they have no choice, surely it must mean exactly that. That is how they secure the support of their Back-Bench colleagues. 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 3 was never truly required to tackle court delays, we must ask: what other assertions made by this Front-Bench team are equally unfounded? How can they expect their propositions of “no choice” to be accepted in future, and not just in future but on this very Bill before us today? We must also be clear that, despite the headlines surrounding this partial retreat, the core damaging framework of the Bill remains almost entirely intact. The Government continue to press ahead with clause 1, which completely strips adult defendants charged with triable either way offences of their historic right to elect for a jury trial. At the same time, clause 6 doubles magistrates’ maximum sentencing powers up to 24 months. That means complex, high-stake cases—including sexual assault, actual bodily harm and burglary—will be retained in summary courts, exposing defendants to two-year prison sentences without ever having access to a jury. Clause 7 and schedule 2 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 restrictive 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. The 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 remains as firm today as it was on Second Reading.
What we are talking about is where we draw the ledger. I do not think the hon. Member is suggesting that we should have everything done by magistrates. Why not have everything done by magistrates? If it is fundamentally unfair to allow people to have a jury trial, why not let everything be done by magistrates? Then the victims do not have a say on whether it is a jury trial. The point we are clear about is that this is an unprecedented erosion of that right. It was not in the Government’s manifesto, it was until recently largely opposed by very large numbers of their own MPs, and it is based on a premise of necessity that I am afraid is paper thin. Ministers turned around and said that these were things that they had to do to get the backlog down. It turns out that they did not have to do that.
I listened closely to the words that the hon. Member used: she talked about “perpetrators”. We heard the word again and again from Labour Members in Committee. May I remind her that defendants are not guilty until found guilty, and that this erosion of rights affects innocent people, too? Labour Members repeatedly forget that. Being accused does not make you a perpetrator. I ask the hon. Member to think about that carefully.
The hon. Gentleman is right. As I pointed out at the start, and as Labour Members have highlighted, it is not just people concerned about defendants who have raised concerns about the proposals; victims have as well. Victims groups wrote an extensive letter to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, asking them to think twice about the erosion of jury trials. Any criticism that Members make of me will, I am afraid, also have to be levelled at the victims who do not agree with them. Victims are not all of one voice on this issue, and we should respect that, instead of assuming that every victim agrees with Labour Members, which they do not. The erosions under the proposals are significant. This Government, in which trust is so low, also seek for themselves an extraordinary power to do what they set out to do in clause 3 through the back door, via clause 4, in which they are not only 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. That is quite extraordinary from a Government who, when in opposition, concerned themselves greatly with the proper use of delegated legislation. The Opposition remain as concerned as everybody else about the Crown court backlog. We know that victims and innocent defendants are suffering as a result of it, but so much of the Bill will not help, and may make matters worse. That is the reality. I notice that the Minister was happy to repeatedly say in Committee that opposing the measures does not suggest not having concern for victims; I hope that she sticks to that line during the rest of the debate, and I would encourage all of her colleagues to listen to the words that she said. Being concerned about the erosion of jury trial rights does not in any way mean that we do not care about victims, and I hope that 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 Magna Carta. They should read for themselves the words illuminated on the wall: at its heart, the highest and best form of justice is justice delivered by your peers. That brings me to the position of Labour Members. Prior to this partial U-turn, dozens of Labour Back Benchers, 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 “will cause more problems than it solves”. Labour Members 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 expect those same Members to walk through the Lobby in support of it. I ask those Members: what has actually changed? Clause 1 still abolishes the right of an ordinary citizen to elect for jury trial. Clause 6 still pushes serious cases into summary courts, where backlogs are already surging, and clause 7 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. In Committee, Opposition Members and Labour Back Benchers 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 a Crown court benefits from higher legal aid eligibility thresholds—but the Government rejected those amendments. Everything we sought to do to protect natural justice and lessen the impact of the Bill was blocked.
The hon. Lady asked what we did to preserve the right to trial by jury. We brought the backlog in the Crown court down from the level we inherited from the previous Labour Government. Prior to the pandemic, our record on the Crown court backlog was better than the previous Labour Government’s, which is something that Labour Members all conveniently seem to forget.
My right hon. Friend is right on both points. As he was speaking, the Justice Secretary said from a sedentary position that he removed that clause. Perhaps he does not understand his own Bill. You are retaining judge-only trials for complex and lengthy cases, and retaining the power to use delegated legislation to allow judges alone to sit on those cases. Exactly the sort of scenario that my right hon. Friend was describing would be produced. Magistrates have a degree of confidence and community support that is in proportion to the use of their powers. If we significantly increase the use of their powers, the pressure on magistrates, and scrutiny of them, is also likely to increase. Picking up on that point, I want to make sure—
Lucky you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take that point. The schedule 1 powers that I have talked about are a significant Henry VIII 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 1 by secondary legislation. I am not aware of any time before in this place when the Secretary of State could use secondary legislation to erode and remove the right to a jury trial from a particular defendant. That is completely unprecedented and indefensible. The Conservatives do not merely criticise this bad package of legislation; we have repeatedly sought to put forward practical, evidence-based alternatives that tackle the 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, the Minister should be focused instead on failures in prisoner transport, which result in hundreds of trials being derailed, simply because defendants are late to the dock. The Government must keep all existing courtrooms open and fully funded, and must use new artificial intelligence tools for disclosure and listing, and they must expand live-link video participation. [Interruption.] Ministers on the Front Bench chunter that they are already doing that. If that is the case, why is the Crown court backlog going up? They are clearly not succeeding with the measures that they are bringing forward, and a number of things are getting worse. We must improve case management and incentivise earlier case resolution, instead of forcing complex cases into the overburdened summary courts, where there are backlogs too. Extraordinarily, the Minister claimed that there was no backlog in the magistrates courts. I do not know how she decides what is or is not a backlog. Cases going up by 10% in one year is a backlog by any measure. I visited Liverpool Crown court, where the wait for trial is roughly half the length of 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, where active Crown Prosecution Service case ownership and early trial-readiness reviews have driven down backlogs. Our sunset clause draws attention to the true motivations of this Government. If the Government sincerely feel that these measures are a necessity to bring the backlog down, as they have argued repeatedly to their Back Benchers, our clause is quite clear that when the backlog is down to the pre-covid average for a period of four quarters, these damaging, rights-eroding measures should be withdrawn. I do not expect that the Government will support that proposal today, because fundamentally they do not have the same faith that we do in the importance and value of a jury trial. The Government’s partial U-turn demonstrates that sustained scrutiny can force a rethink, but a partial U-turn is not enough. The central flaws of the Bill 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 gains. I urge hon. Members across the House, and especially those who have previously spoken out against these measures, to stand by their previous words, to stand by their principles, and to reject these remaining clauses tonight.
As I said in my opening speech, a number of women’s victims rights groups were the leading critics of getting rid of jury trials. We cannot make out that victims have a singular view on this and that they are happy with it. There are different opinions among victims groups, and many of them agree with the hon. Gentleman.
As my hon. Friend points out, the impact assessment says that this particular measure, on its own, will not make any difference to the harm done to children, but we absolutely recognise that the checklist as a whole, and the way that it works, does need to be reformed. We think a more wholesale reform of the checklist is more appropriate than just attracting interest in one particular element of it.
The regime is using every opportunity to reach deep into our communities and society. Even charities in this country are at risk. The Charity Commission has embarked on an investigation into the extent to which the regime, particularly the IRGC, is percolating into the sector. What assessment has the Minister made of whether Iran has got itself involved in British charities? If he believes that it has, how will he expunge that particular malignancy?
When the triple lock was introduced by the coalition Government, many of us were surprised that the British basic state pension was bumping along the bottom of the European average. The aim was that it would improve over time, so that it would be at the top—as befits a country like the UK. Is it the Secretary of State’s judgment that by April 2030 we will have reached that point or not?
Is it any surprise that President Milei cited the United Nations convention on the law of the sea annex VII in defence of his claim in relation to the sea lion field, when this Government are using article 298 to defend their position in relation to the Chagos islands? On the subject of UNCLOS, will the Minister 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 shrift?
May I say how much I appreciated the joint letter that the Secretary of State and the Defence Secretary sent to colleagues, which I think has pacified a lot of our concerns? However, what he is describing is a wholesale filleting of the legislation. Will he comment on why the legislation was initially drafted in this way and apologise to those servicemen, many of whom are now in their 70s, who have been deeply troubled by the fear that they will be a victim of the 3 o’clock knock?
Producing our own oil and gas means that we will import less dirtier hydrocarbons, so it is common sense to use our own resources, but while Labour dithers on approving Rosebank and Jackdaw, thousands of my constituents in Aberdeen South are losing their jobs. Will the Minister set out a timetable for deciding whether Rosebank and Jackdaw can proceed?
This question has been asked already, but I am still unclear about the process of consenting new drilling at the Falklands. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government have a role in consenting new drilling in the Falklands—yes or no?
It is a real pleasure to lead this evening’s debate during Bone and Joint Week, raising awareness of an issue that affects millions of people, but receives nowhere near the attention it deserves. I start by thanking Arthritis UK and the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance, known as ARMA, for their work raising awareness of these conditions, for the information they have provided ahead of this debate and for the parliamentary event they put on today. Musculoskeletal conditions or MSK conditions affect our bones and joints and the muscles and tissues that hold them together. They include arthritis, osteoporosis, chronic back pain and joint injuries. For some, these conditions are manageable. For others, they are utterly debilitating, leaving people struggling to walk, to work or to carry out basic everyday tasks. More than 20 million people in the UK live with an MSK condition. Some 10 million have arthritis, including an estimated 15,000 people in my constituency. Such conditions are the single biggest cause of pain and disability in this country, accounting for around one in seven GP consultations, yet I fear that we underestimate their seriousness, perhaps because they are rarely immediately life-threatening. While they may not kill people, however, they can slowly rob them of their mobility, independence, ability to work and quality of life. I want to explain why this issue matters to me personally. Six years ago this month, my life changed significantly, although I did not know it at the time. It is something that I have avoided talking about publicly, and if I am honest, I have struggled to accept it. However, I believe we should draw on personal experience in this place, particularly when it might help improve our country. In October 2020, I was an extremely fit and physically robust former regular Royal Marine with multiple operational tours behind me. I was also competing at the highest level of wingsuit skydiving as a member of the Team GB squad. I can see Members thinking that those activities and MSK injuries are natural bedfellows, and they are probably right, but nothing prepared me for the debilitating consequences of what happened that October. On a grey and windy day in Devon, I decided to go parachuting, which was a near weekly occurrence. As a reservist member of the Royal Navy parachute display team, I needed to keep current for the following season. I had completed around 700 jumps, and I was not frightened—this was like any other day—but I had something far more dangerous: complacency. The winds were strong and the parachute centre had restricted jumping to experienced parachutists only. I was practising precision landings and convinced myself that it would be good training. I also chose to wear trainers, rather than my usual military boots that provided ankle support. The plane took off and we climbed to 15,000 feet. The green light came on and I jumped. Everything went to plan until the landing. Rather than landing in the middle of a muddy field away from obstacles, I decided to land closer to where I would be picked up. It was a lazy decision, and it was a stupid one. As I approached the ground, gusting winds caught my parachute, lifted me and slammed me into the side of an aircraft hangar. My left foot took the initial impact, before the rest of my body smashed into the building. My parachute went over the roof, leaving me dangling from the hangar. Fortunately, I remained conscious, managed to release my harness and fell the remaining 5 feet or so to the ground. I remember lying there in shock, checking everything was still attached. Then came the searing pain in my left ankle. My wife came and picked me up and drove me straight to accident and emergency. After examinations and scans, I was told that I had suffered a severe sprain. I was advised to get the ankle moving and seek physiotherapy, because timely NHS support was unlikely to be available. Having had little experience of the NHS, I trusted that advice. Over the following months I worked hard at rehabilitation. Gradually, I regained strength, but I remained in considerable pain. I took the classic Royal Marine approach: crack on and hope it gets better. Having served alongside men who lost limbs in Afghanistan, I considered myself lucky, and I certainly was not going to complain about a sore ankle, but six months later, something was clearly wrong. My physiotherapist recommended an MRI scan, which I paid for privately—again, I was advised that the NHS process would take too long—and, when the results came back, I had to catch my breath: my ankle had been broken the entire time. The fracture had been missed at A&E and I had spent six months rehabilitating an injury that had never been properly diagnosed. I was advised to see a private consultant—again, because of the time it would take to access specialist help through the NHS. This is where I was incredibly fortunate. By complete chance, the consultant whom I went to see happened to be ex-forces himself. Having discussed my injury and background, he suggested that I see him through his NHS practice, where he could continue to oversee my treatment, and I am enormously grateful to him for doing so. After months of uncertainty, pain and frustration, I finally felt that someone understood the problem and could help me to work out what came next. I want to make an important point here: my experience has left me deeply frustrated with parts of the NHS and particularly with the difficulties in accessing timely diagnosis and treatment, but it has also shown me that there are some outstanding people working within it who go above and beyond for their patients.
I will come on to the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but he is completely right. We must look at these problems in the round, because this is an issue of not just physical but mental health. People who were once fit lose that fitness, both physically and mentally, and then they become a bigger burden on the state. Let me return to the subject of the surgeon who helped me out. I have been fortunate to benefit from that care, but I recognise that I was lucky. At the time, I had the means to access private treatment, and through that process happened to find a consultant who could help me back into the NHS system. That should not be a matter of luck, and it certainly should not depend on someone’s ability to pay. Six years on, despite the excellent care that I now receive, I am left with osteoarthritis that can, at times, be severely debilitating. I can no longer run. I avoid activities that cause my arthritis to flare up, and I face the prospect of eventually having the bones in my ankle surgically fused. For the first few years I held on to the hope that I would recover and return to the active life that I once had, but I have now accepted that it is likely that I will not. That is difficult when physical fitness and independence have been such an important part of one’s life. At times, it has been an incredibly lonely journey. My current NHS consultant gives me hope that advances in medical technology may offer better options, but because I limp, other bones and joints are now beginning to suffer. I know that I am likely to place increasing demands on the NHS in the decades ahead. My experience has shown me a health service that can be brilliant at dealing with life-threatening emergencies, but pretty poor when it comes to conditions considered less serious, even when they fundamentally change someone’s life. I was fortunate enough to be able to afford private care, but millions of people cannot. They are left waiting, living with pain and sometimes watching manageable conditions develop into lifelong disabilities. That brings me to the wider purpose of this debate. People living with musculoskeletal conditions are about one and a half times more likely to experience mental health problems, and I understand why. When pain becomes part of everyday life and you can no longer do the things that you enjoy, it takes a toll. However, there is another dimension that we must urgently address in the House: the economic cost of doing nothing. In 2024 alone, 26.5 million working days were lost to musculoskeletal conditions. Arthritis UK estimates that working days lost to osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis cost £2.58 billion in 2017, with the figure projected to reach £3.43 billion by 2030. About 646,000 working-age people claiming sickness or disability benefits cite a musculoskeletal condition as their primary reason. I am not suggesting that they can all return to work, or that every disability is preventable, but I do believe that too many people deteriorate when early intervention might have kept them healthy, independent and economically active. Let us consider someone working in construction, hospitality or healthcare. They develop a back problem or knee injury but cannot access timely treatment, so they carry on through the pain. Eventually, they cannot carry on. They fall out of work, their health deteriorates and they become increasingly dependent on public services. The taxpayer potentially picks up the bill several times over through NHS treatment, welfare payments and lost tax revenue, and the individual pays an even greater price. We focus too much on the immediate cost of treatment, without considering the potentially much greater cost of failing to treat someone early. Surely that is economically illiterate. If timely physiotherapy, imaging or specialist intervention can prevent lifelong disability or someone losing their job, we should see it as an investment, not simply another NHS cost. However, it is not all doom and gloom, and there is reason for optimism. In my constituency, the Royal Devon University healthcare NHS foundation trust held its first MSK community appointment day in Exmouth. More than 100 people attended, accessing clinical assessments, rehabilitation advice and community support together. Patients particularly valued being listened to, and early results suggested fewer unnecessary follow-ups. One pilot does not provide all the answers, but it does show what can happen when services are organised differently and patients receive joined-up support. That brings me to my questions for the Minister. First, where is the national leadership on MSK health? The previous Government recognised MSK as one of six major conditions in their major conditions strategy, yet we have not received a firm commitment that the current Government will develop a dedicated modern service framework. Will the Minister commit to establishing such a framework, with clear accountability and measurable outcomes? Will the Minister also commit to a national approach, with clear responsibility and measurable outcomes, and meet the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance to discuss it? I thank the shadow Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), for tabling an amendment to the recent Health Bill that calls for just such a framework. Secondly, what more can be done to improve early diagnosis and timely access to rehabilitation to prevent avoidable deterioration while patients wait? Thirdly, will the Government work across the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Treasury to properly assess the economic case for early intervention? Lastly, as a veteran, I want to raise veteran issues. MSK injuries are a major reason for medical discharge from the armed forces, and their consequences can follow people long after they leave service. Will the Minister work with Defence colleagues to improve access to rehabilitation for veterans, and examine whether the armed forces covenant properly addresses their long-term MSK needs? It cannot make sense for any one part of Government to save money by delaying treatment, only for another part to spend considerably more in dealing with the consequences. I will finish where I began. Six years ago, I was able to soldier. I could run for miles, jump out of aircraft and represent my country in sports. Today, I have to think about every physical activity and the associated cost in pain. I do not share that to seek sympathy; I share it because I understand how profoundly an MSK condition can alter someone’s life. Millions of people across this country are living with far worse circumstances than mine.
Can the Secretary of State assure me that those people who are off-grid—they are prevalent in my constituency—are at the heart of the Government’s thinking with regard to energy support? While I welcome regulation on heating oil, which has spiralled in price, it is not clear that regulation alone will bring down prices. Therefore, if the Chancellor is to give energy support, can off-grid be part of that?
With the Prime Minister sitting next to him, I hope that it will not influence the future of the Secretary of State when I tell the House that he and I are very long-standing friends and even occasional allies. He has obviously done all he can to mitigate what is a morally flawed Bill. A year after the Government introduced this Bill, the central question remains unanswered: how will it deliver justice without subjecting soldiers who served lawfully and honourably to endless punitive investigation? My judgment has not changed since October’s debate, nor April’s. The Bill was sold as a defence of human rights and the rule of law. I yield to no one in this House on human rights and defence of the rule of law, but this is not that. Instead, it is morally bankrupt and makes a mockery of both. If this Bill was really about human rights and justice, the first coroner’s inquest would not be about whether the killings at Loughgall were unlawful; it would instead be about one of the 1,800 murders carried out by the IRA, every single one of which was unlawful. The Government, unfortunately, have prioritised their relationship with Dublin over their duties to their own veteran soldiers. Ireland will undoubtedly come to regret its own role in this Bill. Scrutiny of its actions during the troubles will show that it was never the impartial party it tries to present itself as now, but instead a partisan and a criminal insurgency. The Irish Government provided active sanctuary for IRA terrorists, and justice cannot mean relentless scrutiny for British soldiers but selective scrutiny for the Irish Government. They must accept the scrutiny of themselves that they demand of others, and we might start with an independent review of their role in the Omagh bombing, which we have heard something of today. I am afraid that this is a nation much of whose politics is hostile to Britain—we should not avoid that fact. Britain must not sacrifice its soldiers for an illusory diplomatic advantage. This vexatious use of lawfare is designed with one intent: to re-present the behaviour of IRA killers—vicious, psychopathic murderers—as somehow liberators and heroes, by destroying the reputations of our own soldiers. The Government must not pursue this course. The Government must drop this evil Bill and start again.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the rush to fit my speech into three minutes, I omitted to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, some of which has direct relevance to Northern Ireland legislation. I do so now.
There is a great deal of concern in Staffordshire Moorlands about the Peak Cluster proposal, which would take carbon from four cement plants in the Peak district and pipe it into Morecambe bay. While I am not opposed to carbon capture, many residents are extraordinarily concerned about the impact this will have on them. Will the Secretary of State look carefully at this project and see whether there are alternatives, to ensure that we can keep our cement industry in the United Kingdom without perhaps destroying our environment in the Peak district?
I must take umbrage at the idea that the last Government were too slow to react. HMP Millsike, in my constituency, was given planning approval in September 2019, but it took six years to build, and according to the latest figures it still has 344 empty cells. Should the Minister not be moving heaven and earth to ensure that we fill every available cell, rather than releasing dangerous criminals back on to our streets?
I call the shadow Minister.
Order. That is the third time that I have heard the shadow Minister say “you”. It is not my legislation.
Order. Can I just emphasise to Members that votes will come at 6 o’clock, which leaves us very little time, and inevitably not all Members will get in? I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Order. We must refer to other Members by their constituencies. Oh, he is not a Member any more—apologies!
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Order. I will be introducing a five-minute time limit after the next speaker.
Order. I call Sir Andrew Mitchell.
Order.
Order. “The problem that he states”. We cannot have “yous” creeping into the debate. [Interruption.]
Order. May I remind Members that debate in this Chamber occurs through the Chair? I will not have Members yelling at each other in an unseemly way across those Dispatch Boxes.
I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Order. Mr Kohler, please could you focus your comments on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and not give a dissertation on history?
Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would reserve arguments about his amendments for Committee, so that we can focus on the carry-over extension.
The hon. Gentleman will confine his comments to the carry-over extension. He may gesture all he likes at the Secretary of State, but I remind him that I am in the Chair now.
I beg to move, That this House has considered the Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. The Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme—BREP—is a niche topic for Westminster Hall. I am here because Bromsgrove is suffering under the chaos of BREP and the mismanagement of its delivery. To provide some background, Bromsgrove is a busy commuter town in the West Midlands with two motorways, the M42 and the M5, running through it. That is crucial for context because, when the M5 is congested and snarled up, the A38 running through Bromsgrove—the route affected by BREP—becomes a pressure release valve. As a result, Bromsgrove suffers additional congestion once all that traffic is displaced from the motorway and running around the town. I would argue that the A38 running through Bromsgrove is a part of our key national infrastructure, given the role that it plays in alleviating pressure on the M5. Bromsgrove is currently seeing investment to the tune of tens of millions of pounds into BREP, but the reality is the delivery of acute disruption to the local economy, businesses, schools and residents. Any road project will inevitably bring some degree of disruption. The folk of Bromsgrove are reasonable and expect disruption when investment takes place, but the scale is beyond anything envisaged by those living and working in the town. Crucially, it is beyond anything that Worcestershire county council appears to acknowledge in its engagement with me or local residents. Accepting that work has to take place does not mean accepting endless delays, lack of accountability, poor communication and date slipping, which are characteristics of the BREP work. The impact is profound, including safety concerns. Losses for businesses are particularly profound. I routinely meet and speak with businesses that quote BREP and the compounded effect of roadworks in Bromsgrove as one reason why their businesses are suffering. I note that when the BBC, ITV or other media outlets speak to local businesses, the congestion caused by BREP and other roadworks is routinely quoted. The result is severe reputational impact for Bromsgrove, which should have a vibrant economy, given its location, relative affluence of the hinterland and the connectivity the town previously enjoyed.
I feel that the presence of the hon. Member vindicates this debate, not because of the worthiness of the point being discussed but because he is attending a debate about something happening in Bromsgrove. He is correct and I will touch on that point shortly. The impact of the BREP works in Bromsgrove is profound. There are safety concerns, the losses for businesses that I have already spoken about, endless delays for people on routine trips, and the reputational damage to the town that I mentioned. Let us think about it—who is going about their lives in any town? There are parents wanting to take their children to school, workers driving to work, businesses reliant on deliveries and on trade, carers, and other people going about their lives, such as those needing to get to appointments, GPs or hospitals. I read a statistic that the average UK driver spends 62 hours a year stuck in traffic. Well, I can guarantee anyone who wants to listen that the figure will be a hell of a lot higher in Bromsgrove because of the BREP roadworks.