5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

   I am really surprised that the hon. Gentleman is swallowing this guff about this being a borderline case. It was quite clear that security vetting put this case in the red box, which meant “fail”. Sir Olly is being lauded to the skies now because he is the victim of ruthless prime ministerial politics, but he also has an angle on this: he massaged, shall we say, his own judgment because he knew the pressure on him from the Government. There was nothing borderline about this; he is saying that it was borderline only because he needs an excuse for having overridden it when he should not have done.

   Hansard source
2. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

   Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

   This morning’s Foreign Affairs Committee session lasted for two-and-a-half hours. It was certainly one of the more remarkable sessions that I have attended, and I have been involved in a number of quite controversial Select Committee hearings over the years. It showed the Select Committee system at its best, and Members across the House worked together. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), a fellow member of the Committee who spoke earlier. I share his view that Sir Olly Robbins, who gave us evidence, put in an impressive performance. He is clearly angry at the way in which he is being treated; he has a distinguished career that has been brought to a premature end, and he is clearly very upset by that. In his evidence, he made some extraordinary revelations. He had given evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in November last year, when, as the Chair of the Committee suggested in her introduction, we may have heard the truth and nothing but the truth, but probably not the whole truth. This morning, we heard a lot more of the whole truth. What became absolutely clear, which had already been suggested in the previous hearing, was that No. 10 Downing Street was absolutely determined that Lord Mandelson should become the ambassador of his country to the United States. Sir Olly told us that his predecessor, Philip Barton, had strongly advised that that should not happen until after the developed vetting process had been completed. Despite that advice from the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, he was ignored—indeed, we are told that the Cabinet Office went on to suggest that developed vetting might not even be necessary. This was not just a routine appointment, and it was not routine for two reasons. First, it was the appointment of probably the most important ambassadorial post that this country has. Secondly, and very unusually, it was a direct ministerial appointment. Most of the time, ambassadorial appointments are made from within the civil service, and people have already had the vetting procedure. This was somebody being brought in from the outside who had not been vetted and already had a track record of having had to resign from Government twice.

   Hansard source
3. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

   Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

   I completely agree with the hon. Lady. It is somehow being suggested by Labour Members that this was about people advising the Prime Minister—I think one speaker earlier said that the Prime Minister had been persuaded to appoint Peter Mandelson. Well, I worked for a Prime Minister, and she coined a phrase: “Advisers advise; Ministers decide.” In this case, as the hon. Lady says, it was the decision of the Prime Minister. Sir Olly Robbins also pointed out that by the time he took up his position, he was essentially presented with a fait accompli. He set that out to us—he said that “I took over as PUS on 20 January”, and that due diligence had already been completed. We know that that process, which included an interview with Morgan McSweeney, had revealed the ongoing relationship between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, but that it was ignored. We were told that approval of the appointment had already been given by the King, it had been announced publicly to the press, and agrément had been given by the United States. Sir Olly Robbins made clear that agrément is not just a formality; it was a very significant development. Lord Mandelson had also been given access to the FCDO building and IT access, and finally, he was being granted access to highly classified briefings on a case-by-case basis. I asked Sir Olly Robbins whether, given that all that was already in place, it would damage our relationship with the United States of America if he were to have the appointment withdrawn. He replied very clearly, “Yes, it would.” As my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) set out, we already had a very good ambassador in Washington, but Downing Street had nevertheless said to the US Administration that it wanted Lord Mandelson to be appointed, and the White House had given its agreement through the agrément procedure. For Sir Olly Robbins to then withdraw the appointment would have caused real damage to our foreign policy. One can argue that if Sir Olly Robbins were told that the UKSV process had resulted in a clear recommendation of denial, he might—or perhaps even should—still have done so, but he also told us this morning that he was not told that. We were told that he did not see the UKSV report, and that he did not even know that the report has a red box saying “deny” with a tick in it. He said that he had never seen those documents before, and that that would be normal, because access is very restricted for the reasons that the hon. Member for Halesowen set out. All that Sir Olly Robbins was told was that there had been a leaning towards refusal, and that it was a borderline case. Whether or not that was an accurate reflection of what the report actually said is another matter, and we can perhaps debate at what stage, or how far, the message from Downing Street—“We want this person to be appointed”—had been transmitted, to try to make that appointment as possible as it was. However, we are told that after Sir Olly Robbins had arrived as permanent secretary, he was subjected to regular calls from No. 10 saying, “Get it done.” He also told us that the message was not, “Get it done subject to security clearance,” which in his view, it should have been. The press release announcing the appointment of Lord Mandelson did not say “subject to security clearance”—that was never mentioned. This was announced as a decision that had already been taken. Why was the decision taken? That is a matter that is open to conjecture. There is a view among some Labour Members that it was somehow a reward for services given in getting the Prime Minister his job. The leader of the Liberal Democrats said that it might have been an attempt to cosy up to President Trump, although as my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington pointed out, our previous ambassador had done a really good job in representing this country to President Trump. We may never know, but what we do know is that the Prime Minister was absolutely determined that that appointment should be made. Even after the appointment was made, when all of these things began to be revealed—in particular, the ongoing relationship between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, which the Prime Minister said he was unaware of the closeness of and he was very angry when he was told about—inquiries had already been made. Journalists had been ringing up No. 10 and saying, “We have been told that Lord Mandelson failed his security vetting,” and No. 10 put out a denial. With journalists calling up and asking, “Is it true that he did not pass the UKSV assessment, and it recommended denial of security vetting?” one would expect that before saying, “No, that’s complete rubbish,” No. 10 might actually begin to ask questions. People in No. 10 might say to the Prime Minister, “You should be aware that we’ve had an inquiry about this.” Apparently none of that happened, or if it did, it was simply swept under the carpet. The end result of this process is that for more than a year we had someone representing this country at the most senior level in America, which is our closest ally, who the security agencies had concluded was a security risk. We do not know the full extent of the damage that may have been done during that time.

   Hansard source
4. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

   Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

   I am afraid that Madam Deputy Speaker is coughing at me, so I will not give way. I fear that there is still more to come. I hope that I can say on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee that we will continue to pursue this matter.

   Hansard source
5. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

   I will begin by recognising the work that has taken place in both Houses to try to improve this legislation, which is in many ways such a curate’s egg. It has faults and flaws that their lordships in the other place have worked towards improving, and I thank them for that work. The Conservatives have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that this is a centralising Bill. It takes decisions away from local communities and places them into the hands of Ministers, often without consent. We have already seen the consequences of this centralising of power and “Government know best” attitude. We have seen elections cancelled and then reinstated. We have seen the restructuring of local government imposed from the centre, driven by political considerations rather than the voice of the independent boundary commissions. Local leaders are being presented with plans and told to comply. It is called a devolution Bill, but it is not devolution. We welcome the improvements to this Bill put forward by the Lords. The question before the House, however, remains simple: does this Bill empower local areas, or does it continue a pattern of centralised control? I will go through the Lords amendments in turn. Lords amendment 36, which we support, would be an important and practical improvement to the Bill. It establishes the clear principle that brownfield land should be used first. That is just common sense. We want to get more houses built—of course we do—but we should start with land that has already been used rather than virgin land. The amendment protects communities while still enabling homes to be built with local approval and local consent.

   Hansard source
6. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

   My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: this fundamentally betrays a lack of ambition from the Government. The Minister for Housing and Planning will know Kidbrooke in south-east London, which is a fantastic example of redeveloping previously developed land. Poor-quality post-second world war tower blocks have been redeveloped, with increased beauty and increased density, which is good for the local economy and good for the local society. The Bill does nothing to encourage more developments like that; it encourages developers to build cheap and awful in green fields around urban areas, which is the opposite of what should happen.

   Hansard source
7. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

   No. Let us talk about local consent. Lords amendment 98 addresses one of the central concerns with the Bill and would ensure that changes to local governance cannot simply be imposed from the centre. That matters, because devolution must be with the consent of local people and not imposed from Whitehall. The Lords rightly scrutinises the role of mayoral commissioners, and Lords amendment 4 would strengthen transparency in their appointment. We have consistently argued that power must come with proper accountability. Following engagement with colleagues in the other place, the Government have published draft guidance on appointments and remuneration. That is welcome, but guidance is not the same as proper accountability, and there remains a real risk of expanding layers of expensive and unelected roles without sufficient scrutiny. We will continue to press for further and stronger safeguards. On governance in London, Lords amendment 13 would make a targeted change to how decisions are taken on council tax requirement. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), who is sadly no longer in his place, it would lower the threshold for the London Assembly to amend those decisions, strengthening its ability to hold the mayor to account. That would be a step towards greater democratic accountability in London, and we support it. While we support those improvements, concerns do remain. On Lords Amendment 42 and land disposal, we have been clear about the need for proper safeguards. We argued that any change in this area must be preceded by a full review. The Government promised a wider review of protections for public open spaces and that they would engage widely before recommending any changes. Yet those commitments have been watered down and suddenly, we discover that a proper consultation has become an internal review. That is why we have again tabled an amendment to require a proper review of open space availability before the powers are exercised.

   Hansard source
8. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

   I will, because I have a thing to say about the hon. Gentleman’s party.

   Hansard source
9. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

   I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment. Had his party in the other place voted to keep the protections in, we would not be having this discussion at this Dispatch Box now. His party failed to do its work in the other place. I will not stand here and be lectured by his party, which failed to do its job. The pattern is familiar. The Government centralise powers first and then consider accountability later. Some amendments before us represent sensible improvements and we will support them where they do. However, the underlying concern with the Bill remains. Devolution must trust local people in local areas. In so many ways, the Bill does not. Devolution only works when there is proper transparency in decision making and proper safeguards when powers are expanded. In many ways, this Bill does not have that. That is what we will continue to press for and that is why we will continue to hold this Labour Government to account. The Bill has serious consequences, it is still deficient, and we will support the Lords amendments that improve it.

   Hansard source
10. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Iran: Human Rights

    Lindsay and Craig Foreman are incarcerated in Iran in brutal circumstances, and are being tortured in many ways. They are not my constituents, but their family approached me. May I be clear to the Government, and have them be clear to us in their response? Are the Government saying publicly that they are not spies, but innocent tourists? Will they formally declare the detention to be arbitrary? What else can they do to try to draw attention to the plight of these two innocent tourists?

    Hansard source
11. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

    Did my right hon. Friend not find it astonishing that in the testimony today the ex-leader of the Foreign Office said that he was made to understand that before they had completed their clearances, Mandelson already had STRAP clearance, which gave him access to the most secure and most dangerous information held by Government?

    Hansard source
12. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

    Everybody has said pretty much everything, but I am going to say some of it again, as is my wont in this Chamber. First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who laid out a powerful case against the Government, particularly against the Prime Minister and his excuses in all this. I think that something very intriguing took place today. The person who has just been sacked was brought to the Foreign Affairs Committee to give testimony about what this was all about. What we learned was that the Government wanted so much for Peter Mandelson to take over the role of ambassador that they drove everything aside in pursuit of it—bullying civil servants, essentially sacking one of them because he did not give the answers it appears that they wanted, and excusing themselves on the basis that everybody else was wrong and they were right. Well they were not, and that has now come home to roost. The essential fact is that many of us knew about Mandelson’s activities. I have a whole dossier with me here about his links to China, with hundreds of names of people he had met and given details of all sorts of things to. We know now that he lobbied the Government, including over electric vehicles and the tariff. It is outrageous, really; he continued to put pressure on them, even when he was given the job. That is the nature of a man still repaying his links to China. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) about his links with Sistema in Russia. Even on that alone, there was copious evidence in the public domain about why Peter Mandelson should never have been allowed in any Government post whatsoever—that is before there was any attempt at inspection. There is no way on earth that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) can get up and talk about faults in the system and about not getting clarity—nonsense! Everybody who wanted to know, knew. In the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, we knew about it. We had all the details and they were published. There is no excuse for the Government to say, “We waited for the Foreign Office to deliver this great thing, and it did not tell us.” They knew. Secondly, the way the Government manipulated this is absolutely shocking. The outgoing Cabinet Secretary saw what was in the Cabinet Office’s review of the due diligence—by the way, that was to have a look and give recommendations to Government, which was not the same as what the Foreign Office was doing—and it showed just how tainted this corrupt and corrupting man was and what he had been up to. Having seen that, the outgoing Cabinet Secretary advised the Government—that was his job—that they should not go ahead to appoint Peter Mandelson but wait for the full review to take place, and, one way or the other, for him to be cleared or not cleared. But the Government did not do that. That is the other question: why, despite that sensible, reasonable advice did the Government go ahead and press on—and at such speed? They put His Majesty the King in the firing line. When they approved the appointment, it went to the King—because they had declared it—even though they had not had clearance, and the agrément was given by our US partners. What in heaven’s name could have happened later on? None of the stuff to do with Epstein had yet come into the middle of the argument. The Government wanted this man, who is utterly corrupt, as our ambassador. The other bit from today that I find astonishing is the admission by the ex-permanent secretary Olly Robbins that, despite the fact that Peter Mandelson had not been cleared, he was given STRAP clearance to see documents of such importance that they could have brought the Government and the country down. I will end on this, Madam Deputy Speaker—you have been most tolerant. I simply say this: the Prime Minister is in the firing line on this one, and for very good reasons. He is in charge, and he knew what was going on. The people he sacked are still in the firing line. They cannot weasel out of this. They committed an offence in the books of anybody in the Chamber. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will be in the firing line, because he has been put here literally to try to tell some story about how none of this is the Prime Minister’s fault. The Prime Minister has been economical with the actualité and terminologically inexact. All I can say is, no more terminological inexactitudes, please, when the right hon. Gentleman gets to the Dispatch Box.

    Hansard source
13. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

    In Olly Robbins’ letter to the Foreign Affairs Committee today, he countermands what the right hon. Gentleman has said from the Dispatch Box. He says: “I believe the Cabinet Office (CO) raised whether Developed Vetting (DV) was actually necessary. I understand the FCDO insisted that DV was a requirement before Mandelson took up his post in Washington.” After due diligence, the Cabinet Office was insisting that it was not necessary. Surely the right hon. Gentleman needs to retract his remarks.

    Hansard source
14. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

    I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whom I know as a friend across the House, as we have worked together positively on many things. I served on the Privileges Committee that studied the Boris case and reached a conclusion upon it. If the hon. Gentleman wants to help the Prime Minister, I would be rather wary, if I were him, about drawing parallels between Boris Johnson and the present Prime Minister.

    Hansard source
15. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Andrew Mitchell

    Topical Questions

    Following the Minister’s answer to Question 1 on illicit finances, we still do not have publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership in the overseas territories, nearly 10 years after this House passed the necessary legislation and made it clear that they must be set up. When will the Government put their foot down, say that there has been enough delay and obfuscation, and fully open up these registers to proper scrutiny now?

    Hansard source
16. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

    Order. May I confirm that the hon. Member has informed the Members he mentioned that he was going to mention them in this debate?

    Hansard source
17. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

    Order. I do not intend to put a time limit on, but hon. Members can see who is standing to request to speak. I ask them to be mindful that I will call the first Front-Bench contribution at 3.28 pm.

    Hansard source
18. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Alternative Measures to GDP

    Before I call Dr Roz Savage to move the motion, I remind Members that, unless they have given notice to Dr Savage or the Minister, they are unable to make a speech; I have not had any indication that anybody has given such notice. They are, however, able to make an intervention.

    Hansard source
19. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Hammersmith Bridge

    I see two hon. Members who want to speak. I shall call the Front Benchers at 5.08 pm. I will not be setting a time limit, but I am sure Members will consider each other.

    Hansard source
20. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

    I beg to move, That this House has considered windfarm development on protected peatland. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I am glad to be introducing this incredibly important debate, which I have personally secured. It is particularly timely because, right now, Brontë country—a delicate mosaic of precious peatland and an historic heritage landscape, straddling Haworth and Stanbury in the Worth valley in my constituency across to Hebden Bridge in the Calder valley—is under threat like never before. There is a proposal for a huge wind farm development, and I will spend my time in this debate stating exactly why we should oppose the disastrous scheme. Before I begin, I put on record my thanks to the various local campaign groups that have been working tirelessly to oppose the Calderdale wind farm and get the proposals scrapped. There are too many to mention, but I particularly thank Lydia and Nick MacKinnon and Jenny Shepherd. Today happens to be the 110-year anniversary of the birth of Charlotte Brontë, author of several books and poems, most notably Jane Eyre. The works of Charlotte and her sisters, Emily and Anne, are world famous, as is the iconic moorland that inspired many of their stories. If approved, the Calderdale wind farm would see up to 34 200-metre-high wind turbines erected across Brontë country. This moorland is not just a site of famous literary heritage; it is also the site of irreplaceable protected peatland. I have been firmly against these proposals ever since they were first brought forward in 2023, and I have been inundated with correspondence from my constituents and local campaign groups who agree that this scheme will be hugely detrimental to our heritage landscape and our precious protected peatland. Before today’s debate, I wrote to the hon. Members for Halifax (Kate Dearden), for Shipley (Anna Dixon), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) and for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), inviting them to speak in today’s debate, so that we could work on a cross-party basis to strongly oppose these development proposals. Like me, I am sure that they have been inundated with correspondence from constituents concerned about these proposals, so it is disappointing not to see all of them here today. Before I outline in more detail my concerns about the Calderdale wind farm proposals, I want to be very clear that I am not against wind farm developments or renewable energy schemes. However, I am absolutely against wind farms being developed where they will have a huge impact on the environment, ecology, wildlife, heritage, flooding risk and the very carbon sequestration ability of our peat, which will be hugely negatively impacted. It is with peat—and its carbon storage ability being severely impacted—that I will start. The peat in the south Pennine moors is generally considered to be around 9,000 years old; the mosaic of blanket bogs began forming thousands of years ago from sphagnum moss. For centuries, the peat has been absorbing the carbon emissions from the mills of our industrial past, our transport and our everyday modern life. Peat is delicate and grows just a millimetre a year if we are lucky, and only when subject to a limited range of favourable environmental and climate conditions. The proposals of the Calderdale wind farm could cover approximately 2,300 hectares of protected peatland above Hebden Bridge and Haworth, and the impacts of disturbing such precious peatland will have disastrous consequences on the local area and beyond. Peatland is a natural store of carbon, capturing and storing 26 times as much carbon as our forests in the UK. Almost all our UK peatlands have at least some blanket bog, with UK uplands containing around 15% of the blanket bog in the world. The Walshaw moor alone is made up of approximately 16,000 acres of it. Healthy peatlands will absorb and store carbon, and build carbon into the peat. However, if peatlands are damaged, which is unavoidable with huge infrastructure projects such as wind farms, it can release carbon back into the atmosphere, dramatically increasing carbon dioxide emissions. The amount of infrastructure required for the Calderdale wind farm is huge. It includes the foundations associated with each turbine, the complex road network that needs to be built across the peat so that each turbine can be fixed in place, the expansive base areas next to each turbine, the vast cabling routes that need to be buried underneath the peat, the man-made drainage cut-outs that need to be installed, the sub-stations, the weather monitoring and the fencing—I could go on. All of that will have a deeply damaging impact on our protected peatland. As with any major infrastructure project, access routes will need to be created to the turbine sites, and those service roads will cut across blanket bog and seriously impact landscape hydrology. Long-established estate roads in uplands tend to avoid peatland because of the maintenance challenges, but wind farm roads simply cannot do that; they are constrained by the requirements of the turbine layout and the moorland topography. That is not just a short-term problem; once constructed, a wind farm road becomes a permanent feature of the landscape. Peat subsidence will continue indefinitely because of the need for our roads to be kept constantly dry and because of compression from the weight of roadway material. A very real example of that is the A5, which was built across peatland on the Welsh border nearly 300 years ago but continues to subside today. I know that the developers and those supporting the Calderdale wind farm proposals like to say that the benefits of producing renewable energy outweigh the carbon loss caused by the development, but the justifications they have offered have been extremely poor. In fact, Professor Richard Lindsay, a world-leading expert on peatland ecosystems, who I spoke to just last week, has described those making this argument as “clinging to the carbon calculator as a drowning man clings to a life belt”. By that, he means that the system of measuring carbon storage impact is not fit for purpose. It simply does not consider all the influencing factors, or indeed the cumulative impact of onshore wind farm developments, the vast majority of which are north of the border in Scotland and in Wales.

    Hansard source
21. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He makes an excellent point: the developers have failed to ascertain that the positives of the project outweigh its negative impacts, including the impact on the ability of the peatland to sequester and store carbon. That is before even considering all the negative impacts on highways, the impacts of the infrastructure that has to be developed and the impact on local communities. The renewable energy scheme will be incredibly detrimental; the peatland will hold more carbon. That is why I am firmly opposed to the development. Another huge risk with the development of wind farms on sites of protected peatland such as Walshaw moor is the impact on both water quality and flooding. Peatland is 95% to 98% water—it has the same percentage of solid content as a jellyfish. Disturbing it through the construction of wind turbines on Walshaw moor will increase flood risk and damage water quality in Calder Valley towns and surrounding communities. Studies have shown that putting any kind of hard infrastructure on peatland has a direct negative impact on how peat interacts with itself; it prevents peat bogs from absorbing rainwater, which ultimately increases flood risk downstream and increases the likelihood of serious slipping incidents. Peatland also plays a key role in regulating water quality. Around 72% of the UK’s reservoirs are fed from peat, and over 28 million people consume water from peaty catchments. Degradation and disturbance of peat is often accompanied by increases in dissolved and particulate organic carbon loads, which increases the treatment costs required to make water drinkable. Another additional environmental risk associated with the Calderdale wind farm proposal is the risk to local wildlife. Walshaw moor is home to a number of protected bird species, including the lapwing, golden plover, merlin, short-eared owl and the curlew—today, in fact, is World Curlew Day. Those species use Walshaw moor as breeding grounds, and organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have warned that disturbing such populations with the installation of wind turbines will significantly damage overall numbers of the birds. I return to the specifics of the Calderdale wind farm’s impact on local heritage and culture. Rebecca Yorke and her team at the Brontë Society, who look after the Brontë parsonage in Haworth in my constituency, do incredible work. Understandably, our much-loved Brontë Society is firmly against the proposed wind farm development across our heritage landscape, which encompasses Top Withens, believed to be the inspiration for the setting of “Wuthering Heights”. That landscape, I might add, has a live application worked up right now for UNESCO world heritage status, along with listed status for Top Withens. All that has widespread community support. Our literary landscape offering to the world, which inspired the Brontës’ imaginations in their renowned novels and poetry, is under threat. If this wind farm proposal goes ahead, that landscape will be blighted forever. We know that because, even after the decommissioning stage of the wind farm, none of the infrastructure is proposed to be removed, apart from the turbines themselves. The road infrastructure, all that cabling and those deep foundations that sit beneath the turbines are not proposed to be removed once the wind farm comes to the end of its life, blighting our heritage landscape and the peat forever.

    Hansard source
22. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

    The right hon. Member makes an excellent point. He is absolutely right, because the decommissioning costs are not necessarily built into what the impact will be on our environment, our protected peat or our wildlife. I know that because the developers themselves say that once the site finishes its usage, parts of the development will not be removed—such as the piles, the infrastructure for the road, the foundations—but simply remain in situ. Worse than that, however, should an additional wind farm come down the line, it will use the infrastructure that is already in place, but is likely to have to be expanded. A further real live concern is because when the application came before us, the initial proposal was for 65 wind turbines, although that has been reduced to 35 wind turbines now. That creates the real worry of it potentially being only phase 1 of a much bigger wind farm coming down the line. Therefore, once the precedent is set of an application being approved by the Government —it will be the Secretary of State who determines it—stage 2 will therefore come down the line. That deeply worries me. I am grateful that, last week, I had the opportunity to speak with peat experts, Dr Andreas Heinemeyer, Professor Richard Lindsay, Dr Emma Hinchcliffe and Jessica Fìor-Berry, all of whom pointed to the complete lack of research and evidence about the impact of wind farm development on protected peatland. I therefore ask the Labour Government why the Minister is in favour of pushing through development on protected peatland such as Walshaw moor despite the hugely damaging impacts I have outlined in this speech. The proposals for the Calderdale wind farm demonstrate a glaringly obvious hypocrisy that this Government show when it comes to protecting our protected, precious peatland. The Government were elected on a manifesto that committed to expanding nature-rich habitats such as peatlands. The Minister for Nature herself has repeatedly called our peatlands “this country’s Amazon rainforest”, so why do the Labour Government continue to support completely destroying them—when other options are available—given the scale of this development? The development is being considered a nationally significant infrastructure project, so it will be the Secretary of State who determines the application. I ask the Minister, however, why have this Government permitted the developer to undertake its statutory consultation right now, during a period when the two local councils, Bradford council and Calderdale council, are in the middle of all-out local elections and cannot comment because of purdah? Will the Minister seek to extend the statutory consultation period, as I have requested of the Secretary of State? I ask all watching this debate who agree that this development will be catastrophic to participate in the consultation, which is open right now. For the reasons I have set out, I am clear that this wind farm development must not be approved. My fellow Worth Valley Conservative councillors do not want it, my constituents do not want it, world-leading peat experts do not want it and I suspect the Nature Minister does not want it either, so why is the Minister enabling this proposal to continue under this Labour Government? What I am less clear on is the positions of my neighbouring Members of Parliament: the hon. Members for Halifax, for Shipley, for Calder Valley, for Pendle and Clitheroe and for Burnley. I urge them to join me in opposing this disastrous scheme.

    Hansard source
23. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

    Perfect intervention there, but we have had an intervention from only one of the five neighbouring Labour Members of Parliament I invited to this debate, of which only two turned up. I wrote to all those Members of Parliament—crikey, it must have been about seven months ago—inviting them to join me in a cross-party consensus so that we could join forces in opposing this scheme. Despite the hon. Member for Shipley’s intervention, I am yet to hear that she is opposed to this scheme. I invite her, and the hon. Members for Halifax, for Calder Valley, for Pendle and Clitheroe and for Burnley, to join me in opposing this scheme.

    Hansard source
24. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

    Sir Alec, not only did I inform them today to remind them to come to this debate, I wrote to them last week inviting them to come to this debate and I wrote to them maybe six months ago asking them to join me. They are well aware that this debate is taking place. It is very disappointing that they did not turn up to stand up and speak on behalf of their constituents. Renewable energy could be an essential part of our future, but not like this—not here, and not at the cost of everything the Brontë country represents. This scheme must be stopped.

    Hansard source
25. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

    The hon. Member seems to be dancing around the edges. This debate is on the matter of “windfarm development on protected peatland” but she has not mentioned anything to do with wind farms yet. I am keen to understand whether she is for or against the Calderdale wind farm.

    Hansard source
26. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

    I know that on 30 March the hon. Member wrote to the Secretary of State asking for clarity on the guidance associated with the national policy statement for renewable energy infrastructure, EN-3, and its relationship with peatlands. I hear him speak about the importance of protecting peat, but I am less certain about what his position is on the Calderdale wind farm. Is he for or against the development of the Calderdale wind farm in his constituency?

    Hansard source
27. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

    The right hon. Member is making an excellent speech. Another key challenge in building the turbines is the infrastructure, because a huge amount of aggregate to facilitate the piling of the foundations and road infrastructure must be brought in from elsewhere, which could be a long distance away. That is exactly the challenge we are finding at the Calderdale wind farm, where aggregate will have to be brought from miles away—nowhere near the actual proposal. Does the right hon. Member agree that this demonstrates why it is so ludicrous to have wind farm developments on protected peatland in areas that are not suitable?

    Hansard source
28. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

    The very point the Minister is making is the reason why the application for the Calderdale wind farm has come before us: because this Labour Government removed the onshore wind moratorium put in place by the last Conservative Administration. Given the concerns that I raised about the protected nature of that peatland and the impact on the precious peat, and all the concerns raised by Opposition Members, what is the Government’s position when there is an application that is on protected peat?

    Hansard source
29. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

    I recognise that, but I have written to the Secretary of State urging the Government to extend the consultation period that is in place right now—it ends on 10 June. Given that the developer put this consultation in place in the middle of local elections, the two key councils, Bradford and Calderdale, cannot comment formally until after those elections, and it is also likely that there will be a change in leadership in those councils. Will the Secretary of State, via the Minister, consider at least extending that statutory consultation so that more people can get engaged and we can have proper responses from the two key councils?

    Hansard source
30. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

    The reason for calling this debate is that we are dealing with a real and live challenge, particularly in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies. The debate has been very worthwhile, but I have major concerns. There was a moratorium in place under the previous Conservative Administration, which has been removed by this Labour Government, enabling these sorts of developments—wind farms on protected peatland—to take place. Yet all the Labour Government can offer is guidance, which simply refers to protected peat being looked at and referenced within any application. That is deeply worrying. Secondly, the Minister referred to ongoing discussions on the carbon calculator with the Scottish Government. That is too late. An application is before us in West Yorkshire. Any ongoing carbon calculator discussions are too late, because the application is being considered right now. My third point is that as far as I can see, my neighbouring Members of Parliament have not put forward a position on the Floor of the House on whether they will join me to campaign as strongly as we can against this application. Concerns have been raised, but there is no formal position. It is deeply worrying that some of the Labour Members of Parliament I wrote to—I gave plenty of notice—did not feel it was worth turning up to this debate. It is clear that this Government’s policy in pursuit of net zero makes absolutely net zero sense. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered windfarm development on protected peatland.

    Hansard source
31. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Seventh sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. As the Committee has likely anticipated, I will argue that clause 3 should not stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 is the heart of the Government’s constitutional gamble. It creates a wholly new general rule for trial on indictment without a jury in a substantial category of criminal cases. Under the clause, a defendant charged with an either-way offence who has pleaded not guilty will lose the right to be tried by a jury unless the court considers that, on conviction, they would be likely to receive a sentence of more than three years’ imprisonment. It also allows reallocation later if the case changes, says that there is no right of appeal against allocation or reallocation, permits some decisions to be made without a hearing, and still allows a judge sitting alone to impose a sentence of more than three years. The Government continue to maintain that this change is necessary to reduce the Crown court backlog and reserve jury trials for the most serious cases. I note, though, that the very good House of Commons Library briefing points out that these provisions are based only in part on Leveson, and contain material differences from that which he recommended. Sir Brian proposed restricting, not abolishing, the right to elect, he did not propose the same increase in magistrates’ sentencing powers, and the Government’s model is more aggressive than the one on which much of the original discussion was based. JUSTICE makes the same point directly in its written evidence. It says that the Bill goes further than the review by removing the right to elect entirely, replacing the full rehearing appeal from the magistrates court with a permission stage, allowing the extension of magistrates’ custodial powers to 18 or 24 months, and introducing judge-only trials for either-way cases with likely sentences of three years or less. I say that at the outset because I am keen to avoid the suggestion that the Bill amounts to the Government reluctantly implementing a difficult but expert-led recommendation. That is simply not the case in clause 3. In fact, we are dealing with a discretionary political choice to legislate in a way that is broader, harder and less cautious than many of the evidence-based alternatives that are already on the table. As the Law Society put it: “Clauses 1 to 7 represent radical changes to criminal procedure without convincing evidence that they will improve efficiency.” The Bar Council says: “Radical changes to the availability of jury trials…are unnecessary and will consume resources without bearing down on the backlog.” That is the proper context in which clause 3 should be considered. As much for my own clarity as for the benefit of the Committee, I would like to dedicate a limited amount of time to clarifying what the clause actually does. It inserts into the Senior Courts Act 1981 proposed new sections 74A to 74D, which create a mechanism under which, in a very wide category of cases, the court must decide at the outset whether a defendant will be tried by a jury or by a single judge alone. The central test is the threshold sentence: whether the defendant, if convicted, would be likely to receive more than three years’ imprisonment or detention. If the likely sentence is above that threshold, the defendant gets a jury; if not, the default is a judge-alone trial in what the Government and stakeholders have described as the Crown court bench division, although that phrase is not used in the Bill itself. This is about not a tiny number of trivial cases but a structural redesign of the Crown court’s work. According to the Government’s own modelling, about 14,000 cases would continue arriving at the Crown court in 2028-29 and would require a trial, of which approximately 4,000 are expected to be heard by a judge alone, rather than a jury. The package is said to reduce Crown court sitting day demand by 27,000 days a year while increasing magistrates court sitting day demand by 8,500. Even if one accepts every assumption behind those figures—many serious people do not—they demonstrate that this is a major transfer of work and power. The offences within scope are not, as has sometimes been implied, confined to the sort of minor petty theft case used in media briefings. The written evidence from JUSTICE makes that point bluntly. Clause 3 would cover a huge number of either-way offences, including “sexual offences, sexual abuse of children, stalking, fraud offences, violence against the person offences and theft offences.” JUSTICE offers a chilling practical illustration with this observation: “Most of the postmasters wrongly convicted in the Horizon scandal received a sentence under three years.” That point ought to give the Committee serious pause. We are being asked to remove jury trial for the types of case in which miscarriages of justice have historically occurred. The centrepiece of clause 3 is the idea that a court can safely determine, at an early stage, whether a defendant is likely to receive more than three years if convicted, and that that prediction is a just and adequate basis for deciding whether the defendant gets a jury at all. I do not accept that. More importantly, the Bill itself does not truly accept it either. The Commons Library briefing I referenced earlier notes this contradiction plainly: “While cases that are less likely to result in a sentence of more than three years would be allocated for trial by a judge alone, the judge could still pass a custodial sentence of more than three years.” In other words, the very legislation that uses the three-year threshold as the decisive basis for removing jury trials simultaneously recognises that the threshold may not map on to the final seriousness of the case at all. The initial allocation may say that the case is not serious enough for a jury, yet the final outcome may be serious enough for more than three years in prison. If that is not an admission that the threshold is an unstable and unsafe proxy, I do not know what is. Does that not cut to the most basic but most profound concern about this Bill—that it just is not fair? If the threshold cannot reliably distinguish the cases that merit a jury from those that do not, the clause is not preserving jury trial for the most serious cases. It is rationing jury trial on the basis of an impressionistic and sometimes speculative sentence prediction. The written evidence from the London School of Economics says exactly that, stating that the three-year threshold “is a poor metric for determining the right trial procedure” and that if jury trial is a “cornerstone protection against the state”, alternative measures ought to be exhausted first. We cannot properly predict a sentence at the plea and trial preparation hearing, and in the context of clause 3, that is a problem. If the allocation decision is to be made at the hearing, the notion that a judge can decide the likely sentence then and there is, in many cases, unrealistic and, at the extreme, absurd. In many cases, the evidence is incomplete at the PTPH. In sexual offences, full achieving better evidence transcripts are often unavailable, and practitioners rely on summaries. CCTV may not yet have been watched in full, medical evidence may be outstanding and the victim impact, which can materially affect a sentence, may be unknown. Sometimes the complainant is still in hospital. It may well be that the psychiatric or psychological impact becomes clear only weeks or months later. Yet the clause asks the court to decide mode of trial at exactly this sensitive and uncertain stage. The Government are therefore building a supposedly rational system on a procedural moment that practitioners know, and I am sure the Minister knows, is often evidentially immature. The Committee will remember reading the Victims’ Commissioner’s written evidence, which accepts the need for reform but recognises the concern that sentencing ranges vary and that the evidential picture may be incomplete when the crucial decision is taken. JUSTICE likewise says that the proposal risks unfairness because the allocation and reallocation system lengthens the PTPH and depends on speculative assumptions about how much court time will actually be saved. The Bar Council adds that the Bill gives no schedule or annexe identifying categories of offence; instead, a Crown court judge will simply assess in individual cases whether the likely sentence exceeds three years, meaning that the determination is case specific, contestable and uncertain from the outset. I can well imagine the response to all that being that if circumstances change, the case can be reallocated, but to my mind that is not a defence of the clause; it is an admission that the initial prediction is often too flimsy to bear the weight placed on it. As any King’s counsel will readily point out, real criminal cases are not static things. Charges are amended, defendants are added and new evidence emerges. Perhaps a section 18 becomes a section 20. When something like that happens, is it seriously proposed that the case repeatedly cycles through reallocation every time? Clause 3 says yes, at least in substance. Proposed new section 74B provides for a formal reallocation mechanism where there is a relevant change of circumstances, including changes in the indictment or new evidence affecting likely sentence. The problem is that that does not solve the uncertainty; it adds another layer of litigation, or at least potential litigation. It invites both sides to argue over whether the threshold position has changed, whether reallocation is required, whether the change is sufficiently material, what prejudice would be caused by moving the case, whether delay, wasted cost or witness inconvenience should prevail, and what happens if the case is already part way down the tracks. Frankly, that sounds like a dream come true for a solicitor’s billing manager, but the rest of us can surely see the problem. JUSTICE and the Bar Council have both picked up on that point. JUSTICE notes that the “allocation of cases is going to lengthen the plea and trial preparation hearing as will the process of reallocation”, and it warns that the absence of any right of appeal against allocation decisions is likely to increase judicial reviews and Court of Appeal litigation. In the Bar Council’s written evidence, it states: “The proposed Crown Court Bench Division introduces an extra layer of hearings and complication…It could result in further litigation at an interlocutory stage.” It argues that one of the Bill’s fundamental flaws is precisely the fact that it presents a false binary: either do nothing, or do this. The Bill does not properly assess a range of other policy options. Having made those points, I would like to pose a question to the Minister, which I think may shed some light on where we are with the clause. Has the additional work needed at both Crown court and magistrates court level for allocation, reallocation, submissions and case management been factored into the claimed 27,000 sitting day decrease and 8,500 sitting day increase? If the answer is yes, can we get some insight into precisely where and how? If the answer is no, the core productivity claim behind clause 3 is overstated from the start. If clause 3 were merely a bad threshold coupled with an elaborate reallocation maze, that would be bad enough. However, the Government have compounded the problem by providing no right of appeal against allocation or reallocation decisions, and by permitting some decisions to be made without a hearing. Under proposed new section 74D, there would be no right of appeal against an allocation or reallocation determination made under proposed new sections 74A or 74B, and a reallocation determination could be made without a hearing. That is extraordinary. A defendant may lose trial by jury on the basis of an early-stage sentence prediction, under a mechanism that the Government know may need to be revisited as the case develops, yet there is no appeal. JUSTICE warns that the likely consequence of the proposal is judicial review pressure on the High Court, and appeal pressure on the Court of Appeal once written reasons are handed down, meaning that the supposed efficiency savings may be displaced into other courts. The Bar Council says much the same; it proposes, as a minimum safeguard, that there should be a hearing before reallocation, unless the parties waive it, and that there should be an appeal right. The absence of appeal is especially troubling because summary trial has historically been justified by two safeguards: lower-level offences and the ability to appeal. The Bill proposes to remove both. It moves up the seriousness of cases, while stripping away the classic safeguard of easy correction—that is not a tolerable bargain. Although the Committee has already debated the retrospectivity point at some length, clause 3 itself remains infected by it. The new allocation procedure will apply to cases already in the Crown court open caseload, including cases where the defendant has already been arraigned at a PTPH before the new regime comes into force, so long as the prosecution has not yet opened its case. For those cases, the court must make a determination under proposed new section 74A as soon as is reasonably practicable, and may do so without a hearing. That means that a defendant who chose a Crown court trial, expecting a jury, may wait months, prepare for that jury and then lose it retrospectively. The Minister herself has defended that approach by saying that the Government are on sound legal ground, and that there is no procedural or legal impediment, relying on advice from—as I recall—an unnamed KC. However, political defensibility and legal ingenuity are not the same as fairness. To put this in very plain terms, people did not opt to go to Crown court for the car parking or the architecture; they chose it for one thing only—a jury. To move the goalposts after the choice is made is profoundly unfair, regardless of other considerations. The Committee will recall reading through the written evidence from some eminent groups and individuals that, in as many words, call this retrospective application contrary to the rule of law. The Bar Council says: “The retrospective provisions may also be subject to numerous legal challenges.” Dr Samantha Fairclough argues that the plan is unfair, and she says: “It will also create significant additional work…and likely result in appeals.” That all points in the same direction. Retrospectivity here is not just constitutionally unattractive; it will ultimately prove to be practically self-defeating. A very large part of the Government’s case for clause 3 rests on the impact assessment, which says that clauses 1 to 7 will reduce Crown court sitting days by 27,000 a year, while increasing magistrates court sitting days by 8,500. It also says that the Crown court open caseload will fall by around 14,000 cases over 2028-2029, and that “overall the reforms will reduce demand on Crown Court time by almost 20%”. However, several stakeholders have criticised the assumptions and modelling, especially those on how much time judge-only trials would save. The Government’s core assumption is that hearing times will fall by 20% for judge-only trials, but Sir Brian himself accepted that this was associated with high levels of uncertainty, and the Justice Committee challenged how anecdotal the basis for that figure appeared to be.

    Hansard source
32. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I thank you for making that point, Ms Jardine. I just emphasise how serious the changes in this legislation are. I know the Opposition are willing to put in the hours that are needed to go through the full detail, so that everyone can say what they need to. I imagine the Government are equally keen to spend the hours required to do full justice to the Bill.

    Hansard source
33. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Seventh sitting)

    Absolutely, Ms Jardine—we can go into the early hours of the morning if we need to, and I am happy to do so this evening if that is what people would like to do. In cases of offensive communications, malicious communications, harassment, stalking and other digital evidence-related cases, the line between criminality and obnoxiousness can be fact-sensitive and context-heavy. We have all seen how politically sensitive a question this has become. We should remember, too, that some of these cases are driven almost entirely by screenshots and unauthenticated digital material, which may be manipulated, selectively presented or forensically thin.

    Hansard source
34. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    It will no doubt be a relief to Members to hear that I am not going to talk for quite as long as I did this morning. I oppose clause 4 and schedule 1 standing part, and I support amendment 51, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle. As is becoming habit, I will begin with a very brief overview of what we are considering. Clause 4 and schedule 1 create a new framework for judge-only trials in certain complex or lengthy cases. The listed offences include fraud, tax evasion, false accounting, insider dealing, money laundering, terrorist funding, bribery and related offences. The court may order trial without a jury if it is satisfied that the likely complexity and/or length makes that appropriate, that it is not in the public interest for the trial to be conducted with a jury, and that there are no other reasons why it would be more appropriate for the trial to be with a jury. There would be no right of appeal against that decision. That is a serious and constitutionally significant change in its own right, but what makes it even more troubling is that it has been justified on the strength of a paper-thin theoretical benefit. The House of Commons Library states that the Government estimate clause 4 will save 200 Crown court sitting days. That is around 0.18% of current Crown court capacity, which indicates just how small the potential gain is—if there is that gain at all. That is the first and most obvious point I want to make. The Government are proposing a very serious encroachment on jury trials in return for a saving that amounts to just 200 sitting days. JUSTICE describes the change as “unnecessary,” says that it “will not impact the backlog in any meaningful way” and warns that it risks opening the door to restricting jury trials in other categories of case too. The Law Society is similarly clear: “Removing jury trials for serious fraud cases is unlikely to have a significant effect on the backlogs, but would significantly erode the fundamental principle of open justice.” That should be the frame for the whole debate on clause 4. We are not being asked to approve some modest efficiency measure; we are being asked to displace the jury in some of the most important and contested criminal cases for an alleged benefit so small that, even in the Government’s own case, it barely registers against total Crown court demand. That trade-off is so poor that I refuse to believe the Minister, in her heart of hearts, believes it is the right way to proceed. The second point is that the case against juries being used in serious fraud and related cases has never really been made. In written evidence, the Law Society tells us: “Serious cases of any complexity, including serious allegations of fraud, must be presented by the prosecution in a way that is understandable, not only to the judge and jury…but also, in line with the principle of open justice, to the public.” It goes on to say: “They should be subject to effective case management to ensure they take only a reasonable length of time, if necessary, by reducing the number of charges”. In other words, the answer to complexity is to manage it properly, not to remove the jury. It is worth reminding ourselves that the issues juries decide on in fraud trials are factual, not technical—in particular, whether the defendant was dishonest. That is judged by reference to the standards of ordinary decent people. Twelve ordinary jurors are far better placed to decide that than a single judge alone. That goes to the very nature of fraud. Fraud is not merely an accounting or regulatory puzzle; it is an allegation of dishonesty, and dishonesty, by definition, is exactly the sort of question on which the community’s judgment matters. Who should decide dishonesty: a single professional judge, or 12 citizens applying the standards of ordinary life? In a democratic criminal justice system, the answer should remain: the jury. The evidence that we have does not support the idea that juries are what make these cases collapse, drag on or miscarry. JUSTICE’s written evidence points to the Southwark Crown court data gathered by His Honour Geoffrey Rivlin KC, showing that the vast majority of fraud cases lasted less than three months, with only one or two per year lasting over three months and only two cases in total lasting over six months. That is important, because it rather punches the myth that these are all endless epics that juries simply cannot understand or follow. Rivlin’s evidence also says that jury trials compose a discipline that helps to keep fraud trials shorter. Without that discipline, judge-alone trials may end up running as long as, or even longer than, jury trials. More to the point, delays, collapses and miscarriages of justice in fraud are not caused by juries, as shown by R v. Hayes where convictions were quashed because of judicial misdirection, not because of anything the jury did wrong. That strongly refutes the suggestion that juries are the weak link in these cases. The Government have two problems here: first, they have not shown that such cases are generally too long for juries; secondly, they have not shown that juries are what is causing the failures when these cases go wrong. Unfortunately, that leaves the Government looking rather like they are indulging in ideological hostility to jury trials rather than evidence-based reform. There is also a wider constitutional point. The Law Society says, and I very much agree, that removing jury trials for serious fraud cases “would significantly erode the fundamental principle of open justice.” These are often cases involving major companies, financial institutions, public markets, public money, terrorism financing, bribery and corruption. They are exactly the sort of cases where the public must have confidence that justice has not simply been done inside a closed professional world by one member of that same world. Fraud and related financial cases often concern the conduct of powerful, well-resourced and sophisticated defendants. In those cases, public confidence matters immensely. A verdict reached by a jury of citizens commands a kind of legitimacy that a judgment by a single judge does not carry in the same way. That is not a criticism of judges, but a recognition of why juries exist in the first place. They are there to not just decide facts but connect the administration of criminal justice to the public itself.

    Hansard source
35. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I completely agree with my hon. Friend. What is considered complex and lengthy could be quite subjective. We all know that we are potentially going to end up in the courts over defining exactly what is complex and lengthy. It feels like the Bill is not written clearly enough for us to understand exactly how it will work in reality. Amendment 51 is an important safeguard against those risks. In his written evidence, His Honour Geoffrey Rivlin KC notes that the schedule 1 list already “appears to be arbitrary, perhaps the work of a moment; and it goes beyond anything suggested before. But even that is not the end of it.” That is because part 2 of the schedule gives the Secretary of State the power by order to add or remove offences. He quotes the explanatory notes to show that offences not related to fraud or financial crime could easily be added in the future. He describes this as “a mighty step along the way to the end of jury trials.” That does not strike me as overstatement. The Secretary of State will indeed have this untrammelled power, and we should carefully heed this sober warning from a senior judge. For similar reasons, the Opposition oppose schedule 1 standing part of the Bill. Schedule 1 is the list that gives clause 4 its reach, and the list is already troubling. It is not confined to a tiny, tightly defined category of unusual mega-fraud; it covers a wider class of economic and financial offences, including money laundering and terrorist funding, and can then be expanded later. If we think the core principle of clause 4 is wrong, then the schedule that operationalises it is wrong too. Rivlin’s description of the list as “arbitrary” is worth keeping in mind. One of the reasons that schedule 1 is objectionable is that once Parliament accepts the principle that a whole category of serious Crown court cases can be singled out for juryless trial on grounds of length and complexity, the argument for confining the list to that category becomes very hard to sustain. The logic of the thing pushes outward. That is why schedule 1 is dangerous: for not only what it contains now but what it invites later. I am particularly concerned that there is an ideological push away from jury trials. My concern is that this is only the start, not the end of where the Government want to get to. I urge the Committee to think about this carefully. We are taking important decisions for the future.

    Hansard source
36. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I agree with my hon. Friend, as I normally do. Finally, there is the obvious practical point that there are better answers available. The Law Society says that reform and investment must be strategic, not piecemeal, and warns against stand-alone measures such as changing from jury trials to judge-only trials without convincing evidence that they will significantly reduce the backlog. It says that Parliament should insist on “detailed modelling” and on understanding the Government’s intentions across the whole package of reform, not just on this isolated measure. The existence of pressure in the system does not prove that every proposed constitutional shortcut is justified. The question is whether the shortcut is necessary. With clause 4, the answer is plainly no. For all those reasons, I oppose clause 4 and schedule 1, and I support amendment 51. Clause 4 offers a constitutionally serious reduction in jury trials for a tiny claimed benefit of 200 sitting days. The evidence does not show that juries are the cause of delay, collapse or miscarriage in these cases. Fraud cases are not too technical for juries. The key issue is dishonesty, and ordinary citizens are uniquely well placed to judge that. The removal of juries in these cases would damage open justice and public confidence. Schedule 1 gives effect to that flawed principle and then goes further by creating a route to ministerial expansion. Amendment 51 is therefore a sensible and necessary safeguard, but in truth, the better course is simpler still: clause 4 and schedule 1 should not be included in the Bill at all.

    Hansard source
37. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    My hon. Friend is making some powerful points. Hearing him read out what the law says brings home to me just how terrible this Bill is. Surely everyone can see that there is no clarity how it would work. Rather than there being any clear guidance, it essentially feels as though any judge can have their own view on complexity and length. We will end up with inconsistency and disputes and arguments about the approach. Surely, that could do the opposite of address the backlog by adding additional complexity and confusion to our justice system.

    Hansard source
38. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    As my hon. Friend was speaking, it suddenly occurred to me that under our current system, jurors can already make that argument—that if sitting on a jury would be particularly disruptive, they should not have to do so. How does that interact with this measure? It feels like this does not make sense.

    Hansard source
39. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    If we are increasing the sentence in the magistrates court, I would imagine the Minister will agree that, in some situations, we are increasing the complexity of the case. For example, a sexual assault case could be quite complicated and require, in order to look after the alleged victim and make sure their wellbeing is managed, four consecutive days of sitting to get that over with. How will the magistrates court do that? They are all volunteers, and quite often they are working. How will this help address the backlog if we are in a situation where those volunteer magistrates are not able to commit to the four consecutive days needed to deal with a complex and sensitive case such as a sexual assault?

    Hansard source
40. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    Does my hon. Friend agree that Government Members and the Minister have spent a lot of time talking about victims being central to all of the changes, so why on earth would they not support the amendment if it is really about protecting victims from being cross-examined?

    Hansard source