5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The latest industrial action by the British Medical Association has now ended, yet many will be appalled by reports of individuals boasting online that “the ability to have 10 days off will make turnout quite high.” Does the Secretary of State agree that this behaviour is indefensible and represents a slap in the face to patients whose treatments have been cancelled, as well as to the NHS staff who have been left to pick up the pieces?
This is a rare occasion, as I agree with the Secretary of State. The increasingly militant stance adopted by the BMA is plainly out of step with some resident doctors, who continue to report for duty. The Government’s handling of this dispute has been marked by inconsistency. First, they attempted to buy their way out of trouble, then they withdrew the training places that this House voted for. Instead of persisting with a failed strategy, is it not time for the Government to heed our calls and bring forward legislation to ban doctors from striking?
Order. I think six Members are standing. I will call the Front Benchers at 10.30 am. I will not impose a time limit at this stage, but around six minutes a head should ensure that everybody who wishes to be called is called.
I will call Anna Dixon to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate, the Minister and the Chair, although no such requests have been made. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up the debate.
Does the Secretary of State understand that the remarks that he made on Sky television prior to the recess about the maternity unit at the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital in Margate were ill informed, anachronistic, deeply offensive and damaging to morale? I was heavily involved, and have been since, in the events following the death of baby Harry Richford at the hospital, and also in Bill Kirkup’s report. Massive improvements have been made since then, but the thing that is missing is the funding that was promised by the previous Government for the improvement of the real estate. When is that money going to be forthcoming?
Where psychopaths are concerned, deterrence is unlikely to work, but I was interested to hear an expert from the Internet Watch Foundation, who was interviewed on Times Radio this morning, say that people who commune on the internet with those who supply them with knives could instantly bring together red flags and warn people, if they wanted to. Is it part of the Minister’s strategy to try to arrange for that? As for others, am I right in thinking that a very high proportion of people who commit knife crimes are detected? If so, surely a campaign saying, “If you commit knife crime, you will almost certainly be caught” could act as a real deterrent to those capable of being deterred.
T7. My constituents in Maldon have, for more than 30 years, been promised a new health hub in the town to replace St Peter’s hospital, a building that is over 150 years old. In the first round of new neighbourhood health centres, the integrated care board put forward the case for Maldon, but it was unsuccessful. May I press the Government to include Maldon in the second round? Will the Secretary of State meet me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) to discuss this matter?
I sent a note, which you were kind enough to mention, Mr Stringer, to apologise for entering the debate late, but I am delighted to be able to contribute. The hon. Gentleman must surely know that renewables need to face the same tests of cost-effectiveness as all other kinds of generation. For example, the concentration of offshore wind, with very large turbines, a single point of connection to the grid and large amounts of energy, contrasts with the peppering of the country with onshore turbines in small numbers and with multiple connections to the grid. Similarly, putting solar on grade 1 land is just not sensible. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
While the Minister is on the subject of science, would he turn his attention to agronomy? He will know that only around 15% of the land in the United Kingdom is grade 1 and 2. Much of that is in the east of England and, indeed, in my constituency in Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire has been targeted by solar developers, with countless large solar plans in the offing. Will the Minister recognise that those two things cannot be squared? We cannot have the most productive and versatile land being used up for solar at the cost of our food security.
The Secretary of State and I are equally frustrated that more progress has not been made despite numerous inquiries dating right the way back to the Morecambe Bay inquiry in 2014, which I commissioned. Does he agree that one reform that could make an enormous difference would be full continuity of care for every pregnant mum, so that from the moment someone knows they are pregnant, a team of clinicians led by a named senior clinician would be responsible for that mother and child, from pre-birth to birth to post-birth, and no one would ever be in any doubt about where the buck stopped?
Fly-tipping is very important, but can I refer my hon. Friend to a matter of life and death? As a result of Lords amendment 361 and the amendments to it, somebody who illegally procures a late-term abortion will receive a free pardon. I refer my hon. Friend to Mr Justice Cooke, who said in the Sarah Catt case that Catt had robbed the baby of the life it was about to have and that the seriousness of the crime lay between manslaughter and murder. At sentencing, the judge told Catt that she clearly thought the man with whom she was having an affair was the father and she had shown no remorse. Is it not a terrible indictment of our society that a human life can be taken when it is about to be born, at 39 weeks, and that there should be a free pardon in such a serious case?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. These three sets of draft regulations transfer responsibility for adult education and skills funding from the Secretary of State to three local councils. The aim is to bring decisions on education closer to the communities they serve. The decisions we make on adult education and skills are important; a skilled workforce is essential for economic success. With technologies such as AI transforming the jobs market, it is crucial that people can retrain, upskill and re-enter the workforce as industries change. We know that, when funding is well targeted, more adults take up courses, particularly in sectors with real skills shortages. The Minister will be aware, though, that councils are stretched and facing pressures on budgets and services. If we devolve responsibility without proper support, we risk letting adult education fall by the wayside. What measures will the Minister therefore take to ensure that the services are provided and that the funding he is devolving is well spent? What checks will he apply? The Minister will also be aware that Surrey county council is being reorganised. He is proposing to devolve funding for adult education and skills to Surrey county council from 1 August this year, but I believe I am right in saying that, from 1 April next year, it will be replaced by two councils: East and West Surrey. What steps will he take to ensure that those new councils can deliver quality services for local residents? The Conservatives are proud of our record on education and skills over our previous period in Government; we left rising standards in schools, improved attainment and expanded apprenticeships, but the job is not finished. Skills policy must work for adults as well as for young people, so we accept that there is more to do. We will do our job of scrutinising the Government: supporting policies that work and holding them to account on policies that do not.
The hon. Lady is making an important speech on the right to protest, but does she accept that many members of the Jewish community feel intimidated by regular marches by the pro-Palestinian brigade, who demonstrate loudly and not always peacefully in the same area, week after week? How does she believe that that community can be protected from such intimidation?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Efford, after the Easter recess. I believe that the Minister clarified this point, but I ask for confirmation: will the extension of anti-drone permissions extend to US bases such as RAF Croughton in my constituency?
If there is one phrase my father always says to me, it is “Sarah, you can’t teach experience.” We have talked about bringing retired officers back into the justice system; this is a very good example of what we can do to call on their experience. With jury service and jury trials, we try to get a range of experience from all types of peers. I know that there is an argument to say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” but we want to streamline and enhance our justice system to make it as effective as possible. I support amendment 9.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. We are focusing on the concept of floating solar, which I am entirely behind. One of the drivers for that is the proposal in my constituency for the Green Hill solar farm, which will be enormous. It will be 1,200 hectares of agricultural land: the size—my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) will like this reference—of Heathrow airport. It will be dispersed over nine sites, require 31 km of different cabling, and use up 65% of best and most versatile land. The Government say that food security is national security, but such a scheme flies in the face of that message. Even the national policy framework EN-1 says that we must minimise the impact on BMV, yet such a scheme is going before the Secretary of State in the next few months. I really hope that he considers that, because this is not the best way to be utilising our land. Green Hill solar farm will also have a battery energy storage system, which will be installed right outside a village called Grendon. Grendon already has a 50 MW battery storage site, and another 50 have been approved by the Reform council—I am surprised about that, given its view on battery energy storage, but there we are. However, this solar farm will require a further 500 MW on top. That will be 600 MW of storage outside a beautiful country village. It is completely inappropriate for the size. The developers have probably cited the existing source as their reason. However, this addition will completely change the nature of the villages, and we still have not been able to get an answer to the question, if there is a fire and there is a risk of thermal runaway, what that will mean for the nearby villages? I have been told that they can simply evacuate a village; that is not practical, it is not pragmatic and it does not give our residents any confidence in the scheme that is going forward. The beauty of floating solar, as my hon. Friend said, is that there will be no land use change, which is one of the most important parts of this. It is also important that there will be no evaporation of the water, which is excellent. One of the objections is the visual impact of solar. The national policy framework EN-1 says that we have to take account of the heritage of an area. This particular solar farm will be around a series of beautiful English countryside villages with rolling hills. The village of Easton Maudit will be surrounded by solar on three sides. That will completely change the nature and experience of the village. Indeed, Sir Christopher Yelverton, a former Speaker of the House—albeit from the 16th century —is buried in one of the fine churches there; I imagine that he would not be delighted by the prospect of this coming on board. There is an important relationship between maintaining the heritage of our areas and the environment that we are in.
I entirely agree, and we have been trying to promote that argument. It has unfortunately been claimed that Northamptonshire could become the warehousing capital of the UK, but we should be using the roadsides. We sometimes see airports using the side banks for solar panels. Solar panels should be installed on the covers of petrol stations and on the roofs of warehouses. I know that the last Government were consulting on whether more warehouse space could be used. I know that some people make technical arguments that the roofs are not strong enough and cannot be reinforced, but that is absolute nonsense. We can definitely work to ensure that the roofs are sturdy enough for solar panels. There is debate about whether it should be the landlord or the tenant who bears the cost of the initial outlay, and about who gets the benefit. All those things are completely surmountable, and we should be able to work on a programme for that going forward. It all goes back to planning, because meaningful requirements could enable solar power generation. I am often concerned that these initiatives end up just being greenwashing and that we are only putting them in place to be able to tick a box. What we want to see is these schemes being meaningfully integrated.
Absolutely. It certainly should not be put there, and the national planning policy framework states we should not be doing that. I therefore find it quite extraordinary that we are still having debates on this issue. There are certainly other alternatives, and they must be explored, so I really do hope that the Government take this issue seriously as it progresses over the years.
I am not debating the National Farmers Union; I am saying that we should not be putting farmers in this position. I would not blame any farmer trying to make a bit of extra money from solar, particularly since the current environment is very difficult for them. The problem is that ground-mounted solar is not the best use of that land in any event. Agricultural land should be used for exactly that—agriculture.
Absolutely, and that is one of the arguments that we were trying to make in the hearing against the Green Hill proposal, which is for 60 years. We cannot see the justification for that. There will be a renewal right, no doubt, and even within those 60 years, the solar panels will be degraded from rain and we will not know what the run-off will cause. There are so many factors that we do not know about, and I want to ensure that we have good-quality agricultural land for the future.
I think it is about the quality of the land that is being used. It might be a small amount, but if it is very good-quality agricultural land—as 65% of it is, according to what I have here—the hon. Member’s point does not stand up on that front. We just have to be very realistic about it, because there are many different factors. The hon. Member could say that a huge proportion of the country is taken up with golf courses, and say, “Well, we don’t take that away,” but what we are saying is that this is a fix that is very popular. Solar does not necessarily work all the time. The actual amount of energy generated is a very small proportion. Sometimes it can work only 10% of the time. It does not work during the night, and there are other issues about the transmission of the energy itself, because of the times of the day that can be used. That raises questions about the grid capacity and the grid connections.
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I think it also speaks to a wider issue about efficiency in the use of land. The EN-1 national policy statement says that we must be efficient in the use of natural resources, including land use itself. I think it is apt that we talk about floating solar, because we are not taking out agricultural land; we are using land that is serving one purpose but can legitimately serve another without disruption.
Absolutely. It completely changes the nature of the relationship. We know that our farmers are already having a challenging time because of Government policies that are coming in; the inheritance tax changes have been devastating for our farming community. This is a point at which we should be supporting them. Part of that support is about saying that actually we need to be building reservoirs. On-farm reservoirs are going to be very important; again, that is a part of the planning system that we need to change and push through. I do not want farmers to feel that they should or must go for solar applications in this instance, where actually the entirety of their farmland is taken out of use. The devastating thing about this policy is that a farmer whose family has been farming for generations—generations of them are buried at the Easton Maudit church—has had his tenancy ended and is already out, in anticipation of the policy coming in. Hundreds of years of a farming dynasty have been taken away. This is not what the Government want to be doing, and it is not where we should be going. We should be encouraging farming, keeping our beautiful countryside, and using the alternatives. As I say, there are plenty, whether that is on top of warehousing spaces or on the sides of roofs.
I thank my fellow member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for making those points. Yes, all the different incentives matter. In the farming environment, our farmers have struggled with a lack of certainty. With the removal of the sustainable farming incentive and with the capping and closure of all the different funds, there has been no certainty. In an industry that requires certainty, they cannot just suddenly change a crop halfway through. They have to rely on security, and it has not been delivered so far. We need to do whatever we can to put in place long-term guarantees of funding and make sure that they realise that they are secure for the future.
Thank you, Mr Stringer. These sizes are huge. As I say, the solar farm in my constituency will be the size of Heathrow airport. If this application goes through, more than 1% of my constituency will be covered in solar farms. That is not what we anticipated, and it is not the vision that I have for the future. We have far better alternatives. It is important that we move the debate on, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne has done, to thinking about floating solar. This is not about our party saying no to renewables or to any other alternatives, because that is not realistic. We need an incredibly good, diverse energy mix. What we are saying is that we should not do that to the detriment of our farms and our farming community and good-quality agricultural land. Solar has many great advantages. I wish I could trade my scheme for the one suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend. That would be far better and I am sure it would be much more appreciated by residents, constituents and the British public.
I want to make a point about volatility. With the unpredictable way in which solar is adopted, there is a danger that we will end up making compensation payments. When the sun is not shining, we may have to turn off panels and give huge amounts in compensation. That is another dynamic that we have to think about: it is an unreliable and unpredictable source of energy.
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a national programme of screening for type 1 diabetes in children; and for connected purposes. We have all just returned from the Easter recess, and I am sure that, given the number of chocolate eggs that have been consumed, many people will have been told, “Not too much chocolate, or you will get diabetes.” While they are made in jest, comments of that kind reinforce the problem caused by the misunderstanding of diabetes. About 350,000 people in the UK—including me—currently live with type 1 diabetes, and 85% of type 1 diagnoses occur in people, such as me, with no known family connection with it. Let us take a step back. What is type 1 diabetes? It is an autoimmune condition whereby one’s body, mainly one’s pancreas, no longer makes insulin. Without insulin, the body cannot use glucose for food and thus for energy. When people with type 1 eat, the glucose from their food stays in their bloodstream, but then their body seeks to burn energy and finds an alternative source, namely muscle or fat. The by-products of that are ketones, which are acidic and poison the body. Left untreated, people can enter a state of DKA—diabetic ketoacidosis—which can prove fatal, and sadly has done so in some cases. A patient has done nothing to cause type 1; likewise, there is no cure, just management and treatment of the condition. It is essential that we all recognise the signs of type 1. Although the four Ts—thirst, toilet, tiredness and thinning—are a crucial tool, ultimately these are signs that the condition has progressed and is under way. There are three distinct stages to the development of type 1, but before I run through them, I will pivot to explain antibodies and autoantibodies, because they are essential to understanding the development of type 1. Antibodies are a protein that a person’s immune system produces when it detects a threat. The problem here is that, with type 1, an individual’s immune system makes these antibodies in response not to a threat, but to their own insulin-producing beta cells. These are called islet autoantibodies, and scientists can test for them to see if a person has early-stage type 1. Let us go back to the three stages. Stage 1 is where there are two or more autoantibodies present, but with normal blood glucose levels. In stage 2, multiple autoantibodies are present and blood glucose levels are abnormal, but there are no symptoms. Finally, in stage 3, known as persistent islet autoimmunity, blood glucose is elevated and the person is typically symptomatic. That means high blood sugars, thirstiness, urinating more frequently, unexplained weight loss, tiredness and blurred vision. This is the stage at which most people are diagnosed as having type 1. Although it is difficult to give a precise number, a study found that about 38% of those newly diagnosed between 2015 to 2020 were in a state of diabetic ketoacidosis, and 44% of them were under five years old. No one should underestimate how traumatic it is to be diagnosed, let alone when someone is in a state of DKA, which requires hospitalisation and emergency treatment. A US study found that being diagnosed while presenting with DKA was associated with significantly greater use of health services and potentially greater healthcare costs in the long term. Armed with that knowledge, it is clear that we should aim to identify the condition before people become symptomatic in stage 3. That would mean that individuals are given an opportunity to get on to a trial to delay the disease, which is a point I will come back to. Furthermore, early identification gives families the time to prepare emotionally and learn how to manage the condition—hence my call today for a national screening programme for children. Currently, there is no comprehensive NHS screening to identify individuals in the early stages of type 1, despite compelling evidence for it. International programmes, such as those in Germany, Italy, Australia and the US, demonstrate that comprehensive screening, paired with public awareness campaigns and psychological support, can successfully reduce DKA rates and improve long-term health outcomes. As I mentioned, there is also a pipeline of disease-modifying drugs emerging, which means that future generations identified as having markers for type 1 diabetes will be able to delay its development. Teplizumab—a tricky name to say—is one such drug that can, in at least half of people, delay the onset of diabetes by about two to three years. Designed for individuals aged eight years and over who have stage 2 type 1, it works by disabling the immune cells that attack the pancreas and destroy the insulin-producing beta cells, allowing the body to maintain its own insulin production for longer, so early identification is really important. So what next? Well, adoption of any screening programme requires the Wilson and Jungner criteria, set in 1968, to be met. They look at the viability, effectiveness and appropriateness of any screening programme. Type 1 meets some of those because it is an important health problem, it has a recognised latent or early symptomatic stage, and the development of the condition is adequately understood, but further work is required to meet them all. For example, the target population for screening has not yet been clearly defined, but I hope it will be soon. Currently, we are looking at the appropriate ages at which to carry out the testing. Although there are numerous opportunities for screening throughout a person’s lifetime, the early years are critical, given the possibility of becoming symptomatic in childhood. If we were to screen children at the age of three to four, we might catch 40% of cases. However, three periods of testing between the ages of two to four, six to eight and 10 to 15 would increase the number of childhood type 1 cases caught to around 80%, which would ultimately improve the efficacy of the screening and help meet the criteria. While a final determination is being made on the correct ages at which to screen children, we are working on other questions. How can we embed this into clinical care and ensure that the follow-up programme is successful, as it may go on for years? Once we are aware of a child presenting—perhaps in stage 1 or stage 2—how do we keep in contact? If they test at the age of three, how do we make sure that they come back for the repeat tests? How do we make it clear that one negative test does not mean that someone is free of type 1? For those for whom it is coming, how do we make sure that they have the support and training to be ready? We also have to firmly establish a clear balance between the benefits and the harms. I have already described some of the benefits, which include reducing DKA diagnosis and the long-term benefits that follow. On harm, we have to think about the behavioural and anxiety changes, because we need to ensure that psychological support is available for patients who know that a condition is coming. Sometimes ignorance is bliss, and living with knowledge of an impending condition could be overwhelming, but knowing the signs and preparing is vital. We need to make sure that we can offer treatments that work for all, and particularly for younger people. There is clearly some interest in introducing a screening programme in the UK, because the ELSA study, which is funded by Diabetes UK and Breakthrough T1D, offers children aged two to 17 a simple finger-prick blood test to determine their risk of developing type 1. The study—I emphasise that it is a study—is currently open to families in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with over 20,000 children having been screened so far, but it is really important that we move from studies to a national screening programme. At the moment, ELSA is available only for the early adopters—those who come forward to seek screening—which explains why nearly 40% of the participants are relatives of people with type 1. We need to make sure that any screening system is universal, so that we have a fair application that does not discriminate based on background, wealth or ethnicity. For all the reasons I have set out, I am calling for a national screening programme. Although type 1 is an unpredictable and relentless condition to live with, I hope that within the next few years we can make the diagnosis of this condition far less traumatic, and give families and patients the skills and tools to live with type 1. I hope that one day we can cure this condition. Until then, if we can diagnose earlier and delay the onset to allow more care-free childhood years, we might just make people’s journey with type 1 that little bit better. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Sarah Bool, Tom Gordon, Josh Newbury, Charlie Dewhirst, Mr Andrew Snowdon, Rebecca Smith and Jim Shannon present the Bill. Sarah Bool accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 May, and to be printed (Bill 417).
I commend the hon. Member for her work in chairing the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention. I also thank her for jointly organising an event in Parliament to which constituents of mine, Anna Scott and Roger Cunliffe, who lost their daughter to suicide, brought the Yorkshire Speak Their Name quilts; we had 19 quilts on display here in the Houses of Parliament. Will the hon. Member recognise, however, that those in our farming community, working in isolated environments, are of particular concern, with men in farming being twice as likely to lose their lives to suicide as the average man working in any other environment? Will she join me in celebrating the work of the Farming Community Network and others, which do so much to support those working in isolated environments, particularly in the farming community?
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I am afraid to say that I think the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) has completely missed the point, because the reality is that this country is about 60% to 63% self-sufficient in terms of food security. This is not just about land being taken out of production; it is also about the long-term degradation of the health of the soil on which the solar is being mounted, because of issues such as shading, reduced rainfall, construction-related compaction issues, reduced organic matter and contamination risks. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just about taking the land out of production but about the long-term degradation of soil health once the land comes back into agricultural production—if it ever does—after the solar agreement of 40 years or so has elapsed?
I have read the land use framework. The Minister has hit the nail on the head, because its sole beneficiary is his Department—the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero—and not our farmers or our food security. Can he specifically address the issue of land quality? If we are putting ground-mounted solar on agricultural land, will he at least recognise that that will degrade the quality of the soil health, given the amount of time that those solar panels will be in situ?
I, too, welcome the statement from the Minister. I pay tribute once again to my constituent Clive Smith, who is the president of the Haemophilia Society, on all the work he has done to press previous Governments and this Government on behalf of those affected and infected. I am pleased to hear the Minister make specific reference to Treloar’s school in Hampshire, where at least 72 children died after being given a drug contaminated with HIV and viral hepatitis. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have a particular interest because your constituent Mike Webster’s son, Gary Webster, was infected. Can the Minister update the House on what progress is being made in pursuing criminal charges against those involved in experimenting on children?
Does my hon. Friend agree that the question the hon. Member for Gloucester asked shows the crux of one of the issues? He used the term “offender” to describe someone where a verdict has not yet been reached, but they are the defendant. Is the assumption of innocence before guilt is proven not a key principle we should be fighting for?
The removal of the cap on sitting days appears to be bringing the backlog down, which I think everyone in the Chamber can agree is a good thing. Why are the Government not looking at that, projecting it forward and taking that into account before making radical changes that remove rights of citizens?
Would the shadow Minister also be interested to understand the impact of the three-year suspension on sentences that went live just a few weeks ago on the projections going forward and on the impact on the Crown court backlog?
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. It is a pleasure once again to be locked up in a Bill Committee with the Minister. It has been a while, and I am feeling nostalgic; it is wonderful to be here with her again. Maybe one day we will be on the same side—that would be nice, wouldn’t it? I will speak against the clause in its entirety and in support of the amendment. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden for her powerful contribution. What she is doing is incredibly brave. It is not an easy thing to be sat on the Government Benches with a different view. I really hope that everyone will listen to what she had to say, because I think she was balanced in her approach: she was critical of the previous Government, and did not pull her punches on where she thinks the issues arose, but she suggested some good measures and made good points that we could adopt to address the backlog. That is the one thing that we all agree on in this room: we all want to address the backlog. We can rake over the past all we like, or we can look forward and do the right thing for the British people. Clause 1 is an egregious clause that seeks to remove one of our fundamental rights. It seeks to remove the right of an adult defendant charged with a triable either-way offence to elect for Crown court trial instead. Instead, the mode of trial will be determined solely by the magistrates courts. In practice, that means that defendants who currently have a right to trial by jury—the right to be judged by their peers—will no longer have it. The Government have suggested that this unprecedented change to our justice system will impact only those accused of shoplifting and other petty crimes, but that is not the case. It impacts those accused of an either-way offence where the sentence would be for up to three years in prison—three years. It will impact people charged with causing death by careless driving, committing fraud, sexual assault or actual bodily harm, and many other serious offences. Those are not minor or petty by any stretch and can be life changing for everyone involved. Removing the right to jury trial for such crimes is not a minor tweak to our justice system; it takes a sledgehammer to it. Trial by jury is an English institution, which has served for centuries to ensure that justice is done. No justice system works if it is not accepted and respected by its people. It is vital that we remember that before making changes. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater on an ideological whim is an irresponsible act. Dispensing justice is not just another process with checkboxes; it impacts people’s lives irrevocably. Decisions about how our system operates should be taken carefully and responsibly in recognition of that, and should allow an element of flexibility in the approach to get the right outcomes. That is what the amendment seeks to add. I urge the Government to tread carefully before throwing away something that has worked for hundreds of years, and that the British people value and respect. The common-sense determination of 12 citizens is often exactly what is needed to ensure fair justice. They are not jaded or desensitised to crime, because they have not had to sit through it day in, day out for years on end. They have not seen over their whole career the worst of humanity. They are from all walks of life, bringing diversity, and often compassion and understanding to the process. The Government can of course force the change through with the numbers they have, if they so wish, but I urge them to reflect on whether that is truly the legacy that they want. The planned limitation of the right to trial in the clause is justified by the Government as a necessary measure to get the Crown court backlog down. They defend this extraordinary restriction of our rights by arguing that the changes put victims first and at the heart of the justice system, but I remind the Government that before any verdict, there are no victims and offenders, only defendants and complainants. In this country, we are innocent until proven guilty. Justice is not just about victims; it is also about fairness for the accused, too.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, but I do not agree, because sometimes a crime has not been committed. It is important that we use the right terms. The Government have a tendency to talk a lot about victims; they have effectively pitted victims against anyone who happens to stand up and say, “Actually, maybe we shouldn’t get rid of our right to a jury trial.” That is the wrong approach to take. It is important that we use the right terminology, and that we do not shame people into silence for daring to suggest that the removal of jury trials may be an issue in some cases. The language that we use is really important.
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but we need to always be aware of the technical definition of the words that we are using. When the Government talk constantly about victims needing justice, and it all being about victims, I am not sure it is in the right spirit. What all of us in this Committee Room agree on, however, is that the Crown court backlog is a critical problem that needs to be addressed. But limiting trial by jury is not the way to do it. We have heard that repeatedly from knowledgeable and experienced people working in the justice system—we have even heard it from one of the Government’s own Members, the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden. The Bar Council does not support it, the Criminal Bar Association is opposed, and the Law Society says the Government’s proposals go too far.
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, and I of course agree. Clearly, there is not a consensus, which is why we are here today, but we can categorically state that most knowledgeable and experienced people working in the justice system are against what this Labour Government are trying to do.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. If I recall correctly, the hon. Member for Amber Valley has previously worked in the CPS—she might want to disclose her interest.
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, and I hope that she is comfortable having put that on the record. It is good to hear her view.