Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

   I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right: it is extraordinary and it is shocking. The Prime Minister might have refused to answer my question around his knowledge of Mandelson’s links to the Russian defence company Sistema yesterday, but that is only because he knows that we know the answer. It was there in the due diligence: his choice of ambassador retaining an interest in a Russian company linked to Vladimir Putin after the invasion of Crimea. And the Prime Minister’s response to seeing that information? According to Robbins, “constant pressure” on the Foreign Office to get the appointment done. The Prime Minister, as my right hon. Friend has just mentioned, placed top secret intelligence in the hands of a man he knew to be a national security risk. He did so before the official security vetting not just knowingly but deliberately, and to an extent that left a senior civil servant with a distinguished career under the clear and obvious impression that the vetting must return only one possible outcome: that Peter Mandelson should be appointed. None of that was following full due process by the letter or the spirit of that phrase. This is no longer just about what the Prime Minister was or was not told; this is about what he did before the vetting process had even started. And we now know that Mandelson was not a one-off. According to Sir Olly Robbins, No. 10 also asked for the disgraced Matthew Doyle, the Prime Minister’s then director of communications, to be made an ambassador. Astonishingly, the Prime Minister’s office even told Robbins to keep the request a secret from the Foreign Secretary. The idea that it is No. 10 who are the victims of others not following due process is, quite frankly, laughable. The Prime Minister told Parliament yesterday that it was “staggering” that Olly Robbins had not shared the recommendations of UK Security Vetting with the then Cabinet Secretary, Chris Wormald. But today we learned from Robbins that he had never seen the original vetting file. If the Prime Minister is furious that Sir Olly Robbins did not share the vetting details with him or the former Cabinet Secretary, why is he not furious with the Cabinet Office for not sharing it? Put simply, why exactly did he sack Olly Robbins? It is no surprise that the Prime Minister is not here today. These are difficult questions. He cannot claim not to have known about the risk that Mandelson posed, because, as he said yesterday, he saw the due diligence that disclosed it. I still find it inconceivable that, despite that failure of vetting being a front-page news story, no one in No. 10 was aware of it. He cannot deny that his decision put Britain at risk. The British public deserve to know how this failure happened and they deserve to hear it from the Prime Minister himself. Yesterday, the Prime Minister had the chance to set the record straight, but Members on all sides—and no doubt the public—were left wholly unsatisfied with the answers he gave. I am sure they will share my deep disappointment that the Prime Minister has chosen not to be here today. There remain serious questions about the decisions that he took over the appointment of Peter Mandelson, but the Prime Minister does not want to answer any more questions today, so, in typical fashion, he has thrown someone else under the bus. I feel for the Minister sent out as a human shield for the Prime Minister. It is not this Minister who made the Mandelson appointment; that was above his pay grade. He cannot tell us what the Prime Minister was thinking when he made those decisions and he will not be able to provide this House with the answers that it deserves to hear. This is simply what the Prime Minister does. Sue Gray, Matthew Doyle, Morgan McSweeney, Chris Wormald, Olly Robbins, Peter Mandelson—those appointments were the Prime Minister’s decision, people the Prime Minister chose to appoint and all people he then chose to sack. Are we meant to believe that all these people are the problem, rather than the Prime Minister’s judgment? As usual, the Prime Minister’s explanations yesterday left us with even more questions than answers. He says that he was justified in appointing Mandelson before vetting because of advice he received from the then Cabinet Secretary, Chris Wormald. But how can that make sense, when that advice only came after the scandal had erupted? Post hoc advice is pointless. Soon after that, he then sacked Chris Wormald. Why is the Prime Minister now relying on the evidence of the very man he told us was doing so badly in the job that he sacked him? Let us move on to the Prime Minister’s claim that no one in No. 10 was aware that Mandelson had failed his vetting. Enough people in Whitehall knew. Enough people knew for journalists from The Independent, the Mail and Sky News to find out. Journalists have released texts with the Prime Minister’s director of communications, where they made No. 10 aware of this fact. He did not deny that the story was true. Why not? Something simply does not add up. Despite this, the Prime Minister went on to assure the House and the public that Mandelson’s appointment was down to a failure of vetting. I cannot fathom how the Prime Minister can still claim not to have misled the House on this point. It is telling that when given the opportunity yesterday to apologise for misleading the House, even inadvertently, by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), the Prime Minister chose not to. I suspect that he chose not to do so because he knows that if he did, he would be bound by his own words and by the standards to which he held previous Prime Ministers from this very Dispatch Box. In 2022, he said that if the Prime Minister misleads the House, he must resign—either the Prime Minister is a man of his word, or he thinks there is one rule for him and another for everyone else. Unbelievably, half the permanent secretaries who were in post when Labour took office less than two years ago have now gone. The sacking of senior civil servants to carry the can for the Prime Minister’s failures has already cost taxpayers more than £1.5 million in payouts—that is before the sacking of Sir Olly Robbins. It is quite something for the former Cabinet Secretary Lord O’Donnell to warn that the Prime Minister has created “one of the worst crises in relations between ministers and mandarins of modern times”, adding that the sacking of Sir Olly Robbins “risks having a serious and sustained chilling effect on serving and prospective civil servants”. Another former Cabinet Secretary, Lord Butler, has said that the Prime Minister put Sir Olly in an “impossible” position. These are serious people who are calling out the Prime Minister’s behaviour. The former head of propriety and ethics and deputy Cabinet Secretary, Helen MacNamara, has called the decision to sack Robbins “unacceptable”. She said that if the Government had published the papers that Parliament demanded back in February, this argument would be so much easier for everyone because we would all be operating on the basis of the same facts, and she is right. The delay in publishing the information required by the Humble Address is shocking. Where are the key annotations, decisions and meeting records—the box returns, as they are called in Downing Street? Why are crucial forms left blank? These missing documents add to the mystery. Why are the Government still trying to cover this up?

   Hansard source
2. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

   My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Why were the Prime Minister’s words redacted? These key pieces of information would help to solve this mystery—they would be much easier for us to understand than the words he gave at the Dispatch Box. I note that no Labour MPs have intervened on me, which is very unusual; when I am speaking in a debate, they are normally bobbing left, right and centre. I am raising these concerns because of the seriousness of the situation the country is now in. With war in Europe, war in the middle east, a cost of living crisis and a global energy shock, we need a Prime Minister who has a grip on national security. Yet last week, the former Labour Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary-General, Lord Robertson, warned that the Prime Minister has shown “corrosive complacency” when it comes to defence. The same man who wrote the Prime Minister’s strategic defence review is now ringing the alarm bell to warn us of the grave consequences of the Government refusing to take the tough choices needed to increase defence spending. This matters, because if we cannot trust our Prime Minister to tell the whole, full truth about this ambassadorial appointment—a key appointment in Britain’s national security architecture—it calls into question the assurances he gives us on everything else. It calls into question his promises to control taxes, which he has broken, his promises not to raise borrowing, which he has broken, and his promises to back business, protect our veterans, defend our farmers and prioritise growth, all of which he has broken. He has broken them because at his core, he is a man with no idea what he believes. Worse still, he appears to have no interest in doing the job of Prime Minister—just in being the Prime Minister. Curiosity is what drives serious leadership; without curiosity, problems are neither fully understood nor solved. This whole affair just goes to show why this country is heading in such a woeful direction under the Prime Minister’s incurious regime. His defence yesterday summed it up: he said that no one told him and that he never thought to ask. This is, in his own words, incredible. However, even if we take the Prime Minister at his word—even if we believe the unbelievable—it is no better. He appointed Mandelson despite knowing that he was a threat to our national security; he said that due process was followed, having failed to follow that process himself; and he pressured the Foreign Office into signing off on this appointment. In 2022, the Prime Minister said: “I believe that if you’re the leader, the buck stops with you. I will always stand up for my team, but I will also take responsibility for everything they do. That is what leadership is.” How has he taken responsibility? It is clear that the Prime Minister has no intention of facing up to his mistakes. It is clear now that he is not a leader and that he has no intention of doing the honourable thing.

   Hansard source
3. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

   The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I think he is right, because I do not believe the Prime Minister has the intention of doing the honourable thing himself, even though that is the standard to which he held everyone else. The decision as to whether the Prime Minister will ultimately take responsibility for his actions is now up to Labour MPs. We heard many powerful statements from the Government Members yesterday. Labour MPs know that the Prime Minister has let the country down, let Parliament down and let the Labour party down. It is clear to everyone except the Prime Minister himself that he has failed on his own terms. It is clear to the public that he is failing at the job, it is clear to civil servants that he is throwing them under the bus, and it is clear to Members across the House that he is not fit to lead. This cannot go on. This House deserves better. The country deserves better. The Prime Minister is not fit for office. The first duty of any Prime Minister is to keep this country safe. This Prime Minister has put the country’s national security at risk, and he must take responsibility. It is time for him to go.

   Hansard source
4. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

   I start by thanking Members from across the House for speaking in today’s debate. We heard many powerful speeches, and I am particularly grateful to the many speakers from the Conservative Benches, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam). I found myself nodding along to the speech made by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon)—I think that is the first time that has ever happened. We heard very good speeches from the hon. Members for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). Members from all parts of the House have made powerful statements—Members of all parties who know that this story does not add up. We have also heard some statements supporting the Prime Minister, which can only be described as brave. As I said when I opened the debate, I do feel for the Minister sent here today on the Prime Minister’s behalf. He is the latest person to have to carry the can for the Prime Minister’s mistakes. He could never have given this House the answers it deserved to hear about what is, at its core, a failure of the Prime Minister’s judgment, a failure of the Prime Minister to follow process, and a shocking failure of the Prime Minister to take responsibility for his own mistakes—not just apologise, but take responsibility. The Minister could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister decided to appoint Peter Mandelson to our most important diplomatic role in full knowledge, based on the due diligence, that Mandelson was a security risk, despite many Members asking it. He could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister chose to ignore the Cabinet Secretary and appoint Peter Mandelson before he received vetting. That was clearly not the process at the time, despite what the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box. He has said that the Government are changing the process, but the advice in November 2024 was to carry out the security vetting, so what process are they changing? Is it one that the Minister is just making up? The Minister could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister put the Foreign Office under “constant pressure” to approve the appointment. He could not answer the question of why No. 10 was “dismissive” of the entire vetting process. He could not answer the question of why No. 10 also asked for the disgraced Matthew Doyle to be made an ambassador and hid this from the Foreign Secretary, and he could not answer the question of why the Prime Minister sacked Olly Robbins if he was following a process that, as he claims, was in place already—it does not make any sense. He could not answer, because only one man can, and that man is not here today. I do not know whether the Prime Minister thinks he is above answering these questions—we will try again tomorrow. I do not know whether he still somehow thinks that he did nothing wrong, but I will tell the House what I do know. The Prime Minister has put the country’s national security at risk. He is not fit for office, and he must take responsibility. It is time for him to go. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the Government’s accountability to the House in connection to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States of America.

   Hansard source
5. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

   Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026

   I thank the Minister for such a comprehensive run-through of those regulations and the changes proposed. I can confirm that the Opposition will not oppose the changes today; we believe, fundamentally, that overbearing and unnecessary red tape should be removed wherever possible. It is worth celebrating the fact that a Government rumoured to be exploring a path back into the EU are taking advantage of one of the benefits of being outside the EU to make these changes. The statutory instrument amends three pieces of retained EU law. Those changes are proportionate and grounded in the recommendations of the Health and Safety Executive. Collectively, they will help ensure a regulatory system that supports the economy while protecting people and the environment. However, I will briefly outline why we support each of the changes. First, the amendments to the Great Britain biocidal products regulation are simply common sense. Extending the expiry dates of 173 already approved biocidal products ensures continuity for businesses and avoids needless costs to manufacturers. These products are safe, so we completely agree that, to avoid disruption, that is the right thing to do. Secondly, the changes to the classification, labelling and packaging regulation are a step in the right direction. They reduce the time taken for the HSE to make classification decisions, and streamline the process. Thirdly, the changes to the prior informed consent regulation are another simplification of rules and remove overbearing requirements for exporting purposes. This is exactly the kind of regulatory reform that businesses want, and one that, we hope, will lead to growth. I hope the Government will carry out this red tape-cutting exercise across broader areas of the economy. We will not oppose the SI today. We believe in supporting innovation, and reducing burdens on business, to drive economic growth in the future.

   Hansard source
6. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

   UK-Mauritius Treaty

   Last week, this feeble Government limped to this House to announce that their shameful Chagos surrender Bill was being ditched—a diplomatic failure entirely owned by this Labour Government. Our friends and allies alike around the world were left bemused by the deal that this Government came up with. This week, the Government have sent a team of officials to Mauritius. Can the Minister make it clear that that team have been told unequivocally to tell the Mauritius Government that the deal is dead, the UK will be sending no money to the Mauritius Government and the Chagos islands will be remaining British?

   Hansard source
7. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

   Middle East: Economic Update

   The strangely cheerful outing by Treasury Front-Bench Members today makes them the equivalent of the band playing on the deck of the Titanic, as the Government sink around them after hitting the iceberg that is Peter Mandelson. If the Chancellor thinks that anybody out there genuinely feels that she has made the economy more resilient to economic shocks, then I am sorry to say that she is living in cloud cuckoo land. I have met the families who have less money in their pay packets because of her tax raids. I have met the businesses that are making people redundant, cutting investments or facing closure because of her tax rises. If she wants to help people in the economy, she should cut taxes.

   Hansard source
8. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mike Wood

   Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

   Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

   Hansard source
9. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mike Wood

   Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

   On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

   Hansard source
10. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

    Will the hon. Lady give way?

    Hansard source
11. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026 Draft Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

    It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. As the Minister has said, the draft regulations are pretty uncontroversial, and the Opposition will certainly not oppose them. I have a couple of questions on the draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. The Minister has quite rightly said that they have been introduced in response to delays in other jurisdictions, including the US and the EU. Of course, it is very important that we remain globally competitive and do not cause any self-inflicted harm. However, can the Minister provide some more detail on why other jurisdictions are delaying the implementation of these rules? Is it procedural, or is it because they have some concerns about the rules that they are being asked to implement? Secondly, the draft regulations allow the Treasury to extend the delay beyond 1 January 2028, which is absolutely fine—we completely understand why that might need to be the case. That will also be subject to the affirmative procedure. However, there are one or two concerns within the industry that this provision might create uncertainty about when the rules will actually be brought in. It would be very helpful if the Minister gave some idea about what internal tests the Treasury will use to decide whether to pursue such an extension. As I said, the Opposition support the intention behind the draft regulations, and we will certainly not be pressing them to a vote.

    Hansard source
12. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    In the interests of time, I will keep my remarks brief. First, I would like to speak in favour of Lords amendment 26, which would ensure a brownfield-first approach. If this were well and truly a brownfield-first Labour Government, they would support this amendment. Broxbourne has had its fair share of development, but targets are going up and up. This Labour Government have increased Broxbourne’s housing targets by 22%, while decreasing them in London by 11%. That is not fair, and it is creating loads of urban sprawl on the green belt in the village of Goffs Oak, which is under attack. This Government should be trying to protect those green spaces.

    Hansard source
13. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    My right hon. Friend makes a fantastic point, and she is an excellent campaigner for protecting the green belt in her constituency. The green belt around London was set up after the second world war to protect the periphery from urban sprawl. Just as her constituency is next to a big city, mine is next to London. The Government are now proposing a new town right in the heart of this green space that was meant to be protected, with 21,000 new homes at Crews Hill, effectively joining my constituency to the urban sprawl of London. My constituency is completely different from London, and that green belt needs to be protected. It is a crucial buffer zone between the urban sprawl coming out of London and the ruralness of Hertfordshire.

    Hansard source
14. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    I gently say to my fellow Committee member that there are some horrific example of Liberal Democrat-controlled councils building all over the green belt, so this is not something on which he can preach from the sidelines, even though I do have respect for him. It is important that we put this measure in the Bill, because we must protect the green belt at all costs. Development should be brownfield first because, as has been pointed out, brownfield sites are more often than not connected by transport links and have local facilities, whereas green fields and the green belt do not. As I have said, my constituency is under attack from ever increasing housing targets, which are up by 22% while those in London are down by 11%. We are even under attack from a new town of 21,000 new homes. We are told that it is such a good location for a new town and to build on the green belt because it is near good transport links. I have driven on the A10 and the M25 at rush hour—I would welcome the Minister doing that—and it is chock-a-block. It is absolutely rammed. I do not know how those 21,000 people will drive their cars using the local infrastructure, because it simply will not cope. The village of Goffs Oak in my constituency is completely under attack from development on the green belt, which is why the Lords amendment is so important. As I said in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, there are thousands of unbuilt planning applications on brownfield sites up and down the country. Rather than concreting over the green belt, the Labour Government should be focusing on making developers build on brownfield sites for which they already have planning permission. I welcome the Government accepting some of the Lords amendments, because I am incredibly frustrated with pavement parking across my constituency. Just last week, I saw reckless pavement parking in Cheshunt, where all four wheels of the car were on the pavement and people could not get by with a buggy or a wheelchair. We must hold people who park recklessly to account.

    Hansard source
15. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    I suspect it is an issue faced by Members across the Chamber, and I completely agree with the hon. Lady. Where the amendments go wrong is that the Government plan to give the regulations to local transport authorities, rather than district councils. At the moment in my area, district councils do parking enforcement. We will have one authority with powers to enforce measures on pavement parking, and one authority with the parking and enforcement teams, which does not seem like a joined-up approach. We should not have to wait for local transport authorities, combined authorities and metro mayors to be in place. The Government could have brought forward simple legislation to give councils that are outside London the same powers that London councils have, so that they are able to issue penalty charge notices—yellow tickets—and control pavement parking throughout the country. Finally, I will address consent for local government reorganisation. I am sure that lots of hon. Members have been out and about speaking to their constituents in the local election campaign, but not one resident across my constituency has spoken to me about consent for local government reorganisation. Not one of them wants to be put into a combined authority, to have a mayor or to move into a unitary local government system. I was on the Bill Committee, and we saw no evidence that the changes to local government structures will bring about more money for local councils or better services for residents. It is just the Government using their powers to force local government reorganisation in this country. That is why local councils have replied to letters from the Minister—they have been forced to do so. These measures are an important part of the Bill, and we should allow local people to have a say over what structures they have in their local communities. I do not think any of us will go out in the local election campaign, speak to residents on the doorstep and hear them say, “What I really want in Broxbourne, Lewis, is for you to change the local council structures. I want a devolved mayor and a combined authority.” People actually want more effective local government that is connected to the people. [Interruption.] I can hear chuntering from Labour Members, but there is no evidence that any of that will save any money. In fact, Conservative-run Broxbourne council has the lowest unparished council tax in the country, but through the measures proposed in the Bill by this Government, my constituents will be forced to pay more and higher council tax. I am not in favour of more taxation. The best people to spend their money in Broxbourne are the residents rather than the council, so I urge the Government to accept those Lords amendments and listen to local people.

    Hansard source
16. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
17. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Katie Lam

    Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

    Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I both asked the Prime Minister whether he knew about Peter Mandelson’s role as a director at Sistema when he appointed him to be the ambassador to the United States. Given that the Prime Minister did not answer our question then, I will repeat the facts of the case and ask the Minister for clarification. From 2013 until at least 2017, Peter Mandelson served as a director for Sistema, a Russian conglomerate that invests heavily in Russia’s military industrial complex. This means that Mandelson remained a director at Sistema after Russia’s annexation of Crimea. It also means that he would have maintained close contacts with figures linked to the Russian Government, including Sistema’s former chairman Vladimir Yevtushenkov, who is currently subject to sanctions as a result of his links to Vladimir Putin. Any sensible Prime Minister would want to consider the facts carefully before appointing somebody to a sensitive diplomatic post and would give proper consideration to whether those relationships would leave that person exposed to Russian influence. This is particularly true in the case of Peter Mandelson, who has a long history of improper financial conduct. In November 2024, the Cabinet Secretary advised the Prime Minister to conduct security vetting on prospective candidates before appointing anybody to the ambassador’s post in Washington. In December 2024, the Prime Minister ignored that guidance and appointed Peter Mandelson anyway. In January 2025, the Prime Minister repeatedly insisted before the press and the public that Peter Mandelson had passed security vetting, despite the fact that that was not the case. When asked yesterday, he twice refused to confirm that he knew about Peter Mandelson’s links to Sistema, despite the fact that the advice that he received in December 2024 explicitly pointed it out. The advice included the following quote: “Mandelson served as a non-executive director of the Russian conglomerate Sistema, which is itself the majority shareholder of RTI, a defence technology company…Mandelson remained on the board until June 2017, long after Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.” Either the Prime Minister is still reluctant to share with us all the information that we deserve, or he did not read the advice he was given—despite insisting repeatedly that his decision to appoint Mandelson was based on that advice. In light of this, can the Minister tell us definitively this afternoon whether the Prime Minister considered these facts about Peter Mandelson’s role at Sistema when appointing him—yes or no? If he did not, why did he not read his brief? If he did, why did he not consider it sufficiently concerning to abandon, or at the very least pause to reconsider, the appointment of Peter Mandelson to arguably our most important and security-sensitive ambassadorial role? The Prime Minister has spoken extensively about what he did not know, but we and the British public are incredulous that he did not ask. We know that the Prime Minister knew about the Russian links, so what questions did he ask about those facts? What questions did he ask officials? What questions did he ask Mandelson, or did he simply not want to know?

    Hansard source
18. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

    Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

    My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and rightly highlighting the concerns about these developments. In my constituency in the Borders, we have wind farms, battery storage proposals and solar farms. As my hon. Friend said, developers talk at length about the supposed environmental benefits, but that is no more than greenwashing, because the wider negative impact these developments will have on the local environment where these developments are taking place is far greater than any benefit that might come from the developments proceeding.

    Hansard source
19. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

    Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Hansard source
20. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

    Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

    I am grateful. As I said earlier in my short comments, in my constituency I am inundated with wind farms, solar farms, battery storage and data centres. I now formally object to each of them. Previously, in my life as an MSP and an MP, I did not formally object to such applications, but the situation has gone so far and the environment has been damaged so much that I now do so. Will the hon. Lady formally object, on the council’s website, to Calderdale wind farm?

    Hansard source
21. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I wish to address a number of issues in relation to this grouping. First, I will say something about the figures that have been quoted at length today and in previous sittings. Secondly, I will say something about the reasons given by the Government for curtailing jury trials in this way. Then I want to go on to say something about evidence and procedure, and why jury trials exist at all, because sometimes it is possible to sit here listening, wondering whether the Government’s reasoning would not justify a banning of all jury trials for evermore on any crime. Finally, I will talk about some of the perversities that the hon. Member for Chichester has articulated well.

    Hansard source
22. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Seventh sitting)

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Hansard source
23. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I intended to intervene on the Minister to ask a question, but I am happy to pose it by way of a speech. She has indicated—in fact, she stated very clearly—that she wants to formally clarify in writing, but she is declining to formally clarify orally. Does she not accept that if we proceed to a vote on clause 3, she is at risk of inadvertently misleading this Committee if she cannot clarify what she says she wants to clarify in writing before we vote?

    Hansard source
24. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
25. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    The Minister talks about the statutory test for complexity, among other things. I cannot identify the statutory test for complexity. Where is the test in the new legislation?

    Hansard source
26. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, which would ensure the right of appeal to a decision whether a trial should be heard by a jury. The Government’s reason for not accepting the amendment, as they have put forward on a number of previous amendments, is the principle of efficiency—that it would slow the system down and would not drive the efficiencies that they hope to secure through the Bill. The principle of efficiency cannot be an untamed principle that runs roughshod over carefully fought legal principles of fairness and natural justice. Efficiency cannot simply trump everything. If efficiency has no limits, why have trials of more than a few days at all? The arguments have been well made by the shadow Minister, and I do not wish to repeat them, but it is not an inefficient process to allow a right of appeal. I assume that the decision made by the judge in the first instance on how to allocate the trial will not be a particularly lengthy process anyway, so an appeal of that decision will be no lengthier—indeed, less so. I have never heard the argument that appeals are against efficiency in any other aspect of law. Indeed, appealing the substantive outcome of a case—a claim of wrongful conviction—has not one but many stages of appeal: appeal to the High Court, appeal to the Court of Appeal and appeal to the Supreme Court. I have never heard the argument that someone should not have the right to appeal the outcome of a trial because it is inefficient or might cause delays. It seems that efficiency is being used to justify a fairly hastily put together Bill, and that the Government do not recognise the possibly unintended consequences of its provisions in order to get their business through. The best way of addressing those issues, and accepting that there might be loopholes and unintended consequences, is to give genuine due regard to amendments tabled in good faith, on this occasion by the shadow Minister, to improve the lawmaking process and the Bill. The amendment does not seek to drive a coach and horses through what the Government are trying to achieve with the Bill, even though we disagree with some of it; it seeks to improve, to perfect and not to allow unfairness to creep into the Bill. I am sure that the Government do not intend the Bill to be unfair, but time and again they risk allowing it to be so.

    Hansard source
27. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
28. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    The hon. Member is making a very good speech, but she is almost being generous. The wording in the Bill is not “complex”; it is “complexity”, which is a description, not even a value. The Bill is even vaguer than what the hon. Member is suggesting in her well-made point.

    Hansard source
29. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    How long is a piece of string? The unanswerable question. I could ask another question: is a 2-metre piece of string a long piece of string? If I asked you that question, Ms Butler, you would have a lot of questions for me before you gave your answer, yet the Minister thinks it is easy to answer the question, “Is a two-week trial a long trial?”. She thinks it is obvious and that a judge will be able to make a decision. She is not willing to put a definition on that, because she says it is evident in the way that the Bill is drafted. I look at the words in the Bill—which is all that a judge will have to make that decision. On length, it says that the judge will have to decide if the “likely length of the trial…makes it appropriate for the trial to be conducted without a jury.” On complexity, they will have to decide whether “the likely complexity of the trial” is “appropriate for the trial to be conducted without a jury.” It is even hard to decipher from that whether it means complex is good or bad for a jury. Complexity is just a description; it is not a value. This is incredibly unusual, novel and, I would say, badly worded legislation. Ordinarily, a provision of this sort would say something along the lines of: “If the court is satisfied that the length of trial is so long that it would make it unreasonable for a jury”. That would be more normal wording. The principle of reasonableness, while giving discretion and, some might argue, a vague term in the English language, is a well-tested word in criminal law and the English legal system. We know what reasonableness means; it is an objective test—“What would an ordinary person think is reasonable?” What about appropriateness? Does that mean appropriate to that judge on that day? Does it mean appropriate to a particular, theoretical juror? There is absolutely no guidance in Bill about how this novel word, “appropriate”, should be interpreted. Even when there are words in legislation such as “reasonableness”, which are backed by decades or even centuries of case law, the judge is very often given guidance in the legislation as to what is and is not reasonable.

    Hansard source
30. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, the Bill will basically lead to a complete lottery in decision making, depending on the judge a person gets on the day. I suspect that judges ordinarily do not like vague law or having to provide their own interpretation. They are usually more comfortable if the statute is more precise, or if it is backed by caselaw, but there is no caselaw here. On the issue of length, we know what the Minister thinks because she has told us in this Bill Committee. I do not criticise her for this opinion, but she thinks a case is long if it is disruptive to the personal or professional life of a juror or their wellbeing. That is her view as to what will make a case lengthy, and I do not criticise her for that, but there is no guidance here for the judge to consider those things—[Interruption.] I paraphrase her—she is welcome to intervene if she disagrees about how I characterise her views on what is lengthy for a juror.

    Hansard source
31. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I agree with my hon. Friend; he actually pre-empts the point I am about to get on to. I thank him for taking me on to that. It should be fairly obvious to most people that there will be a wide range of views as to how much time a person can take out of their ordinary life, bearing in mind that people are not called for jury service at the drop of a hat. They are not told, “You must cancel all your plans next week”; there is a degree of warning. Most people take quite a wide view on how much time they can afford to give, depending on what is going on in their life. For some people, taking two weeks or even a week out is very disruptive. This theoretical person that the judge has to imagine would make an argument that it is appropriate that the trial should not take place with a jury, because they do not have a week in their busy life to just hand over. Alternatively, others may say that they see it as a civic duty and a fundamental contribution they make to society to be available for jury trial if called. Perhaps they have never been called and they have reached a ripe old age, and they are happy and prepared to take a month or two out of their life to devote to making a decision on whether someone is guilty.

    Hansard source
32. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    Indeed. Might a judge, halfway through a trial, decide that it has suddenly become inappropriate, having heard whatever formal or informal representations are made on that point? Even if there is some objective consensus about how long an ordinary person in this country should be prepared to set aside to serve on a jury, does that in itself make it appropriate that a case should not be heard by a jury? Even if we could agree, for example, that devoting any more than a month to a jury trial is disruptive to a person’s life, does that automatically make it inappropriate for a case to be heard in a jury trial? No, not at all. If it is inconvenient for someone to sit on a jury for a particular length of time, that does not mean the case is inappropriate for a jury trial. Even the Government are not willing to put a specific time value on that.

    Hansard source
33. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are a number of personal and professional circumstances that can enable people to make that argument and get exempted from jury trial or, indeed, not have to sit on the jury in the original case but have it deferred to a more convenient time. She is absolutely right that flexibility for ordinary people in this country is already built into the way that juries are selected. “Length” is probably the easiest of these three difficult terms; “complexity” is even harder to nail down. How is a judge supposed to decide what level of complexity makes it appropriate to have a jury? I would argue that the more complex a case, in certain circumstances, the more it should be heard by a jury, especially if the complexity relates to what is in the mind of the defendant, rather than, for example, complex financial papers. Does the involvement of complex financial papers, on its own, necessarily make a trial more complex, if the real issue in the case is whether the defendant intended to be dishonest? As we have already heard with fraud cases, as well as most of the cases in schedule 1, the real issue is not whether something happened; it is the mindset—the legal term would be mens rea—of the person who did that thing. If they did something by accident or unintentionally, depending on the crime, that would often be enough for them to be acquitted. If they did something knowingly, dishonestly or recklessly, also depending on the crime, that would normally be enough for them to be convicted.

    Hansard source
34. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Obviously judges are not infallible. That is not a criticism of judges—judges know that they can make mistakes. On the mindset of the person, I am unclear as to whether the Government or indeed anyone on the Committee, regardless of party, thinks that there is anything more complex than what is in a person’s mind—a mind that cannot be unlocked or opened. We can ask this person what was in their mind, but they want to be acquitted, so we must take a value judgment on whether they are telling the truth or not. Surely the most complex thing there can possibly be is what is in the mind of a human being. A very complex set of spreadsheets or cryptocurrency that only half of us understand is complicated, but there is perhaps nothing more complicated than the motivation and mindset of a human being. That is specifically what juries are for—to make that sort of judgment on whether it was reasonable for someone to do something. That is why we have 12 members, so that they must come to a view unanimously, or certainly as a large majority. A judge is not in a more privileged position—no one would argue that they are—to decide what is and is not reasonable. They are in a more privileged position to make decisions about the law, and indeed they do make decisions about the law in jury trials and direct the jury on matters of law. It is incredibly uncertain what “complexity” means. I know what the Minister thinks it means, and I do not criticise her. It is a perfectly reasonable view of what it means. My point is that it is not the only view. She thinks—I paraphrase; I do not seek to put words in her mouth—that it is complex financial evidence, presumably written evidence in many cases, in a fraud trial or crimes related to money. It is perfectly possible to have a great volume of evidence but, as the case unfolds, a detailed understanding of that paperwork may no longer be the issue on which the case turns. Does having a large volume of written evidence and a long list of witnesses make a case complex, or does it depend on what the witnesses might say or exactly what is in those papers? The Minister has spoken about juries moving at the pace of the slowest member. Is her test for complexity the mindset of the slowest member of a random 12 selected from the British public, or is it the average—one might say reasonable—person? She could help judges making this decision by setting that out in the legislation. This is not merely a theoretical, academic discussion on the criminal law of this country. I can point to another country. The Minister has taken pleasure in using other countries as examples to justify many provisions in the Bill, as though England and Wales can learn from other jurisdictions. I do not disagree with that premise. I will give her the example of New Zealand, another common-law jurisdiction. It has a similar provision, whereby a judge has to exercise a similar sort of decision making about whether a trial is likely to be “long and complex”, rather than its likely complexity. Set out in its legislation is a legal test. The Minister says that there is a test of complexity in the Bill. I tried to intervene on her to say that there is not. This is what a test looks like. The law of New Zealand directs a judge to consider, in determining whether a case is likely to be long and complex, “the number and nature of offences with which the defendant is charged”. We understand what that means. It also directs them to consider “the nature of the issues likely to be involved…the volume of the evidence likely to be presented” and “the imposition on potential jurors of sitting for the likely duration of the trial”. It has a catch-all, which is not unusual in legal drafting: “any other matters the court considers relevant.” The judge in New Zealand has a test to apply: whether the case is likely to be long and complex. There is absolutely no reason why the Government could not have included a test in the Bill—it does not have to be the same test—to assist the court and give certainty, which would help defendants and victims and would improve efficiency.

    Hansard source
35. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister pointed out, there are a number of problems that not only arise with what clauses 3 and 4 try to do, but carry over to clause 5, which tries to replicate aspects of jury trials in trials that will not be heard by a jury because a judge has made an allocation decision. The problems with juries seem to be, as the Minister and the Government have articulated, time wasted through swearing in, the unpredictable nature of convening 12 people—with people sometimes dropping out—and the fact they can hear evidence only at certain times of the day, which makes the day for hearing evidence shorter. Of course, none of those things are new; they are things that have always existed with jury trials. Citing issues with juries that have existed since juries began, in order to deal with the more recent issue of backlogs, misses the point. The Government have taken measures to deal with the more recent issues with criminal cases, including the fact that evidence inherently takes longer, although that is the same with evidence that a judge has to consider, and that cases have become more complex because of evidence and technology. That also is true of cases that are heard by a judge only. The Government have made plenty of complaints and shared plenty of views about what they think of the previous Government. They have spoken about under-investment and caps on sitting days, things that they say they have addressed through allocating more sitting days and investing in the legal system. Surely, that is the remedy for their complaints. However, they have not been prepared to spend the time to assess that remedy, to see whether the benefits in reducing the backlog will be felt in the coming months and years. To take an inherent feature of the jury system—the jury itself—as a justification for doing away with it in certain cases because of more recent pressures for other reasons is neither logical nor fair. The problem with simply transferring all the provisions that would ordinarily happen in a jury trial to a trial that is decided by a judge alone, as clause 5 seeks to do, is that there are features of a jury system that cannot simply be replicated by a judge sitting alone. Let us remember that a jury decides the facts. It decides whether something happened and it decides what was in the mind of the defendant at the time in question. That is the preserve of the jury. It is for the judge, even in a jury trial, to decide the law, to direct the jury—where appropriate—and to decide issues of procedure. Some of the procedural issues or arguments about evidence, including about whether evidence is admissible or not, are decided by the judge in the absence of the jury. The jury is sent out of the room. Of course, that can make the whole trial last longer, but there is a very good reason for it. It is because sometimes the arguments that are made—for example, arguments about the admissibility of certain evidence—are in themselves prejudicial to the decision maker of the facts, which is the jury, or prejudicial to the way that they might decide the case. A judge might need to hear the contested evidence, or at least hear what it is about to decide whether it is admissible. A judge might decide that evidence is inadmissible because it is not relevant, or—this is where I go way beyond my legal expertise; I never practised as a criminal lawyer—because it might effectively prejudice the jury. We do not want the jury seeing that evidence, which is why they are out of the room. If the judge rules that the evidence is inadmissible, the jury come back into the room never having seen it, and the trial continues with the jurors’ minds unclouded by inadmissible evidence. However, when the judge is also deciding the facts—that happens, of course in magistrates courts, where the magistrates decide the facts and are guided on the law by a legal professional sitting in front of them—and indeed when a judge is deciding the facts and the law, and procedural issues and issues of the admissibility of evidence, then, if they take separate arguments or separate submissions from the defence and prosecution on whether an item of evidence is admissible or not, and they decide that it is not admissible because it would cloud the judgment of the jury or confuse the issues of the main trial, they effectively have to pretend that they never heard that prejudicial evidence, having decided that it is prejudicial. Judges are trained and professional, and have to do all this anyway in certain cases where a judge decides both—

    Hansard source
36. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I accept that judges can do all this, and indeed sometimes do all this. Surely, however, the Minister will accept that, given human nature, there is a limit to the extent to which a human being can be so well trained or so professional that they can simply disregard something that they have heard as though they had never heard it. Indeed, that is one reason why we have jury trials. It is also one of the leading reasons why in more complex cases or longer cases—in cases involving murder, or sexual offences, or in all those cases that have to be heard by a jury—we have a jury. It is to separate the decision makers of fact from the decision makers of law and procedure.

    Hansard source
37. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    My hon. Friend the shadow Minister makes a good point, and we will get on to talking about the provisions relating to the family courts. In relation to this particular provision, the family courts are where we have a judge making a decision on very emotive facts and on procedure. But family courts are far more collaborative in nature. A judge’s role is also about straining to find consensus. That is very different from the criminal courts where, ultimately, a judge or a jury, depending on who is hearing the case, has to make a yes-or-no decision on innocence or guilt. That has wide-ranging and profound impacts, which sometimes turn on a knife edge on hard-to-determine evidence. That is different from the family court, where the intention is to try and find consensus, rather than making those decisions. Of course, juries are used in civil courts in some defamation cases. Again, it is where the value judgment on intention—why somebody made a statement about someone and whether they knew it to be false or not—of 12 ordinary people selected at random in this country is better than a judge’s decision making alone. My issue with clause 5 is that it simply sweeps all sorts of provisions in a number of existing clauses of different legislation passed at different times into judge-only trials when those provisions were designed for jury-led trials. Unless I have misunderstood, that seems to have been done through a set of Government amendments and elements of existing law that were not envisaged on the first drafting of the Bill. That possibly demonstrates the slightly rushed and painful nature of how we are having to deal with this legislation, with so many loopholes and gaps in it. I am happy to be discharging my duties, dissecting and scrutinising the Bill. I do not mind how long it takes because that is my job; it is why I am here and I am pleased to be doing it.

    Hansard source
38. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I support the position of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. There is a degree of cross-party support on the Opposition Benches; we heard some very good submissions from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, which seems a while ago now. The Government’s position on many of the contentious issues in Committee has been anchored on Sir Brian Leveson’s report—indeed, why would it not be? It is an independent report that the Government commissioned. But they freely depart from his recommendations, seemingly on a whim, without any substantial justification. This is one of those cases. Sir Brian Leveson was very clear that magistrates should continue to have sentencing powers only up to a year, and the Government are effectively doubling those sentencing powers. This is about more than just sentencing powers; it fundamentally changes what magistrates courts are for and how our criminal courts are structured. The Crown court, whether sitting with only a judge or with a jury, is for more serious cases, with more serious sanctions, because it is able to deal with levels of complexity, be it in relation to evidence or procedure. We have heard about “rough and ready” justice in the magistrates court. That is not a criticism; it is a way of characterising the absolute foundations of our magistrates courts. They do a huge amount of criminal work in this country, but they are meant to be summary courts; they are meant to be courts that act quickly and do not have the rigour or probity of the Crown courts. That is their particular purpose, and it is therefore right that they have always had limited sentencing powers when it comes to deciding whether to lock someone up. Fines and community orders are the sort of sentences that are far more typical of magistrates courts. Depriving someone of their liberty is a very serious matter. It is one thing to deprive someone of their liberty for months, especially given that such sentences are often reduced—in practice, a year can be reduced to months—but it is another thing to deprive someone of their liberty for two years. That would suddenly make the magistrates courts’ summary-style justice, or rough justice—call it whatever; I do not mean any of those words as a criticism—incredibly inappropriate for the powers that the Government would like them to exercise. The clause therefore does much more than just fiddle with thresholds, or however the Government might want to characterise it—we will soon find out. It fundamentally alters what magistrates courts are for.

    Hansard source
39. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I recognise evidence, but I give greatest weight to Sir Brian Leveson, the author of the independent report commissioned by the Government. As the hon. Lady knows very well, the youth court is a very different beast, because a different set of principles and rules applies to cross-examination, evidence and so on for people who are of the age of minority. Simply to say that if the youth court can do it, then the magistrates court can do it for people over 18 is a slightly off-the-cuff argument, if I may say so; it does not really have any rigour at all. Allow me to return to my line of argument about magistrates courts. If there is a genuine intention and belief that magistrates should be able to impose sentences of up to two years—as I say, in my view, that fundamentally changes the nature of the court—then that should be met with provisions that make the process in the magistrates court more rigorous. I would not agree with that, but at least it would hang together, show consistency and demonstrate an intention that justice must be delivered in a process that is commensurate with the sanction the state is looking to impose on someone. There is no greater sanction in this country than depriving someone of their liberty and locking them up. In this case, it is more than a threshold argument; the Bill is fundamentally changing what magistrates courts are for, what Crown courts are for, and the difference in procedure between the two.

    Hansard source
40. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    This looks like another entirely reasonable amendment, which looks to mitigate some of the harsher provisions in the changes that will allow magistrates to give sentences of up to two years. A moment ago, I talked about the difference between the more rough and ready justice in the magistrates court and the more rigorous, lengthy and developed procedure, practice and ability to operate in the Crown court. When it comes to deciding the income threshold for whether a defendant qualifies for legal aid, surely the most important thing is not the process or procedure as such, but the harshness of the possible sanction that the state is looking to impose on that person. Rather than looking at the £22,000 income threshold for magistrates courts and £37,500 for Crown courts, we could instead say that, if someone will be sentenced for up to one year, the income threshold is £22,000, and if someone will be sentenced for more than one year, it is £37,500. That is a true statement—that is how it currently stands. We should merely extend that principle, basing the figures on sentencing thresholds rather than on the venue that dishes out that sentence. That would achieve fairness, so that if somebody might be locked up for two years, they have the legal might and can afford the legal advice to defend themselves and articulate a case in a more professional manner. If having a legal professional does not give someone at least the chance of delivering that in a more professional manner, there is plainly little point in the legal profession. That is the rationale, and the Government do not have to apply a different principle at all if they just see the current threshold as applying to a one-year sentence rather than to venue. This delivers again on other amendments, not only from others on these Benches but from the shadow Minister, and it allows the Government to deliver what they want to deliver. It does not run against the principle of what the Government are trying to do, even though Conservative Members have differences of opinion on that. It merely perfects, improves and cures some of the defects and unintended consequences of the Bill. The entire reason that the Bill Committee sits is to seek to do that, but time and again, the Government would prefer to just vote things down and use their majority rather than taking the time to look at provisions that seem to me objectively reasonable.

    Hansard source