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

1. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

   Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

   This is a strange venue to ask for an apology for previous Government legislation from an MP who, like me, has been in this place for less than two years. The hon. Gentleman and I were on broadcast media yesterday; that might have been a better venue for him to ask me to apologise, but I would have rejected his invitation at that time, and I will certainly reject it in Committee. This is not about previous Governments’ views or opinions; it is about the views and opinions of this Parliament.

   Hansard source
2. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

   Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

   Indeed, it is quite interesting that the Government’s benchmark is the previous Government. I do not recall them making that clear at the last election. I will leave it there.

   Hansard source
3. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

   Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

   The central issue here, as with so much of this, is the impact that a single provision, or a single intention—in this case clause 6—has on other areas of the criminal justice system, and indeed provisions in the Bill. There is a lot of interplay between clauses 6 and 7—we are about to discuss clause 7, so I will save my comments on that for a few minutes’ time. The central issue is the unintended consequence, yes, but also the other provisions that Parliament will not get to debate. In this case, Parliament will not get a proper opportunity to debate the fairness of having magistrates courts sentencing up to two years, because the clause effectively creates a power for the Secretary of State to do that job instead. That is why this Committee is having to debate whether it is right that a summary court should suddenly have the power to sentence someone up to two years. The Government can argue that at least some of the provisions that the Opposition do not agree with are anchored somewhere in Sir Brian Leveson’s report. I would argue that this provision is specifically argued out by Sir Brian Leveson. Indeed, he talked about it being contingent on the magistrates court continuing to have sentencing powers of up to only one year. When the Government appear, in my view, to be doing something that specifically runs against Sir Brian Leveson’s report, rather than is simply absent from it, they need to explain their position. It is not good enough to run the same old arguments. The central argument in all this seems to be efficiency. How much will the Government sacrifice at the altar of efficiency? Efficiency cannot trump all, and certainly not the justice arguments already made by me and others, which I will not repeat. If the Government cannot explain where these provisions have come from, when they run counter to Sir Brian Leveson’s report, they should rightly submit these proposals through a proper procedure so that they can be debated by Parliament, rather than just giving a power to the Secretary of State. As I say, I will restrict my comments to the interplay between clause 6 and clause 7, which restricts the right of appeal. We have already heard some good arguments about legal aid, and it does not do much for the Minister, who is quite exercised by the previous Government’s record on legal aid. This is about not necessarily increased funding for legal aid—she says she is doing that already—but the right to it when the state is trying to lock someone up.

   Hansard source
4. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

   Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

   That is entirely right but, of course, we do not know, because the assessments in respect of the Bill are so light—there is not one on that point. It may or may not at all mean more spending. So many times, the argument on this issue, and on many others, is, “Oh, it doesn’t affect that many cases,” or, “Don’t worry.” Well, it deeply affects the person whose case it is. If a defendant wants to exercise the right that the Government are pulling away, it is hardly an argument for the Government to say, “Well, we’re not pulling that right away from very many people.” For that defendant, the right has been lost. The same applies to the argument when it is about victims or complainants. The Government are rightly willing to focus an argument on individual victims; they should be prepared to do that for the individual defendants who will lose rights and, in the case of sentences of up to two years, may suddenly no longer be able to access legal aid because the regime is focused on the venue rather than on sentencing power. That should be adjusted not because of what previous Governments have done, but because this Government are moving the goalposts on sentencing powers in the magistrates court, so they should make the matching adjustment when it comes to qualifying for legal aid. For that reason, I do not agree with clause 6.

   Hansard source
5. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

   Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

   The way my hon. Friend articulates the point suggests that the rules are effectively stripping people of the right to legal aid by pushing them down from a court where they currently qualify into a court where they do not. Is that a fair way to characterise it?

   Hansard source
6. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

   Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

   I am not shocked by anything a Labour Government do.

   Hansard source
7. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·James Wild

   Draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth Games) Regulations 2026

   The Exchequer Secretary played his own part in inspiring the next generation of athletes on social media during the recess. The regulations provide a time-limited exemption from income tax for certain non-UK residents working on the Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth games. I am looking forward to the games and to our home athletes bringing home many medals. I also recognise the benefits that such sporting events will bring to Glasgow and more widely. The Opposition have been pushing the Government to recognise the principle that underlies the regulations: the importance of making the UK attractive to globally mobile individuals. Sadly, more broadly, the Government have targeted such individuals through higher taxes. I therefore hope that the regulations represent a change of direction. I have a few points to raise with the Exchequer Secretary. First, on scope, the regulations apply to “accredited persons”: individuals issued with an accreditation badge by Glasgow 2026 Ltd. Estimates say that that will impact around 9,000 non-UK residents. Will he set out what discussions His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has had with or what guidance has been issued to Glasgow 2026 Ltd on who should or should not be accredited for those purposes? Secondly, on timing, the games run from 23 July to 2 August. Why does the exemption run from 16 July to 4 August rather than matching the dates of the games? Thirdly, on avoidance, because trading and professional profits are covered, there could be an incentive to structure contracts so that income is characterised as games-related and performed in the UK within that exemption window. How has HMRC addressed that risk? We will not oppose the regulations, but I would appreciate the Exchequer Secretary’s response to my three questions.

   Hansard source
8. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

   Draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth Games) Regulations 2026

   Division! [Laughter.]

   Hansard source
9. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

   Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

   Yesterday’s statement from the Prime Minister should have brought clarity. Instead, it has left this House with more questions than answers. This is not a narrow procedural issue; it goes to the judgment of the Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that he is not here today to answer questions—perhaps the usual excuse that he was not told holds clear. Let me begin with the exchange that I had with the Prime Minister yesterday, which crystallises the problem. On 4 February, the Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the vetting process had disclosed information relating to Epstein. Yesterday, he attempted row back on that by saying that he had conflated vetting and due diligence, before then insisting that he understood the distinction. Those positions cannot comfortably sit together. If he understood the distinction, why did he give an answer that conflated the two? If he did not, why claim certainty at the Dispatch Box? His defence—that due diligence forms part of the wider process—did not answer the question that he was asked at the time. If that is not misleading the House, it is difficult to see what is. That lack of clarity runs through the entire account. The Prime Minister confirmed that, in November 2024, he chose not to follow the clear and obvious advice of his then Cabinet Secretary, Lord Case, to carry out vetting before he appointed Mandelson. Now, the Prime Minister relies instead on a subsequent review by Chris Wormald, which states merely that the approach may be usual—not that it is right. The question remains: why was the advice rejected when it mattered? The Prime Minister’s account of what he knew is equally difficult to reconcile. He says he had confidence that the vetting process had addressed the most serious concerns, yet he also says he had not seen the vetting report. If he had not seen the report, on what basis did his confidence rest? If he was relying on the Cabinet Office due diligence paper, why was that not made clear at the time when he was asked specifically about security vetting? Why was a direct question met with an answer that did not address it at all? The contents of the due diligence paper raise further questions. It highlighted connections to Russian and Chinese interests. It referred to involvement with Sistema, a company embedded in Russia’s industrial and military structures with well-known links to Kremlin-aligned figures. That information was not hidden; it was in the public domain and placed directly before the Prime Minister in December 2024. Why did none of that trigger greater caution and, more importantly, greater action? Most seriously of all, Sir Olly Robbins’s evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee today was consistent with the fact that Mandelson could act in his role and have access to sensitive material before the process had concluded. We also discovered that the Prime Minister’s team tried to put Matthew Doyle, another friend of a known paedophile, into an ambassadorial position. We still have no clear account of who knew what and when, what decisions were taken, where responsibly responsibility lay, or how this situation was allowed to develop. However, I think we understand why: this is about judgment. Time and again, the Prime Minister has shown a willingness to appoint people despite serious concerns about their records: a Transport Secretary with a fraud conviction, an anti-corruption Minister under investigation, a homelessness Minister with a record that raises profound questions, and a Deputy Prime Minister who failed to meet her own tax obligations. In this case, despite personal associations that should have raised the most serious red flags, connections to hostile states, and a long and controversial history in public life, the Prime Minister judged Peter Mandelson to be a suitable candidate for one of the most sensitive ambassadorial roles because of his influence over the Labour party and the Prime Minister himself. This is not a failure of process; it is a failure of judgment. With judgment like that, the Prime Minister is not fit to lead this country for a moment longer.

   Hansard source
10. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

    It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this important debate. Since this Labour Government came to power, they have been recklessly zealous in their commitment to net zero targets over all else, not least their willingness to trash our countryside for wind turbines, ground-mounted solar and more, when far less land-intensive energy solutions such as small modular reactors would deliver our energy needs in a much more sympathetic way to our landscape, food security and natural environment. On the one hand, the Government promise to restore our natural environment, while on the other, they open England’s protected peatlands to industrial wind farm development such as Calderdale, which my hon. Friend mentioned in his speech. I wish him luck, and I support him, in his fight against that monstrosity as he sets out to protect his constituents and iconic Brontë country. The consequence is that habitats storing more than 3 billion tonnes of carbon, formed over centuries and millennia, are now exposed to excavation, road building and the foundations of turbines. What do people get in return? They get not a ban, not a firm line, but guidance from the Government that says that deep peat should be “avoided”—a word that is not a prohibition, merely a suggestion. That will create irreparable damage to irreplaceable habitats, and it has been reduced to a footnote in a planning document. In January 2026, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero published guidance permitting wind farm development on peatland. The national planning policy framework states that development on irreplaceable habitats, which includes a quarter of England’s peatland, should be refused, yet the Government have chosen just guidance over prohibition. It is shocking but unsurprising of this Labour Government—we find contradictions in their policymaking at every corner. Crucially, the new guidance on construction practices for wind farms on peatland has not even been published yet—the bulldozers may arrive before the policy framework lands. That failure extends beyond one habitat. Peatlands supply more than a quarter of the UK’s drinking water and provide fertile agricultural land and habitats for rare wildlife. The Government’s secondary legislation, which came into effect in December 2025, removed the de facto ban on onshore wind, handing planning consent back to the corridors of Whitehall, rather than local communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said, that bypasses the consent of local people and empowers the Secretary of State to impose infrastructure irrespective of their concerns. Given that Labour controls the levers of national Government, energy policy and planning guidance simultaneously, that should give us pause for thought: what are they trying to achieve? The Government hold a statutory responsibility to protect irreplaceable habitats, which makes it even more important that they demonstrate visible leadership on this issue, rather than convenient ambiguity. Instead, Energy Ministers tell us that existing protections are sufficient, yet those existing protections have not prevented the guidance from being issued. The Government cannot have it both ways. Over recent years, costs imposed on rural communities by energy infrastructure decisions have grown significantly. With the expansion of the NSIP regime, increases in centrally directed planning consent and innovations in bypassing local democratic oversight, the least that those communities could expect is that their most precious landscapes would be protected. In addition, when the science itself warns against development on peatland, the Government should be able to point to a clear policy to reflect that. The International Union for Conservation of Nature has been unambiguous, stating that “modelling…suggests” that “emissions from the windfarm development on undamaged peatlands…will not”— I repeat, “will not”— “be offset by…the green energy generated.” That is not a fringe position, but the conclusion of the body dedicated to this very question. As ever, I would like to be charitable, but it is hardly surprising that the Government have been slow to draw a firm line when their approach to net zero treats all means as justified by the end.

    Hansard source
11. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

    The Conservative party has been very, very clear on that. We believe in decarbonisation, but we need to do it in a way that people can afford and that does not trash our country in the process, in the way that ground-mounted solar and these wind farms do. The points I am making in arguing that damaging untouched peatland ends up causing more environmental damage than the supposed benefits of the wind farms that those who argue for them want to put there should make every Member of the House pause. They should think whether, in getting to decarbonisation, we are not creating more problems than we are solving by simply taking the first technology off the shelf or going for the convenient bit of land that might be available to build this on. It is a totally false economy to go down the rabbit warren of saying, “It looks green, so we must do it,” rather than doing a whole-system analysis, from the manufacture of parts to the destruction of habitat, land and place across our country. That may actually reveal that the results are not as green as they look on the metaphorical packaging. The guidance does little to help the communities living along these landscapes, the wildlife that depends on them, or indeed the climate if carbon storing habitats are destroyed in the name of carbon reduction. In contrast to that inaction, there is a straightforward solution: prohibit wind farm development on protected peatland across our country—full stop. Despite the Secretary of State holding responsibility for both energy and net zero, it is preposterous that no such ban has been enacted. It is either that the Government do not wish to constrain their ambitions or are displaying sheer negligence towards the natural environment they claim to champion. The reality is that this is not an abstract problem. These are living landscapes that once destroyed cannot be recovered on any human timescale. We need the Government to bring forward a clear prohibition—not guidance, balance or nuance deployed as a smokescreen, but a complete ban. Without the will to protect these habitats absolutely, the peatlands will be lost, and with them 3 billion tonnes of stored carbon, a quarter of our drinking water supply and the quiet, irreplaceable richness of the United Kingdom’s upland landscape.

    Hansard source
12. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Hammersmith Bridge

    For the second time this afternoon, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this debate. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) has suggested, it is a bit of a blast from the past for me, having previously served on Hammersmith and Fulham council both as deputy leader and then latterly as leader of the opposition. If only my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), the right hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) or the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) were here, we could go some way to recreating the Hammersmith town hall council chamber in Westminster Hall this afternoon. Back in 2014, when I was leader of the opposition on Hammersmith and Fulham council, the bridge had restricted access but was not yet fully closed; I think one bus at a time was allowed on at that point, which raised significant concerns. It is very disappointing that, across multiple Governments, we have not been able to resolve the challenges on Hammersmith bridge since then. I note that the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick was quick to boast about Hammersmith and Fulham having the third lowest council tax in the country—if only I knew how it got to that point! It could possibly have been the period between 2006 and 2014 when, under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, we cut council tax by 20%, taking Hammersmith and Fulham from mid-pack to third lowest in the country, rivalled only by Wandsworth and Westminster at that time. However, since then, Hammersmith and Fulham council has increased council tax on their residents by hundreds of pounds. More gallingly, under Sadiq Khan, the amount claimed by the Mayor of London has increased by over 70%, and what do the residents of Hammersmith and Fulham get for all those increases? A bridge that cars and buses cannot cross. Under a Labour council, a Labour mayor and a Labour Government, the speed of action is slower than a cyclist with a punctured tyre. Ironically, that cyclist would be one of the few people who could actually make use of the bridge in its current state. In January, the Minister stated in a written answer that the taskforce would meet soon. We now understand that it is waiting for submissions to the structures fund. The primary mechanism to bring all the stakeholders together and unblock the problem has not met for a year. Of course, as we have heard eloquently from the hon. Member for Putney and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), this failure extends beyond Hammersmith and Fulham. It affects the boroughs of Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Hounslow, and it has displaced traffic to areas such as Ealing. Given the Labour party’s control over various forms of Government, it needs to give pause for thought as to what it is actually doing. Of course, Hammersmith and Fulham council—there is no getting around this point—holds the statutory duty to maintain the highway, which makes it even more important that it demonstrates visible leadership and urgency in advancing a funded, deliverable plan for the strengthening phase and full reopening. However, that has not been forthcoming, and the 2026 business plan from TfL makes no mention of Hammersmith bridge. Over the past decade, the costs imposed on motorists in our capital city have grown significantly, with those both inside and outside London facing costs because of decisions made by the Mayor of London: expansions of the ultra low emission zone, increases in the cash cow known as the congestion charge and innovations to find new methods of fining drivers. The least those motorists could expect is infrastructure that works. In addition, when they are unable to use their cars, they should be able to use public transport. However, the closure of the bridge has had a massive impact, curtailing many bus routes, notwithstanding the tube strikes we are enduring today. I would like to be charitable, but I am afraid that it is hardly surprising that the Government have been so slow to act when their recent strategy for integrated transport has little to say about cars in urban areas beyond commenting that “Promoting car and lift sharing should be used to manage congestion”, and that those cars should be electric vehicles, which few people actually want to buy. That attitude does little to help people in Hammersmith and Fulham or those other London boroughs south of the river who need their vehicles in the capital. In contrast to that inaction, Conservative councillors in Hammersmith and Fulham have put forward a temporary solution to the problem. The Secretary of State was the previous deputy Mayor of London for transport, and it is preposterous that a team led by someone with such a background has not convened people to get a plan in place. It must be either that Labour authorities do not want to fix it, or negligence. This problem is not abstract; it is impacting people’s lives. The centre director of Castlenau community centre in Barnes recently told the Evening Standard that “There are lots of people who need to go to Charing Cross Hospital, who are having to undergo stressful journeys and potentially risk not making their appointment in time”, and earlier in the debate, we heard a similar example of people struggling to reach St George’s hospital. We need the Government to bring together those in their party who are responsible to put forward a plan. Sadly, I am afraid that, without the will of the local authority and Transport for London, the bridge will remain closed off for most people.

    Hansard source
13. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Topical Questions

    Can the Foreign Secretary give a guarantee that there is nothing in the so-called reset negotiations with the European Union or the rumoured reset Bill that is incompatible with section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020?

    Hansard source
14. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Middle East: Economic Update

    Prices are going up, and if the Chancellor’s 5p increase in fuel duty between September and next March goes ahead, we will be the European country with the eighth highest fuel duty. Surely this is not the time for that increase. If she wants certainty, the best thing she could do, at that Dispatch Box, is cancel the fuel duty hike.

    Hansard source
15. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Topical Questions

    I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Point 13 of the first phase of the Gaza peace plan negotiated by the United States is very clear that Hamas must disarm, dismantle their terrorist infrastructure and play no role in Gaza’s future. The Government have expressed support for that and they are right to do so, yet Hamas have been equally clear that they are not going to disarm, and every indication is that they are doing the reverse. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the removal of Hamas and the demilitarisation of Gaza become a reality?

    Hansard source
16. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

    Following the revelations at the Foreign Affairs Committee today by Oliver Robbins, who said how the Prime Minister had pushed for Peter Mandelson to be appointed and had pushed for his former director of communications, Matthew Doyle, to be appointed as well, though unqualified for the post, does my hon. Friend agree that those are the actions of a Prime Minister concerned not about the national interest but rather his personal interest? Nor are they the actions of a Prime Minister concerned about national security; they are merely the actions of someone concerned about his job security—and particularly in pushing for Peter Mandelson, who is a known national security risk.

    Hansard source
17. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

    The Prime Minister has clearly said that he was right to sack the senior civil servant Oliver Robbins, so can the Minister guarantee that the Government will contest any employment claim from Sir Oliver Robbins for unfair or constructive dismissal all the way to the employment tribunal, and will not use taxpayer money to pay off this gentleman to avoid that outcome?

    Hansard source
18. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

    Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

    We have heard a lot from Labour Members today about process, but will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister please tell my constituents, the House and the country why on earth the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson to be ambassador to the United States?

    Hansard source
19. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Wheelchair Provision: Independent Review Body

    The NRS case is so important. I am keen to understand how the Government are ensuring the ongoing provision and servicing of wheelchairs, given that NRS has gone bust. I have been contacted by constituents who worked at high levels in NRS, and who are concerned that those contracts will not be followed up. Is the hon. Member concerned about that, too?

    Hansard source
20. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Wheelchair Provision: Independent Review Body

    I thank the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). He is becoming a regular in these Westminster Hall debates, rivalled only by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It seems that there is a competition to be the one who makes the most representations. On a serious note, last month in the debate on disability equipment provision the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford spoke passionately and movingly about his personal experiences. We should treasure so much, in this House, people bringing their experience to try to make things better for their constituents, their family and the nation. The hon. Member deserves a lot of credit and I thank him for securing this debate. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users for its work to ensure that wheelchair users are heard, and I thank the Wheelchair Alliance and others who continue to hold this House, Ministers and the Opposition to account on these issues. There is little disagreement in the debate about the nature of the problem. The Government themselves acknowledged last month, in the debate on disability equipment provision, that too many wheelchair users wait too long for the equipment they need, with knock-on consequences for their independence, health and ability to participate fully in daily life. That admission is welcome, but recognition alone is not enough. The question before us is how responsibility, accountability and improvement are to be delivered in practice. On that point, the picture is far less clear. Ministers have been explicit that they do not intend to publish a national strategy for wheelchair services. At the same time, the Government are embarking on a major restructure of the NHS in England. Understandably, that combination raises concerns about where national oversight will sit in the future, how consistency will be ensured and who will ultimately be accountable when services fall short. During last month’s debate on disability equipment, the Minister acknowledged the uncertainty created by the changes, noting that seemingly small gaps in practice or responsibility can have disproportionate impacts on the quality of life of disabled people. That is precisely why clarity matters. As the NHS is reshaped, wheelchair users and their families need to know who is responsible for setting expectations nationally, who is responsible for commissioning locally and who steps in when the system is not working. Without that clarity, there is real risk that the responsibility becomes fragmented and that unacceptable variation goes unchecked. Ministers often rightly point to the role of integrated care boards in commissioning wheelchair services for their local populations, but ICBs are being asked to do a great deal at once—to meet 18-week standards for community services, adopt the best practices set out in the wheelchair quality framework, and now to do so while operating with up to 50% reductions in headcounts and constrained budgets. So it is fair to ask whether those competing pressures risk pushing wheelchair provision further down the list of priorities rather than elevating it to where it should be. Going forward, who will be responsible for overseeing the wheelchair quality framework itself, and how are the Government assessing whether that is genuinely improving outcomes on the ground rather than simply setting aspirations? There are also practical questions that remain unanswered. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), previously undertook to look at the reuse and return of disability equipment, which could have real benefits for patients and for public value. Many will be keen to hear what progress has been made on that work and whether it will form part of a more coherent approach in provision. Finally, I raise the issue of innovation. In my constituency of Hinckley and Bosworth, local businesses have shown how responsive, user-focused solutions can make a real, tangible difference. I mentioned Mounts and More as a primary example last time. As the national structure evolves, innovation like that must be supported rather than stifled. As the Minister responds this morning, wheelchair users and their families are listening carefully. They will want assurances that, amid the structural change, accountability will not be diluted, responsibility will not pass around the system, and there will be clear leadership to ensure faster, fairer access to the equipment that is so fundamental to independent living. I have three questions to the Minister on that basis. First, as NHS England is abolished through an NHS service modernisation Bill, can the Minister set out clearly which body will hold national responsibility for wheelchair service standards and oversight, and how Ministers will be held accountable when or should services for wheelchair users fail across different parts of the country? Secondly, who will be responsible going forward for overseeing and enforcing the wheelchair quality framework? What assessment have the Government made to date as to whether that is making a difference, and how we can have improvements? Thirdly—I touched on this in my intervention—many wheelchair users will have had provision from NRS Healthcare. Given the size and scale of the impact of NRS collapsing, there is real concern about servicing their contracts and making sure their wheelchairs are maintained. What have the Government done and what do they have to say on that topic?

    Hansard source
21. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Wheelchair Provision: Independent Review Body

    Can the Minister just clarify who he sees as responsible for the framework?

    Hansard source
22. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

    In the immortal words of the famous film “A Few Good Men”: “‘I want the truth.’ ‘You can’t handle the truth!’” The court goes quiet. That is the moment of realisation that things have moved from process to accountability and responsibility. If hon. Members have not seen the film, it is about two marines who are on trial for killing another. The real story that unravels, however, is whether command can deny any responsibility for the actions that it has set in motion. Here lies the parallel. When subordinates act on the understood direction of authority, where does responsibility ultimately sit? They acted because of someone; it belongs to that person. Let us recount the facts that are not disputed in this House. Lord Mandelson was announced by the Prime Minister as the UK ambassador to the US in December 2024; UK Security Vetting recommended against developed vetting clearance in January 2025; the FCDO overruled that recommendation, enabling the appointment; the Prime Minister stated publicly that due process had been followed; and Sir Olly Robbins, the then permanent secretary, was later dismissed. However, what Robbins told us in the Committee in November 2025 is telling. “By the time we are describing, it was clear the Prime Minister wanted to make his appointment himself. Therefore, I understand the FCDO was informed of his decision and acted on it, and, via the Foreign Secretary, sought and obtained the King’s approval for the appointment. In this case, as Chris explained, the Prime Minister took advice and formed a view himself, and we then acted on that view.” The FCDO is clear: that was not drift; it was acting under direction. The Prime Minister formed that view and the FCDO acted on it—acting on instruction, acting on direction, acting on what the Prime Minister wanted. Yet since then, the Prime Minister has been trying to separate the decision and the consequence. There is the decision, there are the consequences, but we and the public know that we cannot separate the two. If an official acts in the shadow of a settled view, responsibility returns to the source, where the shadow was first cast. Let us draw some more comparisons with the film, because it is quite telling. Colonel Jessep does not issue the written order; the Prime Minister does not personally do the vetting. Subordinates act on a clear command and intent; the FCDO acted on the political intent. The defence by the colonel was that he did not order that; the defence by the Prime Minister was he was not told. The court finds that authority cannot be passive; we in this House say, “Neither can the Prime Minister.” The blame lands on the subordinates, and the same has happened here. In both cases, the controversy does not turn on the mechanics but on where the moral and constitutional responsibility resides. Officials were acting on a settled prime ministerial preference. The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot have decisive authority on the way in and plausible deniability on the way out. That is not process; that is power without accountability. If the decision was his, is not the responsibility his? If not, why not, and whose is it then?

    Hansard source
23. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the bottom line: the Prime Minister shaped the system by having a settled political decision—one with horrific consequences—despite all the warnings that we have talked about in this House, about Mandelson being fired twice and so on, and now tries to point to the process as the failing. The country is not buying it. The film teaches us this simple lesson: power cannot hide behind those who obey it. Before I finish, I have a message for Labour MPs and will address them directly. To paraphrase Colonel Jessep’s famous speech, the PM neither has the time nor the inclination to explain himself to Back Benchers who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very majority that he provides and then question the manner in which the PM provides it. The PM would rather they say just “thank you” and went on their way. Otherwise, he suggests they pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, he does not give a damn about what they are entitled to.

    Hansard source
24. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

    My right hon. Friend is very senior and makes an erudite point. We still do not know why the Prime Minister chose Mandelson—he has never said exactly why he did. We can all see the reasons he should not have done.

    Hansard source
25. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

    Accountability starts from the top. We have heard from the FCDO today that the message from No. 10 was to “Get this f***ing done”. That was the political directive and everything else followed suit. That is exactly what Olly Robbins has said. We on the Conservative Benches know the truth. The public want the truth. The only question that remains is whether Labour Back Benchers can handle the truth. Surely if they cannot, they must do something about it.

    Hansard source
26. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I am sure we will get to hear from the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington shortly. The proposal in clause 3 is being framed as a mere administrative adjustment—a common-sense fix for a system under strain. The Government’s plan to introduce a Crown court bench division, where a judge sits alone without magistrates to decide the fate of those accused of either-way offences, is being sold to the public as a remedy for the backlogs that currently paralyse our courts. But we must be clear from the outset that the crisis in our courts is not the result of the jury system. The backlog, which sees tens of thousands of cases waiting for a hearing, is the result of long-term challenges and the unprecedented impact of covid on our justice system. Eroding a defendant’s right to a trial by their peers is not a fix; it is a fundamental reconfiguration of the English legal system. Across the Bill, we see a pattern emerging: a shift away from what we are clear is the gold standard of justice towards a swift model. The evidence supporting it is dangerously thin, and we must resist the permanent eroding of a right that has stood for hundreds and hundreds of years. The right to a jury trial is often described as fundamental. It is not merely a traditional quirk of our system; it is an important constitutional safeguard. The core of the Government’s plan, as outlined in their impact assessment and the Second Reading briefings, is to remove the right to elect. Currently, if someone is charged with an either-way offence—crimes like theft, assault or certain drug offences—they have a right to choose whether they are tried by a jury in the Crown court or by magistrates. The Government’s plan to strip away that choice in clause 3, under a new bench division model for when the sentence outcome is likely to be three years or less, will remove even the role of lay magistrates from the decision. The briefing provided by the organisation JUSTICE, which I have referred to several times, makes a compelling case against that. JUSTICE points out that the right to elect is a long-standing protection that ensures that a defendant can seek the judgment of a diverse group of citizens when they feel the state’s power is being unfairly applied. By removing that right, we are effectively saying that the state knows better than the citizen how they should be judged. This is not unheard of, as we have talked about before, but clause 3, combined with previous clauses, represents it being done at a scale never seen before. This is a dangerous path. When we move cases from juries to a bench division, we are moving from a system of community participation to a system of professionalised adjudication. The jury is the part of our constitution where the greatest number of ordinary citizens have a direct, hands-on role in the administration of justice. It is the primary way that the public grant their consent to the upholding of criminal law. If we remove the public from the process, we risk the law becoming something done to people, rather than something that belongs to them. The Government’s narrative suggests that a judge-led bench division will be just as fair as a jury, only faster. But it ignores the fundamental and unique aspect of fairness delivered by a jury trial, which they acknowledge by continuing to maintain jury trials for what they describe as the “more serious” offences. A jury is, by definition, balanced. It consists of 12 people from different backgrounds, with different life experiences and different biases, in the crucible of the jury room. Their diversity is its greatest strength; a single judge, no matter how well intentioned, cannot possibly replicate that breadth of perspective. There is also the phenomenon of being case-hardened: when a professional judge or magistrate hears 50 similar cases of theft or assault in a year, there is a natural human tendency to begin seeing patterns rather than individuals. Evidence that might seem fresh or potentially exonerating to a jury can seem like the usual excuse to a professional who has heard it hundreds of times before. Juries bring fresh eyes; they are not jaded by the grind of the system. They are instructed to look only at the facts of the case before them. That is why juries are considered—by the Opposition, at least—to be the gold standard. The evidence submitted to the Committee warns that we lack clarity as to why the Government are so eager to discard this standard. If the jury is the best way to ensure an accurate and fair verdict, the burden of proof for removing it must be exceptionally high. Furthermore, the bench division model threatens to undermine the lay element of our justice system. Originally, as recommended in the Leveson review, the idea was that a judge would sit with two magistrates. That was intended to maintain at least some form of community involvement. However, clause 3 moves towards judge-only trials for many cases, discarding even the judge-plus-two compromise. I will now address the primary argument made by the Minister in her opening remarks. The Government claim that moving to the bench division will significantly reduce the backlog. However, the Institute for Government has produced an insightful analysis, which we have referred to frequently, suggesting that the evidence for those savings is incredibly weak. The IFG points out that the vast majority of Crown court time is not actually spent on the types of trials that the Government want to move to the bench division. The cases being targeted are the less serious ones, which already take up less time than more complex cases such as murder, which will remain subject to jury trial. According to the IFG’s modelling, if judge-only trials are 20% faster than a jury trial, the total impact on the overall Crown court backlog would be a reduction of 2%. When we consider the constitutional cost of us losing, at this unprecedented scale, the right to access a jury, that is simply not sufficient. The backlog is not caused by juries being slow; it is more often caused by ineffective trials that are postponed because witnesses do not show up, because solicitors or barristers are unavailable, or because courtrooms are not fit to operate in. These are systemic failures, and moving a trial from a jury to a judge does not make a witness appear or fix a broken courtroom. The Bill proposes a threshold of cases likely to attract a sentence of up to three years being diverted to the bench division. Predicting a sentence before a trial is never an exact science, and that is something that magistrates actually have more experience of than judges. That unprecedented scenario—without the safeguards that we sought to add through a right of appeal, which the Government rejected—will create huge questions of impartiality and bias. A three-year sentence is not a minor matter. Three years in prison is a life-altering event. It can mean the loss of a home, a career and a family. To suggest that a person facing such a consequence does not deserve what they consider to be the fairest possible trial betrays that principle of fairness in our justice system when the consequences are so severe. There is also the issue of the absence of a sunset clause. If these measures are truly a temporary response to tackle an emergency backlog, they should include a sunset clause that ensures that rights are restored once the crisis has passed. As I have said previously, changes were made during world war two and then reversed when the war was over. The fact that the Government have resisted such a clause suggests that this is not a temporary fix, but a permanent land grab by the state. Once the right to a jury is surrendered for either-way offences, it is highly unlikely that any future Government will be in a position to restore it. We must see the Crown court bench division for what it is: a policy of convenience, not a policy delivering justice. It is a policy that ignores the findings of the IFG, which would require us to focus more heavily on other elements of the system. It is a policy that ignores the warnings from JUSTICE, which highlight the erosion of the defendant’s right to elect and its impact on public confidence and fairness in the judicial system. It is a policy that even ignores the original, more balanced recommendations of the Leveson review, which at least sought to keep lay magistrates involved. We are told that we must modernise and that we must be efficient. The purpose of a criminal trial is not to process cases as quickly as possible; it is to arrive at the truth through a process that the defendant, the victim and the public have trust in. If we allow the Government to erode the jury system in the name of the backlog on this occasion to this extent, we are sending a message that this constitutional right is highly conditional, and that it can be traded away whenever the state finds it too expensive or too cumbersome to maintain. As the Minister frequently points out, lots of countries do without it; “Why shouldn’t we?” will be the next argument. Instead of stripping away rights, the Government should be more focused on the areas that we can all agree on: prisoner transport, early legal advice, more efficient listing, Crown Prosecution Service reviews of cases in the backlog, facilities that work and IT that works. We do not fix a house by tearing it down to its foundations because the roof is leaking; we fix the roof. Jury trials ensure that our laws remain grounded in the common sense of ordinary people. Let us apply some of that common sense to tackling this issue. Common sense will lead us to oppose clause 3.

    Hansard source
27. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Seventh sitting)

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Hansard source
28. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Seventh sitting)

    The hon. Member for Gloucester pointed to what the Bar Council said, but let us be fair and talk about what it said in its completeness. It may well have said that the people currently practising dropped out, but the Minister quite directly asked how it was going to train these people up and get back to that point, and it made the point that the people who have dropped out of practising criminal law have not evaporated into thin air. They are still there; they are just practising in other areas of law, and when the situation is right for them, they can just come back into practising criminal law.

    Hansard source
29. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Seventh sitting)

    We are leaning heavily on the points made by the Criminal Bar Association. The Government seem quite rightly to be extremely concerned about the training of future barristers, but the Criminal Bar Association has made the point that that training often takes place in what the Government are describing as less serious cases. That is where the more junior people get the experience they need to work on the more serious cases. If those cases are not available, how do the Government expect barristers to be trained to the level required to take on the more serious cases with a jury trial?

    Hansard source
30. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    The hon. Member for Wimbledon pointed out that we are talking about a 50% reduction; can the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford tell us the percentage reduction in relation to the points he is making?

    Hansard source
31. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    The threshold that Sir Brian recommended was two years, not three years, and the forum that he recommended was a judge with two magistrates, but we are doing just one judge. The hon. Member should be more careful in making claims about what Sir Brian recommended to support what he is saying, because we are not doing what he recommended.

    Hansard source
32. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I will not speak at length—much to the delight, I am sure, of Government Members—but I want to pick up on a few key points that have been raised. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate and for Isle of Wight East for their extensive review of clause 3, and also the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden, who is not in her place. Let us be clear about all the things we have highlighted that are lacking. We are talking about a significant erosion for 50% of those who currently enjoy jury trial, and we have made it clear that the evidence for the necessity of that is lacking. In earlier sittings, we talked about the backlog already falling in a number of regions, even though we are so early on in the process of trying to tackle this issue. Today alone, 11% of Crown courts are not sitting—they are sat empty—and it was the same yesterday and it was even higher last week, so there are clearly other things we could be doing. There has been criticism of the retrospective element of the measures in clause 3, which the Opposition, at least, have agreed is unacceptable. Different standards will be applied because we have not been able to amend the measures on reallocation, so there is a different standard for allocation and reallocation. That is doubled with the lack of appeal, on which we were not able to make progress. We have covered the lack of community confidence that will arise from these measures. The hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington has tabled new clause 29, which we think is sensible, to try to go at least some way to addressing the issue of community confidence. However, I am not convinced that, even if the Government accept the new clause, we will get any change as a result. Let us say we do the review in a year from now and it finds there has been a deterioration in these issues, will they unpick their reforms? I am not confident that they will. We have had suggestions that the cross-examination of the defendant is inappropriate. Of course, the reforms will lead to more defendants being cross-examined, unrepresented, in the magistrates court. We have had a suggestion that the changes are not substantial. I made it clear in my intervention that, under any sensible reading of the facts, most people would consider a 50% change to be substantial. We have laid out, in a clear and detailed way, all the different ways in which clause 3 is wrong and fails on its own merits. I hope the Minister will reflect on that and make some necessary changes.

    Hansard source
33. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
34. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    As I alluded to, it seems like the Government are convinced of the need for a review clause. If the review is undertaken and it finds that the reduction in jury trials has led to greater disparities in the justice system, will the Government commit to reversing the measures?

    Hansard source
35. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    The Minister can probably anticipate what I am going to say: this situation is highly unsatisfactory, considering that we will again be asked to vote—not have a view or give an opinion, but be asked to vote—on the system of allocation and reallocation in relation to complex and lengthy trials. Members may have seen the evidence provided by the Bar Council, which makes absolutely clear its view that the Minister was wrong in her assessment that the decision to allocate will be subject to judicial review. That was my view, the view of the Bar Council and the view of the hon. Member for Wimbledon, with his expertise. It is not satisfactory to be told we will vote again later today not knowing what the Government’s clear position is. What the Minister said is now surely under very significant doubt, given what the Bar Council has told us. The Minister should have been able to come here today—rather than writing to us later—to give us the facts. We have had a big gap between Thursday and today, and we should not be left in the position of being asked to vote without the full facts.

    Hansard source
36. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    Just so the Committee is clear exactly what I said and what the Minister said in return, it was in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington, who asked what it would take to get me to accept the Government’s position. I said: “If the Minister wants to intervene on me and say, ‘I am absolutely certain that there would be a right to judicially review the allocation decision by a Crown court,’ I will be satisfied. I am asking for the Minister to stand up and say that she is absolutely certain.” The Minister replied: “If, at a PTPH, a judge makes an error of law, that is amenable to judicial review. Full stop.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 16 April 2026; c. 271.] That is completely different from what the Minister has just said now, where she is making it very clear that this will be extremely in its provisions. The appropriate thing to do is not to vote on amendments and clauses of this Bill when we are not clear on the position. It is open to the Minister to defer and to seek to reallocate the proposals before us today, instead of again asking us to vote when she is telling us that she will send us a further letter with a full, detailed explanation of the position. That is not the way we should be doing things on a matter as important as whether we will remove an expansive existing right to judicially review an allocation decision that sits with the magistrates court.

    Hansard source
37. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    On a point of order, Ms Butler. I am being reasonable. On the matters on which the Minister said she would write to us—the three offences and whether there will be amendment in that respect— I have accepted a letter. However, it is not appropriate to ask us to vote when we are unclear about the implications of these changes. We have already had to do that once, and it is not appropriate to ask us to do it again. We can debate the clauses, which relate to the potential loss of an important right, but we do not necessarily have to vote on them. I have never said there was a right of appeal; I have never described it as a right of appeal. I have said that there is a right to judicial review of an allocation decision. It is not right that we proceed without knowing the full implications of that being taken away through the Bill.

    Hansard source
38. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned. We have had some discussion in private, and I think it will be helpful, while not revealing what was said in private, to illustrate the Opposition’s thinking on the matter. As I explained during our previous sitting on Thursday—there has been a significant length of time since—I was of the understanding that moving the allocation decision away from the magistrates court to the Crown court would lead to a substantial reduction in access to judicial review of allocation decisions. This is not about appeal—we argued separately for appeal. Rather, the point of contention is about the right to judicial review. In that debate, the Minister, I am sure inadvertently, potentially misled the Committee by suggesting that that was not true, and I was called patronising by the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy, the Parliamentary Private Secretary sitting behind her, when I suggested that that was the case. The Bar Council has submitted evidence to the Committee that supports my argument that there would be a substantial change in access to judicial review. That is directly relevant, not just to clause 3, which we are being asked to vote on, but to the next clause. The Minister accepts that she needs to write to us with further clarity on this issue, so she is conceding that it is not clear, but we are still being asked, by the Government Whip and the Minister, to vote on this measure. That is highly unsatisfactory. I want us to vote with a shared understanding of what the implications are. If the Minister agreed that there would be a significant reduction in access to the right to judicial review, we would have that shared understanding, but I do not believe that she is willing to concede that point. On the basis that it is unclear what we are voting on, I am afraid that it is simply not appropriate for us to be asked to vote on clause 3. That was not my intention; I was of the understanding—I accept incorrectly—as I think the Minister also was, that we could shelve the vote and continue the debate, so that progress on the Bill was not curtailed. However, the Clerks have advised us that we cannot shelve the vote, so if this is the only available option to prevent us from voting without the full facts, I think it is appropriate that we adjourn the debate until such time as we get them. To reiterate, this was not my intention; I had expected that we would continue the debate and then have an option—[Interruption.] Does the PPS want to say something? No. On that basis, I think that we should adjourn.

    Hansard source
39. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I think the Minister is accepting that there is no obvious route to judicial review, which is completely contrary to what she said to us on Thursday. I think anyone would interpret that as a significant reduction in rights compared with the existing status quo, so with that clarification from the Minister, I am happy to continue. Question put and negatived. Question put, That clause 3 stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
40. 21 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 4, page 10, line 16, leave out “one or more of the offences is an offence” and insert “all of the offences are”. This amendment would limit judge-only trials to situations where all of the offences are listed in Schedule 3ZA. Clause 4 relates to the allocation to the Crown court bench division of complex or lengthy cases. The amendment relates to how the mixture of cases presented on an indictment would affect the allocation decision. It addresses a clear overreach and would limit judge-only trials to situations where all the offences of which someone was accused are listed in new schedule 3ZA to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. As it stands, a case may be directed to be judge-only where only one of the offences on the indictment falls within the schedule list, with only very limited exceptions in relation to murder and related offences, and sexual assault and related offences. It is important for Members to realise just how potentially expansive new schedule 3ZA is. If just one of these offences appears on someone’s list of charges, they will lose their access to a jury trial. They include conspiracy to defraud, cheating the public revenue, offences under the Taxes Management Act 1970, offences of false accounting under the Theft Act 1968, insider dealing, money laundering and bribery—a whole range of offences whereby, just one of which will remove access to a jury trial. Someone could be accused at the same time of offences as serious as serious physical assault, grievous bodily harm, burglary or theft. Those offences may be many years apart; there may be a series of offences, dating over a number of years. That means that someone may lose a right that the Government otherwise accept they should have access to. Someone could have a serious offence of theft, with a likely sentence that, as we know, can be over the three-year benchmark. They could be facing a sentence of four years, which the Government otherwise agree should allow them to have a trial with a jury, and they will lose access to a trial by jury in relation to one of the other offences. The test is not about the seriousness of the offences; it is a test of complexity. Someone may have a less serious but complex case, in the Government’s view, and lose access to a right to jury trial. I cannot see how the Government can possibly argue that that is fair. This is a matter of coherence and fairness. Our position is quite clear: only when all the offences, instead of just one of the offences, are those listed under proposed new schedule 3ZA should someone lose access to their right to a trial by jury on the basis of clause 4.

    Hansard source