Finance (No. 2) Bill
Order. Before we move on to the next business—unfortunately the Government Chief Whip has left the Chamber—may I emphasise to all Members the need to vote in a prompt manner? There can be no excuse for loitering in the Lobby.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation
I pay tribute to the posties across Bromsgrove, but not to the management of Royal Mail. My constituents need action, not more platitudes, like Royal Mail saying to me that it is “very sorry” that letters have not been received. I implore the Minister to get together with the management of Royal Mail and Ofcom to deliver an action plan, for which Royal Mail is accountable to us, via the Minister, so that we see an improved service for all our constituents.
- Hansard source
Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation
Posties in my constituency have reported to me that one of the most serious problems is staff absence. Staff go off sick because they have been overworked, and as a result, deliveries do not take place. The final straw for one of my constituents was when they received a Christmas card on 28 February that had been franked before Christmas. Clearly, there is a serious problem, not just in rural areas but in suburban areas. Will the Minister seek an urgent action plan from Royal Mail on getting this right? Otherwise we will be back here in a month’s time with the same problem.
- Hansard source
Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation
I concur with Members across the House that the fault does not lie with our individual posties. I pay tribute to Dean and Aaron, who have been fantastic as my posties in Brampton in my constituency. I have been written to by Royal Mail employees in my constituency about the new contract and the pressure that it puts on, with 50% of new postal workers leaving in their first year. Can the Minister guarantee that he will speak to Ofcom about equalising pay and conditions to ensure that we do not see as many staff leaving?
- Hansard source
Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation
Like other hon. Members, I have had many constituents get in touch about poor mail service. One constituent in Kelsall reached out to Royal Mail after experiencing deliveries once per week at best, only to receive a reply stating that service levels in our area are good. The same constituent later received a hospital appointment letter after the appointment, which is certainly not good. Does the Minister share my concern that Royal Mail appears to be dismissing legitimate complaints, while failing to meet its universal service obligation, and what more can be done to hold Royal Mail to account?
- Hansard source
International Women’s Day
Following International Women’s Day and with English Tourism Week approaching, I have been meeting female entrepreneurs across Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, including Kathleen at the Navigator Hotel, who featured on “The Hotel Inspector” only last week, and many others through my business club. These businesses are vital to coastal economies, but many women say it remains difficult to scale and grow. What assessment has the Minister made of the barriers facing women entrepreneurs in sectors like tourism and hospitality?
- Hansard source
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your remarks at the outset of this statement. I also thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement, which I received at 1.30 pm. This whole business is really about transparency. The Government have had to be dragged to do this by Members on both sides of this House, so producing a 135-page document and putting it online 23 minutes before this debate is really not acceptable at all. I respect the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for coming to the Chamber and making this statement, but it really ought to be the Prime Minister sitting there, because all of this is about the Prime Minister’s judgment. It is very convenient that this document was published after Prime Minister’s questions, during which the man who made the decision—the man whose judgment is in question—could have been put under scrutiny by hon. Members. Very many questions arise from the documents published. I will put a few on record, and then return to the central theme. There is the issue of severance pay, to which the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister referred. Why did Ministers agree to any severance pay, given what had happened? Many of our constituents will be disgusted that Peter Mandelson received £70,000. Will his full declaration of interests, which he was supposed to have handed over when he was appointed, be published? I do not believe that they are included in the tranche of documents published today. Is that because of a police request, or is it for some other reason? Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister publish a register of withheld and delayed documents, so that the House can be aware of what is being held back? Will he give us a little more information, either now or in the future, on redactions? It is important that this House understands who is deciding on what will be redacted. This awful saga involving Jeffrey Epstein continues. I understand that, as this House meets, one of his ranches in New Mexico is being investigated because there are reports that bodies are buried there. At the centre of this scandal was a very rich and powerful man who despicably abused his position, and he was helped to become rich and powerful by his associates, one of whom was Peter Mandelson. Although I of course associate myself with the remarks made by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister about Epstein’s victims, it is very clear that those victims were not in the Prime Minister’s mind when he appointed Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister has already admitted that he knew Mandelson had maintained his friendship with Epstein even after the latter’s conviction for his terrible crimes. That was a bad choice, and it is a choice that we can now read about in black and white on page 11 of the publication. It says: “After Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009-2011, beginning when Lord Mandelson was Business Minister and continuing after the end of the Labour government. Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein’s House while he was in jail in June 2009.” The Prime Minister claims that he was lied to; he was not lied to by this due diligence document. It may be that Mandelson denied those claims, and if so, perhaps the Prime Minister was lied to, but by an inveterate liar who had been fired twice before. We are supposed to believe that the Prime Minister, who was once the chief prosecutor in this country, could not see through this nonsense. It beggars belief. Over the coming hours and days, we will see whether these documents reveal why the Prime Minister’s judgment failed so badly, but we must suspect that it was because his then chief of staff was Mandelson’s protégé. Morgan McSweeney had set up Labour Together, the Prime Minister’s private campaigning organisation. Peter Mandelson had advised Morgan McSweeney on the establishment of that organisation, which had been responsible for breaking electoral law so that it could hide the sources of its funds from the public and from the Labour party. Labour Together then sought to intimidate and smear journalists who revealed that wrongdoing, and it provided hundreds of Labour MPs and many of the top brass in the Cabinet with free money and free services. This was the ultimate “jobs for the boys”. The Prime Minister knew all that he needed to know. It was on him; it is on him now. He let his party and his country down. I very much doubt that either will trust him again.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
My hon. Friend is making some very important points. There is a more fundamental point about public perception, which he may come on to in a moment. If we pass this legislation at a time when confidence in this place and in conventional politics is at an exceedingly low ebb, we will be sending a signal to people that this place does not trust 12 good men and true to make decisions, and, in fact, that we want to take that decision away from them. Does he agree that that will further erode confidence in conventional mainstream politics?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
For every single year of the last Conservative Government, we froze fuel duty, and we did so to stand up for hard-working families. Given that petrol prices are surging at the pumps, why has the right hon. Lady chosen now to put up fuel duty?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Given the rapidly rising cost of oil and gas, why does the right hon. Lady believe that it is better to import it than to extract it from the North sea?
- Hansard source
Digital ID: Public Consultation
When asked by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) whether he could guarantee that a digital identity requirement would never become mandatory, the Minister said he wholeheartedly agreed, but is it not the case that the original scheme that the Government were minded to put forward was mandatory, so how much faith can we put in that assurance?
- Hansard source
Points of Order
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not know that point of order was going to be raised until I heard it, but I myself noticed, a little bit earlier, that there was a statement entitled “Pensions Update” that was really all about the WASPI women. I for one was misled into thinking that it was some routine, general statement about pensions. It would have been perfectly possible for the Government to have made it explicit that it was about the WASPI women, in which case it is likely that more Members would have been present.
- Hansard source
Points of Order
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the Government brought a statement to the House entitled “Protecting What Matters”. One might think that that could be preserving historic buildings or endangered wildlife, or simply affirming the importance of our Christian heritage. In fact, the statement was about defining anti-Muslim hostility. I am not going to debate that, but I seek your advice on whether a title of that kind is misleading—it cannot possibly have been deceptive, but it is certainly confusing. Is it fair to Members to entitle statements in a way that gives them no chance to anticipate what is going to be debated and prepare accordingly?
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
The right hon. Gentleman is right that the rule of law is a living thing, and the connection between the public and the exercise of criminal justice is fundamental. Central to that is the age-old principle of juries and jury service. It is a direct engagement of the public in something that otherwise would be remote from the vast bulk of them. Does he retain my view that jury service is critical, and that juries should play a continuing part in the criminal justice system, or is he determined to minimise the number of jury trials? That is certainly what his proposal looks like to the vast majority of people in the Chamber.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
The Lord Chancellor has quite properly recognised the Government’s debt of gratitude to Sir Brian Leveson, but will he accept that the Government have been somewhat selective in adopting Sir Brian’s recommendations? He knows that Sir Brian did not recommend that all cases that are triable either way should have the right to elect for jury trial to be removed from them. He also knows, incidentally, that Sir Brian did not propose an increase in magistrates’ sentencing powers to up to two years; he suggested that it remain at 12 months. What the Lord Chancellor has not done is adopt some of Sir Brian’s recommendations in relation to encouraging early guilty pleas, which would have a significant impact on the backlog. Why have the Government selected for priority purposes the recommendations that would have an impact on the right of jury trial, and not some other recommendations that would have a similar effect on the backlog?
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
My hon. Friend is making the point that consultation on and discussion of the Bill may be fruitful if we are to properly understand its effects. One difference the Bill will make is that when a judge tries a case on his or her own, in the absence of a jury, they will be required by the Bill to give reasons for any conviction that they conclude is appropriate. Does my hon. Friend think that the Government have considered the potential impact of that on likely appeals of those decisions to the Court of Appeal?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
One of the things that makes our economy less resilient is high levels of debt. The Chancellor and I have both followed fiscal rules that allowed us to claim that debt was falling, when in fact it continued to rise, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of GDP. Does she think it is time to consider a new fiscal rule that actually reduces debt—for example, a rule that public spending will not increase faster than economic growth?
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I should declare an interest at the beginning. I am a member of the Bar—that is not uncommonly known—I still practise at the Bar, and I have the honour to be a criminal barrister and a member of the Criminal Bar Association. I have spent 44 years at the Bar. I have defended and prosecuted in some of the largest criminal trials that this country has ever seen—and some of the longest. I have been experienced in seeing how juries react to circumstances of adversity and circumstances that challenge and test the very boundaries of humanity in the appalling nature of the crimes they are forced to adjudicate upon. Without exception, they have responded in a manner that I think generally gives rise to the hugest admiration, not to say awe, from those who are otherwise engaged in the administration of justice. There is something about the gathering of 12 ordinary citizens, chosen at random and brought together into the crucible that a criminal trial produces, that strips away ideological and racial prejudice or preconception, and that causes them to focus upon a single question: is the allegation true, or is it not; and can we be sure, or is there any doubt? Again and again, throughout our legal history, the wisdom and capacity of juries have been repeatedly vindicated every time they have been analysed, tested or sought to be examined by those who research these matters.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Not just now, but I will come back to the hon. Member. We in this House are engaged in ideological strife. Every day of our lives we are engaged in a political battle, and frankly, sometimes we do not always live up to the highest standards that even our own parties have set. In the course of my legal career, I have been led—when I say “led”, I mean that I was a junior in the courts—by some distinguished Labour Members of Parliament who continued to practise in the criminal courts and regarded it is a noble honour to do so. Peter Archer, the former Solicitor General, led me in the early 1980s; John Morris led me just eight weeks before the ’97 election, when the Blair landslide swept in—oh, halcyon days to those across the aisle, or some of them, anyway; and Bob Marshall-Andrews led me right up to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. What remarkable men they were. Those men would never have countenanced—not for a single second—the compromise of principle that Government and Opposition Members are now being asked to make. I knew these people, and I knew them well. John Morris would never have countenanced it. Peter Archer would never have countenanced it. Bob Marshall-Andrews would never have countenanced it.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Not now—later. I will. I want to appeal to Labour Members. We are engaged in ideological strife. But in the Venn diagram that any society depends upon for the sustaining of sufficient points of common ground to keep a society together, jury trial is one of those that appear in a point of intersection between the vast numbers of this House and outside it.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I will give way to the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) first, if she can give me just two seconds. I want to develop this theme, because it is very important to me. There are some things that have to be above politics. If there are not, we have no society to defend. Jury trial is one of those institutions that have been defended by those across the aisle from me, on the opposite extreme of the political spectrum, and by those on our side of the House, out to the furthest waters of the right. Why is that? Because the administration of justice must be a non-ideological space. Jury trial unites us all for a simple reason: it is the most powerful instrument and engine of social justice that this country has ever invented. It is a safeguard against oppression. It is a built-in defence against establishment and administrative power.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I will give way to the hon. Member for Colchester first.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
There has always been a summary jurisdiction—invariably never for offences of dishonesty, and invariably never for offences that might lead to the destruction of the reputation of those who are facing it. If one Member of this House, who must be disqualified if there is a sentence of imprisonment of more than 12 months, after the passage of this Bill is arraigned before a court on a case that might involve 12 months and one day, he or she will lose the right to a trial by jury, despite the fact that that might be an offence of protest. It might well be an offence where the Member of the House has felt so powerfully that they must breach the law that they are arrested and arraigned on a potential sentence of up to three years. Three years is a long time. As that could easily be an offence of protest, are we therefore saying that those who seek to go to jail, such as the suffragettes, should lose their right to trial by jury—a jury that is not obliged to follow the diktats or directions of a judge on the law; a jury that is entitled to reach its decision on its judgment about what is fair? I say—
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Not just now. I say to the House, in all conscience, that jury trial is precious. Why? It is precious because it unites all parts of the political spectrum. It is precious because it allows the people of this country to be directly engaged in the adjudication of guilt or innocence in thousands of cases across the country. At a time, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) pointed out when he rose to intervene, when our institutions are under unprecedented attack, is now the time to transfer a massive chunk of the administration of criminal justice and the decisions on the guilt or innocence of a fellow citizen to a representative who unquestionably will be seen as a representative of the state? It is the jury that protects us from the allegation that the state is deciding upon that citizen’s future. That is what protects, preserves and enhances the reputation of the administration of justice.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Postmasters, postmistresses, postmen—those whose honesty and integrity are integral to their employment and who, for a breach of trust, would not receive three years’ imprisonment—would all be deprived of their jury trial, and at a time when the sharks and the vultures are circling around the institutions of this country. We are now on the brink of undermining—I believe irredeemably—one of the most precious of those institutions, which commands almost universal assent. Let me say why.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
No, I am not giving way. I am mindful of time and I must complete what I have to say. This is a time when not just this House but the judiciary and the courts are under attack. The unprecedented attacks upon the judiciary and the legal profession are deplorable. Institutional trust is under siege, and now is not the time—[Interruption.] I am trying to make a speech that is non-partisan—[Interruption.] It really is not. I remember vividly when I sat where the Lord Chancellor now sits and he was on this side of the House. I remember the fire that breathed from his soul as he spoke about justice. I can hear him now, in my mind’s eye, speaking on this subject, and I know that he would have been saying the direct polar opposite of what he is advancing today in the House. I would say that he was his wiser self in those days. He was his best self then, because at that time he was motivated by those who were oppressed, who were poor and who faced the full phalanx of the state reined against them. It was this Secretary of State in a different guise who was their champion and their voice. A jury trial is the most potent weapon and instrument against oppression and injustice. It serves not just those who are wealthy but those who are poor, and not just those who have a voice but those who do not. It is the 12 members of a jury who will give a hearing to people who otherwise have no hearing—
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I will not take interventions now, and certainly not if they are of the quality that we have had up till now. The reality is that jury trial is the cornerstone of our justice system. Do away with it and we are in trouble. Let us look at the way in which this Bill operates. It automatically presumes jury trial for everything that will have a likely sentence of three years, and those will involve some grave offences. However, in relation to serious, complex or lengthy cases, it could cover any allegation, so long as a judge concludes that it is appropriate that it should be dealt with without a jury. Apart from the excluded offences, which I accept exist, it is not just fraud trials but all kinds of trials that will be tried without a jury if a judge concludes that is appropriate. The moment we make jury trials subject to the individual view of a judge as to whether that is appropriate or not, we drive a hole through the fundamental, accepted right that all of us on both sides of the House have accepted over so many years, which is that if someone is accused of a serious crime that could destroy their reputation, disqualify them from the House of Commons, wreck their professional reputation or result in the loss of their employment—as with the postmasters and postmistresses—they should be able to be judged by 12 people. There is a reason why summary justice is called “summary”. There is a reason that summary justice was always subject to a complete rehearing. It has been suggested that there is no right to a jury trial. Of course there is no written right, but there has always been an accepted consensus, on both sides of this House and throughout the system of this country, that jury trials are precious for those kinds of cases, particularly those involving allegations of dishonesty. The right to elect is crucial. That is what this Bill is undermining. That is what is so dangerous about it. And undermining it on what basis? Arbitrary rules and arbitrary divisions. Why three years? Why not next year four or five? Why not extend it gradually, little by little, until we reduce—
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
No, I am not giving way. Let me make that clear now. I want to finish in a moment. The reality is that jury trial is too precious a thing to lose. We are faced with a question of principle here. The savings that the Government claim will be made are contested by many expert analyses from the profession, the Institute for Government and others. They are based on questionable assumptions. Are those savings sufficient for us to abrogate a fundamental principle that attracts almost universal assent across the political spectrum, which is so rare in our institutional and political life? Are they sufficient for us to take this highly unprecedented and questionable step? I would submit that they are not. I would submit to the House that we should pause long and hard before we encroach upon this fundamental principle. I have seen it work in practice over 40 years and, as I have said, I have never failed to be awe-inspired by the sheer quality of attention and fairness that a jury brings to its deliberations. Summary justice can never replicate that. We are about to take a step that will irretrievably damage the quality of justice in this country. I do not watch television much, but sometimes I watch something called “Digging for Britain”. It is apparent from that programme that we can tell when a civilisation starts to degrade when the quality of its architectural constructions changes; they start to look cheaper, and there is less attention to detail. If we take this step, we will be degrading our system of justice. A summary justice trial is summary—the clue is in the name—but that has always been corrected by the power to have a full rehearing in the court above: the Crown court. The Bill is even taking that away. We are ensuring that many thousands of people will be dealt with summarily in cases of great importance to their life and reputation. I can only appeal to the House—ineffectually, perhaps; and I regret that I have attracted comments from Labour Members suggesting that my comments are controversial. They come from the heart, and from my 44 years’ experience of a system and a profession that I love. If I have attracted the ire of Labour Members, I apologise for that; I was hoping to induce reflection on the sheer importance of the institution about which we are to take this important decision.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
The other logical absurdity is that, under the Government’s proposed reforms, somebody with a previous conviction may well go above the three-year threshold, so those who have a string of previous convictions will get a right to jury trial, but a person of good character will not.
- Hansard source
Digital ID: Public Consultation
Before I purchase something at the supermarket, I want to know what the price is. The Minister seems to be lacking clarity on how much this is going to cost. Can he give that clarity?
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Quite unusually, I have served as a practising barrister in courts and have also served on juries. I never fail to be impressed by the extraordinary care that juries take in deciding a case. Undoubtedly, the stand-out speech of the debate so far has been by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox). He addressed us like a jury; it was actually rather wonderful. He posed a question to us that is always posed to a jury, and which is emphasised by the judge at the end of the case: are you certain? Are we sure that trial by jury is guilty? Frankly, I do not think that the Government have made the case so strongly that we can be certain of the outcome. We are debating something of deep and fundamental seriousness. No one doubts that the backlog in the criminal courts is serious. Everybody agrees—I follow the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) in saying this—that justice delayed is justice denied for victims, whom we would certainly always put first, and for defendants alike. We know that Parliament has a duty to act. The question before us, however, is not whether we solve the backlog, but how we solve it. The concern many of us have is that we may be tempted to treat trial by jury as just some procedural device that can be adjusted for administrative convenience. Leaving aside the fact that there was no mention of this measure in any manifesto, trial by jury is not merely a procedure of the courts; it is one of the constitutional foundations of our liberty. As William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century, “Trial by jury ever has been, and I trust ever will be, looked upon as the glory of the English law”. It would have been inconceivable to Blackstone that what he called the “grand bulwark” of an Englishman’s liberties might be voluntarily and needlessly surrendered.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Of course that is an important point—we are not debating that. Of course the backlog is wrong, but this is not the right way to correct it. The backlog is caused by administrative delays or, if hon. Members want, cuts to the judicial system; it is not caused by trial by jury. Of course we put defendants first.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I may give way in a moment. Others, not necessarily in our country, have commented on this. Alexis de Tocqueville observed in the 19th century that the jury “places the real direction of society in the hands of the governed”. That was in his book, “Democracy in America”, and the great republic has followed our example.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I am not suggesting that jury trials have been abolished. If the hon. Member listens to my speech, she will hear me talk later about jury trials for people who are accused of, for instance, shoplifting. The freedom of the citizen is not solely determined by the state, but by his or her peers—that is the important point. The senior judge and legal philosopher Lord Devlin captured this perfectly when he wrote: “Each jury is a little parliament.” The jury trial is the point at which ordinary citizens participate directly in the administration of the King’s justice. The existence of the jury tells a citizen that the determination of justice ultimately belongs to free people of good character, not to bureaucrats, officials or state-appointed mandarins. That is why the principle has deep historical roots in our constitutional tradition, and why this debate is so fundamental. As long ago as 1215, Magna Carta declared that “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned…except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” For more than eight centuries, that principle has stood as a reminder that liberty must always be guarded against the power of the state. Today we are told that this safeguard must be weakened because the courts face a serious backlog. A temporary administrative crisis should not lead us to dismantle a permanent constitutional protection; that is the point. It would be the height of folly.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me, but Madam Deputy Speaker wants me to proceed. The backlog did not arise because juries exist; it arose because the system itself has been placed under strain for many years. Opposition Members, like others, have a responsibility here. If the courts are struggling, the answer is to repair the system rather than weaken the principle. Many sensible proposals have been suggested, such as restoring bigger and longer court sitting patterns, opening additional courtrooms, and treating the backlog as a genuine national crisis that requires urgent resources. Many people have pointed out the flaws in the Lord Chancellor’s plan. Several senior legal figures have written to The Times explaining that the proposals are “unworkable”. Perhaps there is one possible compromise: to at least preserve the absolute right of those of good character to a jury trial. If a person of good character—perhaps a Member of Parliament—is accused of something such as shoplifting, which would be quite a minor case, it can have a devastating impact on their career and life.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
That is a very fair point. I ask Members to look to their conscience. If they, a Member of Parliament—a person of good character—were accused of shoplifting, what would they choose? They would choose trial by jury, would they not? They would not choose to be tried by a magistrate. The task before us is to solve this practical problem without undermining our constitutional safeguards. The danger that we face is the temptation to sacrifice a long-standing liberty for the sake of short-term administrative convenience. The Lord Chancellor is a friend of mine and a good man. He is not a villain; he approaches things with the best of intentions—I say that without doubt. The problem is that we may not always have individuals as good natured and well intentioned as him. We accept that he is genuinely trying to solve a problem, but I fear that he is doing it with the wrong mindset. Constitutional safeguards are not designed for moments when power is exercised by good men; they exist precisely because future holders of power may not always be so wise or so restrained. We have become so used to our state of freedom that we are in danger of imagining that it is the natural state of mankind. History teaches us that it is not. We have reached our advanced state of structured freedom, responsible government and parliamentary democracy through centuries of slow, organic growth. They grew through the common law, through Magna Carta, through Parliament and through the principle that the community—the people—participate in justice.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I do not expect an answer now, but will the Minister take away one point that I and others made, which is that people of good character should have an absolute right to a jury trial? She need not answer now, but will she at least consider that point?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T8. The Chancellor said that she will meet representatives of the North sea oil industry to see how it can help. The proper question is how she can help it, is it not?
- Hansard source
Digital ID: Public Consultation
I am almost speechless! This House is the properly accountable people’s panel, not some collection of stooges and trustees selected by the Minister. In any event, it is no good him telling us it is asleep—this parrot is dead, killed by lack of trust in the Government after the whole saga of Labour Together, isn’t it?