High Street Businesses: Tax Changes
2. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of changes to business rates announced in the autumn Budget 2025 on the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
High Street Businesses: Tax Changes
Many retail, hospitality and tourism businesses in my constituency traditionally give young people their first job, but with the Chancellor’s jobs tax, the unemployment rights Act and now huge increases in rates, many of those businesses are struggling to survive, so they just cannot afford to take on those young people. Does the Minister accept that his Government are the reason that youth unemployment is now higher in the UK than in the EU for the first time since records began?
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I support the reasoned amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, which declines to give this Bill a Second Reading. I do so because while there are some useful measures in the Bill, at its heart is an unjust proposal. The Government’s plan to curtail jury trials is wrong.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
The right to a trial by jury is central to the English legal system. It has its roots in Magna Carta. It ensures that the public participate in the administration of criminal justice and gives protection to citizens from politically inspired trials. It is regrettable that some parts of the Labour party seem to take delight in tearing up long-held principles that underpin our constitution simply because it is politically expedient to do so. They are shredding our constitution without much thought as to the consequences.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I agree with the hon. Lady’s point. The Government are changing the balance of power between the citizen and the state, then pleading delays in Crown court trials as justification. This policy of curtailing the right to jury trials is ideological. In January, the Courts Minister was asked about the plans to overhaul jury trials. She admitted that she would be scrapping jury trials even if there was no courts backlog. I wonder how many Labour colleagues agree with her. I think that is disgraceful, and I suspect that there are more than 80 Labour MPs who agree with me. There is no doubt that the Crown court backlog is a serious issue. The Leveson report contains many useful proposals to improve the criminal justice system, and I will support them, but the backlog was not caused by the right to trial by jury, and it will not be alleviated by curtailing that right. In my view, the solution is to increase the capacity of the Crown court, and in fairness, parts of the Bill aim to do that. However, why does the Lord Chancellor think that abolishing jury trials for those likely to receive a sentence of three years or less is the right thing to do? Senior judges, legal professionals, and even learned Labour MPs have all warned that removing juries will make only a marginal difference—if any—and as a former solicitor, I agree. Judges themselves have said that the supposed time savings are inherently uncertain. Single-judge trials still require full evidence, witnesses, legal argument and detailed, reasoned judgments. That takes time; in fact, the Bill risks leaving courtrooms empty while judges write up their decisions instead of hearing other cases. There are other reforms that we should make before sacrificing the right to trial by jury. To take one example, the Lord Chancellor should look at the wider efficiency of the Ministry of Justice. For the past two years, the MOJ—which includes the courts service—lost the highest number of days to sickness and absence per member of staff in the whole of Whitehall. Each employee took an average of 10.7 days of sickness, which equates to over two working weeks a year for every member of staff. Not only is that 30% higher than the civil service average, but it is double the average of the private sector. I have always thought that sickness is a fairly good indication of how well a company, charity or Department is run, and perhaps if the Lord Chancellor focused his efforts on improving the efficiency of his own Department, he might start to see the whole system improve. The Lord Chancellor should also look at the listing practices of different court circuits in England. The western circuit, which covers Somerset, has a much lower backlog than London does, and the Liverpool circuit is probably the most efficient in the country. Why does the Lord Chancellor not try to replicate the listing practices of the Liverpool circuit before taking this disastrous step? He has previously said that cutting jury trials would be a mistake—in the past, he thought that was wrong. I believe that his first judgment, according to his conscience, was the right one, and I urge him to reconsider his plans.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
The hon. Member seems entirely ignorant of the success in Liverpool Crown court, where from 23 June, Operation Expedite reduced court delays by one third. Does he not think that it is worth replicating that experiment, which has been so successful in Liverpool, before curtailing the right to trial by jury?
- Hansard source
Fur: Import and Sale
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing today’s debate. She has been a tireless campaigner on this issue in her role as a shadow Minister before the general election, in tabling a private Member’s Bill and securing many Westminster Hall debates on animal welfare issues. I congratulate her on securing this important debate. As all Members indicated in their contributions, fur farming has rightly been banned in England and Wales since 2000. Legislation prohibits the keeping and breeding of animals solely or primarily for slaughter due to the value of their fur, but that was 26 years ago. The hon. Lady raised the issue of fairness in how, while we have a ban in place here, we still enable imports that do not meet our standards. We have not yet achieved a ban on imports. Personally, I feel that is wholly unfair and inadequate, and it needs to be explored. What position do we see ourselves in today? There are several restrictions in place that seek to monitor and control how this trade can be carried out in the UK. There are restrictions on some skin and fur products that may never be legally imported into the UK, including fur from cats and dogs, but we all acknowledge that it still does not go far enough. There are also established controls on fur from endangered species protected by the convention on international trade in endangered species, and on imports of fur from wild animals caught using methods that are non-compliant with international humane trapping standards, but again that does not go far enough. Under the Textile Products (Labelling and Fibre Composition) Regulations 2012—EU regulations that have now been assimilated into UK law—any textile product that contains real fur or other animal-derived materials must carry the mandatory label: “Contains non-textile parts of animal origin”. That wording must appear exactly as specified and must be clearly visible to consumers. The regulations require all textile products to display a label identifying their fibre content, including any fur, leather or bone. I would argue that is not adequate or clear enough to a consumer who is buying a product, and therefore it does not go far enough. Many Members have rightly said that while we have banned fur farming and created a direction for other countries to follow, continuing to enable imports is still offshoring our responsibility. I therefore urge the Government to explore that route. We know that fur imports are decreasing. Under the previous Administration, as we all know, animal welfare standards increased and the volume of fur imported fell by 50% in five years. The trend is declining and there is a decrease in consumers buying imported fur, so the economics back the position of taking a much stronger approach to banning imported fur. A consultation was launched seeking views on the fur market. The call for evidence received over 30,000 responses from businesses, representative bodies and individuals, demonstrating strong public support and interest. It is good to see that the Government have now published the responses to that consultation, but I would like to understand from the Minister how the Government will go forward. In addition to the interests of businesses, it is clear that this is an issue that matters to the British public. A petition to ban fur imports was launched by the Fur Free Britain campaign, receiving over 1.5 million signatures. The issue has also been debated many times in this place. We all acknowledge that this demonstrates a strong feeling from the British people that the import of fur should be banned. I would like to clearly understand the Government’s position following the Animal Welfare Committee’s report, which was published following that petition. The Government announced their animal welfare strategy in December. Much of it was welcome, but I want to ask the Minister why it did not include a ban on fur imports, as it had previously been indicated that an incoming Labour Government would be willing to explore that. I also want to seek clarity from the Government on the potential timeframe for any additional consultation that is likely to be announced on this issue. What will they be doing, in addition to what is announced in the animal welfare strategy, to explore the issue further? As has been said, much good work has been done by previous Administrations, and there is an indication of more of this in the animal welfare strategy, to improve animal welfare generally in this country. That was picked up by one of the contributions about ear cropping. We cannot be in a scenario where we are banning things from happening here but effectively enabling an equivalent product—whether it is food, a live animal or a product from a live animal—that is banned or that does not meet our expected level of animal welfare to come into the country. That is simply unfair, and I want to push the Minister on what the Government’s position is on the timing of that going forward.
- Hansard source
English Rugby
I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello)) for securing this debate. In Keighley we have an urgent challenge: the last Conservative Government allocated more than £2 million to Keighley Cougars to build a new stand, but the money is still being withheld by Bradford council. It needs to be unlocked so we can get that stand built urgently. Would the Minister, or his counterpart in MHCLG, meet me so we can discuss that and try to get that money unlocked for Keighley Cougars?
- Hansard source
OBR Growth Projections: Departmental Spending
The Government’s spending plans look very, very iffy. The Minister has a chance of fitting in with the Chancellor’s fiscal rules—if there is no further downgrade on economic growth, which seems unlikely; if the Government have the backbone to rein in public spending and to increase taxes in the last years of the Parliament, which seems very unlikely; if the Government do not have to step in with any significant energy support because no money has been set aside; and if the Government can get £4.8 billion in salary sacrifice in 2029-30 revenues, which the industry says is a pipe dream. So here is another “if”. If the Minister’s spending plans start to fall apart, will he prioritise cuts in public spending over tax increases?
- Hansard source
Youth Unemployment: Autumn Budget 2025
Last month, The Times reported that the Government may drop their pledge on minimum wage equalisation over fears of youth joblessness, and the BBC reports that the Government are considering a delay. Can the Minister advise whether the Government have considered any such delay or policy changes, and if so, what decision has been reached?
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Courts and Tribunals Bill because trial by jury is a fundamental part of the United Kingdom’s constitution and democracy; it is wrong to remove defendants’ right to elect for trial in the Crown Court for all triable either-way offences; extending magistrates courts’ sentencing powers, and restricting the right to appeal against sentences and convictions in the magistrates courts, compounds the fundamental injustice at the heart of the Bill; reducing public participation in the justice system will undermine confidence in it; eroding the right to trial by jury will not make a meaningful impact, if any, on the backlog of court cases; and it calls on the Government to instead tackle the court backlog by improving case management and encouraging earlier pleas, increasing sitting days in the Crown Court, and increasing the hours per day that courts are able to sit by improving the use of technology and the efficiency of prisoner transport.” Today, the Government attack an ancient English right that runs through our constitution, from Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights to trials taking place at this very moment in courts across the land. That right—that nobody should be seized, imprisoned or deprived of his standing in any way, except by the lawful judgment of his equals—is an essential part of our national inheritance. It is part of what makes our legal system the envy of the world. It is admired by jurists and legislators from all around, and it has been copied by all those countries—success stories, like America and Australia—that have followed our common law model. However, this Government—without a mandate, without a case and without any evidence to justify their actions—have decided that our ancient rights are little more than an inconvenience that this Justice Secretary thinks he can sweep away with only the briefest consideration. Why? He says this is about efficiency and protecting the rule of law, but that is nonsense. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, reducing jury trials will cut the Crown court workload by about 3.5%, but even that number, as I will explain, is wrong. According to the Institute for Government, this Bill will reduce the Crown court workload by only 1% or 2%. In other words, rape victims, who are waiting for a year for their case to be heard at present, would have their cases heard just one week earlier. From the basics, such as getting defendants to court on time, to intensive case management, there is much more that can be done to make the courts more efficient without attacking jury trials.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
The Institute for Government has made it absolutely clear that the figures that the Government have produced are based on assumptions that are not necessarily shared by anybody who knows what we are talking about.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Magistrates have their place in the system, but jury trials are fundamental to our inheritance, and to public confidence in the criminal justice system. If the reason is not efficiency, why are the Government doing this? There are only two plausible explanations. The first is that this left-wing Government—determined to censor free speech, and indifferent to public concern about two-tier justice—simply want to do away with the hassle of juries. The second is that the civil service has long sought to do this, and after a line of wiser Secretaries of State than this one, they finally found a Secretary of State foolish enough to go along with it. We can imagine the scene in the Ministry of Justice. A reshuffle is under way, and the Cabinet Secretary tips off Sir Humphrey, who promptly gathers his officials and asks them what the new Justice Secretary is all about. A private secretary plays the now notorious episode of “Celebrity Mastermind”. “What blue cheese is paired with port?”, asks the quizmaster. “Red Leicester”, says the right hon. Gentleman. Sir Humphrey’s eyebrow arches. “Which Marie won the Nobel prize for physics?” “Antoinette”, comes the answer. Sir Humphrey smiles a wry smile. “Which English King followed Henry VIII?” “Henry VII,” cries the right hon. Gentleman. Sir Humphrey looks around at his trusted officials, and says, “Finally, I think this time we’ve found our man.” For this is not a new idea. Officials have been itching to do this for years, but wiser Secretaries of State have always said no. Under this explanation of events, the Justice Secretary accepted the advice of his officials, failed to interrogate their arguments, and without so much as a second thought, decided to do what was rejected even during the pandemic, when lockdown and social distancing rules meant criminal trials were postponed.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Crown court waiting times were actually lower under the Conservatives until the pandemic. It is true that the backlog grew during the pandemic, but the pandemic came before the general election, so why, if it was so necessary, was this measure not in the Labour party manifesto? I am willing to accept that my account may be unfair. Despite all the evidence provided by the Justice Secretary over the years, the policy might not be explained by his incompetence. Just as plausible is ideological vandalism, and we should take Ministers at their word. To be clear, I do not mean the occasion when the Justice Secretary insisted: “Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.” No, I mean the explanation given by the Minister for Courts. She said, “This is ideological.” Asked if the Government would be doing this for reasons other than efficiency, she said yes. If we join the dots, this does make sense, because Labour Governments have tried to do it before—in 1999, 2003 and 2007. [Interruption.] The Justice Secretary says Margaret Thatcher did it. Not only is that not true, but if he reads “The Downing Street Years” he will get a lesson in conviction politics and strong leadership, which this Government do not understand.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I will not give way. Of course, when the Justice Secretary’s predecessor, the Home Secretary, commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to conduct a review of the criminal courts, she knew what she was doing, because in an earlier review Sir Brian had already said that jury trials should be restricted, with magistrates deciding the mode of trial and appeals made to a circuit judge. Perhaps the Justice Secretary sees this, like the early release scheme, as another hospital pass from his predecessor, who like the hardened criminals she let out of prison early, got out of the MOJ before facing the consequences of her actions. If he does think that, he should not feel that he has to go ahead with it. Yet here the Justice Secretary is today proposing not only what Sir Brian Leveson recommended, but an even more radical change. He is telling the House that he has no choice but to rush this very serious legislation through Parliament at breakneck speed. The Bill was published less than two weeks ago, after no consultation at all, and today he is already asking hon. Members to approve its Second Reading. He is allowing only five days for Members to scrutinise the Bill line by line in Committee. That is less than the Government allowed for the Railways Bill, the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill and the Pension Schemes Bill. It is about the same time the House once spent scrutinising the Salmon Act 1986, which introduced the offence of handling salmon in suspicious circumstances. It is less time than the 44 debates, statements and urgent questions this House has heard on Israel, Palestine and Lebanon since the election. We are not talking about legislating to recognise the sentience of crustacea or regulate travelling circuses; we are talking about a fundamental change to our constitution, the operation of our courts and the rights of our people. In the words of His Honour Geoffrey Rivlin KC, this Bill is “one of the most radical and revolutionary events in English legal history. Yet it has not appeared in any manifesto; it has not been put out for consultation; it has not been recommended by Leveson”. He says that it “has been ‘published’ with virtually no notice to anyone”. What arrogance, Madam Deputy Speaker—what a disgrace! If this Bill had been the subject of consultation and this Justice Secretary had spent any time listening to judges, lawyers and the public, he would know that it will fail on its own terms. He says that it will deliver justice for more victims, but in Canada and Australia—jurisdictions he cites as an inspiration—judge-only trials have seen more acquittals than jury trials. Indeed, the impact assessment predicts that fewer people will go to prison as a result of these changes. That should be no surprise: asking judges sitting alone to take responsibility for depriving somebody of their liberty is far more onerous than asking 12 fellow citizens who can discuss the evidence, argue the case and share the burden between them. A corresponding danger to justice is posed by the proposals to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers to two years and to limit the right to appeal their rulings. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) said earlier, no fewer than 40% of appeals against verdicts and 47% of appeals against sentences issued by magistrates are successful. Incredibly, the Justice Secretary seemed to suggest just now that these figures are not a cause for concern, but a cause for celebration.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I do not accept that characterisation of magistrates courts. If that were a true cause for concern for the hon. Lady, this Bill would perhaps try to address what she says, yet it does not. The Government’s claims about what the Bill will achieve are hopelessly confused. The Justice Secretary leans heavily on Sir Brian Leveson, who says that limiting jury trials will save 20% of court time, but there has been no modelling to justify this number, and Sir Brian has admitted that it is little more than a guess. When challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), the Justice Secretary said, “We will…publish our modelling alongside the…Bill”.—[Official Report, 3 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 109.] Yet no modelling worthy of the name has been published. The impact assessment takes Sir Brian’s guess and uses it as the median estimate. This is fiction masquerading as science. The Criminal Bar Association calls the impact assessment “meaningless verbiage”, “total gibberish” and something that “would make the script writer of ‘In the Thick of it’ wince with embarrassment”. It concludes: “If anyone can make any sense of this, please get in touch.” If the Justice Secretary wanted to accept that invitation right now, I would be willing to give way to him—but he does not. The Government have overstated the length of trials for cases in scope of the proposed change by more than 100%. The better estimate has been made by the Institute for Government, where researchers have listened to judges and lawyers and understood that only 20% of Crown court time is spent trying either-way offences. Of course, half of those cases will remain jury trials because the likely sentence is above three years. The cases in scope therefore take up only 5% to 10% of Crown court time, so even if they could be tried 20% faster, it would save only 1% or 2% of court time.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
My right hon. and learned Friend is exactly right. I was planning to turn to that point, because the Bill creates a problem not only in the burden of time it creates, but in the politicisation of our judiciary. The Bill does create new time burdens. When juries deliberate, judges do other work in court, including on other trials. If judges deliberate instead, the court time used to hear other cases is lost. Because a defendant’s right to a jury trial will depend on the likely custodial sentence if he is found guilty, if the Bill becomes law, a judge will, for the first time, be needed to first conduct a hearing to determine the likely sentence. The Bill says that the parties involved should make representations; in cases with several defendants, the judge would need to hear from all their representatives and the prosecutor, taking up hours of time. There is more: defendants often plead guilty after the plea and trial preparation hearing, but before trial. In these cases, the sentencing judge—possibly not the same as the allocating judge—will have to hear the submissions all over again. Then there are the reasons for conviction or acquittal, as my right hon. and learned Friend has just said. Juries do not have to provide reasons, but the Bill says that judges must. That will inevitably take many hours per case—time that right now is used to try cases.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I will make some progress. This opens up new risks. The publication of judges’ reasons is likely to lead to more appeals and more court time being taken up. As questions are posed about judges’ reasons, we are likely to see the politicisation of judges and judicial appointments—something that will be made worse by the blurring of our adversarial model and the European inquisitorial role of judges. Under our model, judges are entitled to intervene and seek further information to help the jury with their assessment; in a judge-only trial, where the judge inevitably takes on a more inquisitorial role, those interventions and requests will inevitably be portrayed as the display of bias. This will be made worse when it comes to the role of the judge in deciding on the admissibility of evidence. A judge usually sees all manner of material that is prejudicial to the defendant but deemed inadmissible, which does not matter when it is a jury who decides innocence or guilt. When a judge sees prejudicial material and deems it inadmissible, however, it will be difficult for anybody to believe that the information was simply erased from their mind. Judges may be professional and fully committed to their impartiality, but they are not superhuman.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I will not. It is not difficult to see how this, too, will undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system and put judges in an impossible situation.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I completely—
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I give way.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I totally understand what the hon. Lady says, and we are all interested in the best interests of victims. [Interruption.] To suggest otherwise is absolutely appalling, and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) should withdraw that comment. I completely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden). I was concerned by the Justice Secretary saying that he is proud of the fact that his party does not just look to the past and to how things have been; I think one of the problems with Labour is that it is too careless with how things have always been. This is exactly what we are talking about. This is an ancient constitutional and legal right, and Labour is being careless about it.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I will not give way again. We are talking about a fundamental change in the way that we try criminal cases, and the cases in scope are not minor; they are cases where the likely sentence is between 18 months and three years in prison. Before Government Members decide how to vote this evening, they need to search their souls and ask themselves three vital questions. Is this Bill just? Is it thought through? Is it going to make our courts more efficient? If they are honest with themselves, and if they ask judges, lawyers and their own colleagues, such as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, they will know that the answer to all three questions is no. None of the great Labour Prime Ministers would ask them to take this step—not Clement Attlee, not Harold Wilson, and not James Callaghan, as the Justice Secretary earlier claimed. As Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins would never have invited MPs to put their conscience aside and vote for what they believe, deep down, to be wrong—and, as I understand it from the media briefings, neither would the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). Government Members know the policy was not in their manifesto, they know that there has not even been a consultation, and they know that it is wrong to rush this through the House after just five days of scrutiny in Committee. They know, too, that in perhaps just a few months, this Prime Minister will be gone. I do not believe that they wish to look back in the years ahead and remember voting to attack an ancient English right and to undermine what makes ours the best legal system in the world, all for a Prime Minister who takes them for granted and who they will soon replace. We will vote against this terrible Bill today, and so should they.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
The reasoned amendment in the name of the loyal Opposition has been selected.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Order. Before the Lord Chancellor responds, let me say that many Back Benchers wish to contribute. No doubt he is coming close to a conclusion sometime soon-ish.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I call the shadow Lord Chancellor.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
There are shy of 60 people wishing to contribute. I urge Members to keep their contributions brief.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
We are now on a speaking limit of six minutes. I call Catherine West.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I call the Father of the House.
- Hansard source
Houses in Multiple Occupation
The rise in houses in multiple occupation within the Old Bexley and Sidcup constituency is having a profound impact on the local community, leading to antisocial behaviour, parking pressures and pressure on local amenities and services. Over 2,300 local residents have shown their support for preventing more family homes from being converted to HMOs through this petition and a corresponding online petition. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce new legislation to prevent the loss of family homes through conversion to houses in multiple occupation; and to ask the Mayor of London to ensure the next London plan realises the vital role of family homes in Bexley and provides protection for them against being divided into HMOs.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup, Declares that the rise in houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) within the Old Bexley and Sidcup constituency is having a detrimental impact on the local community, leading to anti-social behaviour, parking pressures and pressure on local amenities and services; notes that this uncontrolled growth in HMOs is leading to a loss of family homes, preventing families from getting on to the property ladder and preventing couples from starting a family; further declares that the powers available to the local council are not sufficient to prevent the loss of family homes and over-proliferation of HMOs; and further notes that a corresponding online petition on this issue has received a separate 2,347 signatures. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce new legislation to prevent the loss of family homes through conversion to houses in multiple occupation; and to ask the Mayor of London to ensure the next London plan realises the vital role of family homes in Bexley and provides protection for them against being divided into HMOs. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003167]
- Hansard source
Digital ID: Public Consultation
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the briefing a short time ago. It is said that in 1720, gullible investors were invited to put their money into “a company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is”. Today, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister appears to be reviving that proud tradition. For months, his Department has insisted that digital ID was absolutely essential, and until a few weeks ago, it had to be mandatory—even for babies. However, after months of insisting that the scheme was indispensable, the Government are now asking the public to tell them just what it is indispensable for. There was a time when this was supposed to be the magic bullet to tackle illegal migration. Now, the Cabinet Office seems to be suggesting that it might just help to reduce hold times in Government call centres. This great undertaking has gone from promising the elixir of eternal youth to the equivalent of, “Well, you never know, it might help if you have a slightly upset tummy.” The public know snake oil when they are offered it. We should not be surprised, because this never was a thought-through policy; it was always a distraction stunt. For years, officials have been looking at the ID file on the shelf, hoping for a Government desperate enough to pick it up, and last September they finally found one. Desperate for an announcement to shove Andy Burnham off the front pages before a tricky Labour conference—look how that turned out—the Prime Minister dusted off this scheme with no clear idea of how it would work, what it would cost or what the consequences would be. After one of the Government’s many U-turns, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister now assures us that this digital ID will not become compulsory. Nothing is ever compulsory until it suddenly is. We know how this story goes. At first, it is voluntary, then it becomes strongly encouraged. Then, you discover you need it to open a bank account and see your GP. Before long, your phone battery dies while you are in the queue at Costa, and you are essentially a non-person: “Sorry, sir, no flat white for you. Computer says you no longer exist.” It is no wonder that even the Health Secretary wants nothing to do with this particular headline. Of course, the Government tell us not to worry because the system will be secure. This is the same Government who cannot even keep their own Budget secret. How much confidence can the public really have that their personal data will not be misused, when the Minister who was responsible for the scheme this time last week had to resign following reports that he hired a firm to spy on journalists who had written negative stories about his organisation? In November, the Office for Budget Responsibility put the cost of this boondoggle at £1.8 billion over three years, which is more than the cost of building and operating a new Type 45 destroyer—and nearly as dangerous if not used properly. The OBR did not change that figure in last week’s projections, so we can assume that £1.8 billion remains the best estimate. And for what? Britain has managed perfectly well for centuries without a peacetime national identity system. Society functions without citizens having to authenticate themselves to the state every time they wish to open an app or go about their daily lives. Before we rush headlong into constructing the world’s most elaborate digital clipboard, the Government should recognise some serious concerns. If their system fails, it will be expensive; if it is hacked, it will be dangerous; and if it expands, it will be intrusive. So what exactly is the overwhelming crisis in British life that requires us to take all three risks? Until the Government can answer that question convincingly, the British public will view this proposal in exactly the same way that they view most grand Whitehall technology schemes: with deep suspicion, a modicum of mild amusement and a firm determination to keep their identity exactly where it belongs—in their own pocket, not floating somewhere in the Government’s cloud.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation: South-east
Order. I remind hon. Members to bob, as indeed they are doing, if they wish to be called.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation: South-east
May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we do not refer to other Members by name, but by their constituency?
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation: South-east
Your apology is noted.
- Hansard source
State Pension Increase
Thanks to this Government’s policies on pensions, which actively disincentivise saving into private pension schemes, people will increasingly rely on the support of the state. This is not sustainable. I asked the Minister about this yesterday, and he dodged the question, so I will ask him again: will the Government cancel pension fund mandation and abandon salary sacrifice caps—yes or no?
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
May I begin by paying a huge tribute to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her testimony to the House today? It was a privilege to be here to hear it, and it will last long in the memory. I do not have a huge amount of experience of jury trials; in fact, what I have experience of is the antithesis. When we were training to go to Northern Ireland in 1992, the IRA was wont to put us on the horns of a dilemma, in terms of whether we could open fire or not. We used to do cine ranges, and they would pause the action. I remember saying to my trainer, “Can I fire?” He said to me, “That is a very difficult situation, sir. That is when you remind yourself that it is better to be tried by 12 men than to be carried by six.” It was quite chilling, particularly given that two of my guardsmen were involved in a judgmental shooting a few months later. It turned out that you do not get tried by 12 men; you get tried by one. Those guardsmen were convicted of murder and sent away for life, so I have seen this issue from the other side. There has been something of a consensus in today’s debate that justice delayed is justice denied, and that the backlog needs to be reduced. I do not think that there is a consensus on whether halving the number of cases that go to jury trial, and removing from thousands of victims and defendants the right to jury trial, will actually reduce the backlog in the way that the Deputy Prime Minister suggested. In the absence of my experience of jury trials, I want to spend some time outlining the concerns of a constituent who wrote to me. His name is Sir Ivan Lawrence KC, and he is a former Member of Parliament. He says: “After 63 years conducting jury trials at the criminal bar, sitting as a Recorder, speaking to countless ex-jurors, and discussing with lawyers in other countries their jury systems, I can confidently say that, despite the waste of jurors’ time that often occurs, our system contributes to justice in almost certainly the fairest and most efficient way. The great point about juries is that ordinary people trust the twelve members to spread their judgment and to use ordinary common sense. Those who have been accused of dishonesty, however small, or of violence, however petty, could have decent lives totally ruined, if common sense is replaced by the strictest application of the law which may be required of judges. Jury trial is not merely an important and traditional human right, and a clear form of democracy. Juries are, like our judges, totally independent. Any wrongs that may occur are redressed by retrials or appeals to higher courts. Those accused of crimes are more likely to turn up for their trials and, when they do, are less likely to need handcuffs, leg-irons, or expensive incarceration.” I have listened to Sir Ivan Lawrence, and I am reminded of my grandmother’s words: an ounce of experience is worth a tonne of enthusiasm.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Can my hon. Friend give us his views as a practitioner on something that has not yet been mentioned in the debate, which is the usefulness of juries in protecting the institution of the judiciary? At the moment, if there is a string of sentencing that the Government or politicians do not like, there is not a lot they can do about it. If it is judges who are handing out those sentences, they will come under direct political attack, as we unfortunately see from time to time. The distance and insulation that a jury gives is not just a protection for the citizen, but a protection for the judiciary and its ongoing integrity.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
We have heard a great deal from Government Members about the necessity of these court reforms. They say that in order to tackle the backlog in our courts, we need to curb jury trials, but previous statements from Ministers betray the Government’s true intentions. On 7 January, standing at the Dispatch Box, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services said, “People ask me, ‘Sarah, would you be doing this if there was not a crisis in our courts?’ I say yes”—[Official Report, 7 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 284.] It would be bad enough to attack the time-honoured right to a jury trial in the name of administrative efficiency; to do so for ideological reasons, without candidly making that ideological case to the public, is a disgrace. The British people can see what is really going on. The Government want to curb jury trials because they do not trust the public. They think that judges know best, and would rather the justice system was run entirely by them. We know this to be the case because whenever the Government have a choice to make between the British people and their friends in the legal profession, they are on the side of the lawyers, every single time. We saw this “judges know best” approach in the Prime Minister’s disastrous Chagos giveaway; we see it on asylum, immigration and the European convention on human rights; we see it in the Government’s plans to allow prosecutions of veterans who fought in Northern Ireland; and now, we see it in their plans to curb jury trials. However, jury trials exist for a reason. They are designed to ensure that the judiciary can never stray too far from the public’s conception of justice and fairness. At a time when public trust in the judiciary is low, can it really be sensible to take away this crucial backstop? I will take just a single example of the divergence between public morality and judicial opinion. According to research conducted by the Free Speech Union, there is a huge gap between the successes of defences based on the right to free speech in judge-led cases and in cases heard by a jury. In judge-only cases at magistrates courts, just 16% of free-speech defences succeeded; in Crown court cases, where juries very often sit, 28% of free-speech defences succeeded. There is a clear divergence between the public’s appreciation of justice and the views of the judicial establishment. The result of this Government’s plans will be to further alienate the public, and to drag the justice system further away from the views of the British people. If that is what they want, they should at least be straightforward about it.
- Hansard source
Technology Sovereignty
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) on securing such an important debate. It is so well attended, and it is a shame that it is not longer; I commend everyone for their two-minute raps. In the context, I will plug tomorrow’s Conservative-led debate on Government support for UK tech, which will be an opportunity to speak about some of the concerns that have been expressed on a cross-party basis about the direction of tech policy. We all come to this place with experiences that shape our thinking on these critical tech issues. Members have probably never heard this before, but the hon. Lady is a former telecoms engineer—[Laughter.] She brought her expertise to Ofcom and is now a distinguished Select Committee Chairman. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) brings his experience as a computer engineer, and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) his experience as a “crusty old” physics teacher. He talked about quantum, and one question that I have in relation to today’s launch of the policy on digital identities is whether a quantum-proof system is being built. I come to this debate as a former Cabinet Office and telecoms and digital infrastructure Minister. During my tenure, the Government in which I served faced three supply chain crises that permanently changed how I think about resilience: Brexit, covid and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Each forced us to confront uncomfortable truths about where we source from, whom we can trust and what risks we carry when we fail to think strategically about our dependencies. I also think of my experiences on a trip to China in 2018 as a new Back Bencher visiting Huawei’s Shenzhen lab. I later found myself as the Minister overseeing the removal of high-risk vendors from the 5G core, and I saw how an earlier decision not to scrutinise those providing critical infrastructure came at real economic cost as well as security cost. Security risk and economic risk are deeply intertwined and will become ever more so as more of our economy moves online. In the space of a week, those Gulf economies that have been expanding voraciously into the digital sphere have found three AWS data centres under attack—a deliberate strategy by Iran to cripple critical digital infrastructure and, in so doing, mete out economic pain and chaos. Those experiences shape how I think about technological sovereignty. We have to be clear about what we mean by that. It does not mean autarky, complete self-reliance, or pretending that Britain can or should build every piece of technology ourselves. That is not realistic or, actually, risk free. It is not about stopping important tech companies investing here and bringing expertise. I see it instead as being about resilience and influence. It means understanding the risks that we are carrying in the tech stack that we increasingly rely on; mitigating those risks; and ensuring that we do not steadily reduce our leverage by ceding power to companies or countries whose influence over those systems may ultimately exceed our own. We are seeing this play out in the cloud, where I think we need to be pursuing a dual strategy whereby, alongside the hyperscalers, we start to expand our edge capacity, with smaller data centres and a more pluralistic market, using competition policy and thinking strategically about procurement. We need to think about it in terms of the components that power modern computing. How do we make ourselves an indispensable part of any critical supply chain in the way Taiwan and the Netherlands have done in relation to chips? We need to think about the concerns in relation to Chinese tech in energy policy. I think that as we move further into the renewables space, we are building in quite a lot of risk there. We have heard today about critical minerals, and I have talked about high-risk vendors in telecoms. Dependency on China and dependency on America are not equivalent risks. None the less, I worry that, having learned the lesson about Chinese technology, the Government now appear content to place an extraordinarily high level of dependence on American hyperscalers instead. Of course the US is our closest ally and has enormous expertise that in many respects we cannot match—we cannot do so in every field—but sensible allies hedge their risks. That is especially relevant when we think about some of its cloud rules, which have been mentioned today. The Government are pursuing an odd strategy here. We are upping our dependency on the US while reducing our reliability and credibility as a partner. Similarly, while inviting circular investments in mega data centres, entering into data partnerships with AI firms and blowing ever larger balloons of fantasy out of the US-UK tech partnership—something that has been picked up today, but also in The Guardian this week—the Government are actually making it harder for UK tech firms to grow, because of Government procurement rules, high taxes, crippling energy costs, wealth taxes and all the rest of it. I appreciate that we are very short of time—I am getting a little nod to shuffle along—but my worry is that the Government thus far have not had a strategy for tech sovereignty and are heightening our dependence on US hyperscalers. I would be very grateful if the Minister could address those concerns, which I think are shared across the House.