5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

   Draft Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (Application To Immigration Officers and Designated Customs Officials In Northern Ireland) and Consequential Amendments Regulations 2026

   It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the Minister for his remarks on these proposals. We recognise the need to give enhanced powers to those who enforce our immigration and customs laws. It is right that we equip them with all the necessary resources to stop any form of behaviour incompatible with our legal regime. The equality impact assessment shows that the nationalities encountered by immigration officers in Northern Ireland are comparable to those who have arrived in the UK by small boats, demonstrating the continuing need to give sufficient powers to immigration officials to tackle the problems associated with migration. Conferring powers on to immigration officials to search, seize and arrest should always be welcomed when it is done to stop illegal activity on our border. Much of the debate about the security of our border has rightly focused on the matter of illegal entry, which has increased significantly under the Government. A range of issues encountered by immigration officers require the Government’s attention. I hope the measures achieve the Government’s stated goals, such as greater interoperability between law enforcement agencies, to tackle immigration issues in Northern Ireland. Critically, I recognise the Government’s point that “Colleagues in the devolved bodies requested assurances around accountability which were discussed at working level and resolved to all parties’ satisfaction.” I welcome those robust assurances, but will the Minister say whether any other issues were raised during those discussions or whether any other matters needed to be resolved? Given the comments in the explanatory memorandum, will the Minister also say what progress has been made to ensure that the guidance is up to date, ahead of the predicted date for operationalisation in March this year, and whether work is under way to ensure that happens within that timeframe?

   Hansard source
2. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

   Rural Communities

   Is the shadow Secretary of State aware of the great concern in Shropshire among the rural community, in particular farmers, that the Government are conflating lethal firearms with shotguns? Of course, shotguns should be controlled, but they are already strictly controlled, and they are a vital part of rural life, especially for farmers controlling vermin, or those undertaking other rural pursuits. I appeal, through the shadow Secretary of State, to the Minister to look again and disregard the consultation. The changes have not been called for and are unnecessary.

   Hansard source
3. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

   Rural Communities

   It is humid in here. I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She is talking about important subjects for all our communities, including infrastructure, SMEs and transport. We can differ on who is to be praised or not. On the Government’s legislative priorities—many of these things require legislation or have already had legislative time spent on them—why are the Government going to spend so much time on banning trail hunting? Is she aware that, if that goes through, in Shropshire alone we will likely see the death of at least 300 hounds? That will impact on many rural SMEs. As the Minister has been in the House a very long time, she will know that I have had at least three animal welfare Bills in the House—[Interruption.] That was long before the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) even set foot in the Chamber. My record on animal welfare is long and established. Today, I stand up for all the people in the hunts who do not want to destroy all those dogs as well as jobs.

   Hansard source
4. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

   Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

   I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement today, but I want to press him a little on a vote in Parliament. In his statement—it is pretty much the same wording as the Prime Minister’s, as I would expect—he states that a decision on deployment will be brought to the House “for a debate beforehand and for a vote on that deployment”. That is not the same as having a vote before the deployment. There are very good strategic and military reasons for not making public an immediate, surprise or secret deployment beforehand, but this is a public, planned deployment, as set out in the Paris agreement. It could not be more public than that. Will he commit to a vote in this House before the deployment, and not a debate in the House only? He will know that in 2013—he was in the House; I think he entered Parliament in 1997—the then Prime Minister, now Lord Cameron of somewhere in Oxfordshire —[Interruption.] Under Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in beautiful Oxfordshire, there was a vote, which was lost by 13 votes. As a result, the UK did not deploy RAF support of the Americans into Syria. It is right that the Government get the balance right, and I support what they are doing, although we have to see the detail, but will he commit to a vote before deployment, and not just a debate?

   Hansard source
5. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

   Bromsgrove: Local Government

   My hon. Friend and Worcestershire neighbour is making a strong argument about the risks of a north-south divide, in which the north could be subsumed under a greater Birmingham. That is a very important point. Is he as surprised as I am that, of the district and city councils across Worcestershire, Wyre Forest was the only one to advocate a single Worcestershire unitary authority rather than the split model?

   Hansard source
6. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Mark Garnier

   Bromsgrove: Local Government

   My hon. Friend has been very indulgent of me. I suspect one interesting point was not taken into account by the survey. That would be the fantastic cost of splitting up all the county-wide services, which range from adult and children’s social care to waste disposal. To divide that into two and then merge the district authorities would in itself be an unnecessary cost if we have two authorities rather than one.

   Hansard source
7. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

   May I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement this evening? I hope it is heard widely across the world, and I hope it is heard in Moscow and Washington. I hope it is heard particularly in Kyiv and across Ukraine, because I want the people of that country to understand that this House is totally united in support of their aims. I do not wish to see peace at any price; I wish to see Ukraine prevail. I hope that I speak for the whole House in that respect. Given that context, I will ask my question. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister earlier today about the numbers that had been committed. The Prime Minister said: “Let me be very clear about what was agreed yesterday. Military plans were drawn up some months ago, and I have updated the House in relation to that.” Figures are being briefed to the newspapers, but I do not know whether they are correct. The Secretary of State owes it to the House to brief us on the numbers that he is considering. I may wish them to be higher, and some other Members of the House may wish them to be lower, but I want this House to hear what his plans are.

   Hansard source
8. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   Jury Trials

   As we have heard, trial by jury is one of this country’s most fundamental rights. Only months ago, this Government were elected and a Minister was saying: “Jury service is an essential part of criminal justice which underpins the impartiality and fairness that runs through our legal system.” I would have thought that every Member from right across the House would agree with that statement. Not a single one of us stood on a manifesto at the last general election to abolish jury trials in this country. Why would Ministers be so keen to abandon such an important tradition of our great country? That we ask that question will come as no surprise to our constituents. From abolishing local councils and cancelling elections to imposing an authoritarian digital identity scheme, it is all part of the same pattern. Again and again, this Labour Government show that they are more than happy to curtail the voice and freedom of the British people. If the Ministry of Justice had exhausted every possible route to get that backlog down, its proposals on jury trial trials might have a bit more credibility. This Government could remove the cap on sitting days, ensuring that courts can work at full capacity. They could work day and night to eliminate inefficiencies in the system, which waste hours of court time—but they have not. Having seen the justice system up close through my work with Hertfordshire’s police and crime commissioner, I know that huge amounts of time are lost before a case even reaches court. A recent study from the University of Leicester found that, on average, it takes 113 days to charge a suspect after a crime has been recorded. Issues between police forces and the CPS when cases are submitted can add at least 72 days to the length of a case. Communication between police forces and prosecutors could be vastly improved. Digital evidence, such as body-worn cameras and CCTV, is widely present and the study notes that cases with digital evidence were submitted more quickly to the CPS than those without. Investigators also warn, however, of how time-consuming handling that sort of evidence can be. The Government should therefore focus on ensuring that police forces, prosecutors, the courts and, of course, victims take full advantage of video evidence so as to accelerate justice rather than slow it down. That is just one example of the actions that Ministers could take, instead of embarking on this jury trials policy, which abandons such an essential component of justice in the United Kingdom. I urge this Government to start listening, to use all the tools available to them and to drop this disastrous policy.

   Hansard source
9. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joy Morrissey

   Rural Communities

   When will this Labour Government’s attack on the countryside come to an end? Will it be when there are no village pubs left to tax? Will it be when the last family farm has shut the barn doors? Will it be when they have banned all English country sports and traditions? Will it be when their left-wing lobby groups have finally had their student union fantasies fulfilled? Will it be when the English countryside is filled with solar farms and onshore wind? For months, the Government have put family farmers under intolerable stress over the tax proposals that everyone could see they had got wrong. There is not a country pub in my constituency, in Beaconsfield, Marlow and the South Bucks villages, that is not collapsing under the weight of the Government’s national insurance tax raid and business rate tax hikes.

   Hansard source
10. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joy Morrissey

    Rural Communities

    My hon. Friend makes a wonderful point that the Government are not just destroying the places where people go, but the pubs in the village where everyone comes together. They are destroying the local community, with no regard for something that we saved during covid and kept alive this entire time, only to die a death for what? I am not sure. Is it for ideological reasons? It is hard to say. The Government have gone for the economic livelihoods of our rural communities; now they are coming for their traditions and character. I am a passionate animal lover. I care deeply about animals and animal welfare standards. I can therefore say with total certainty that the proposed ban on trail hunting is not about animals or their welfare; it is about petty, vindictive ideology and this Government’s pathological dislike of rural communities. Now we find this Parliament in the absurd position of being asked to ban something that does not even involve hunting or killing animals. There has just been a debate in Ireland and they voted against a ban on hunting after a sensible debate, but not here. We have to come to the real question—the unanswered question—on animal welfare: what exactly do the Government think is going to happen to the 170 packs of hounds in England when they are no longer in use? What is going to happen to the 20,000 hounds and numerous horses if the trail hunting ban goes through? Let us be brutally honest: many of them will be destroyed. If you have a hound, have you ever tried to have it domesticated? Have you tried to have a harrier—[Interruption.] No, please, I insist on you trying to have a hound come to your home and stay with you for a week. It is impossible. Put the blood of those hounds and those horses on your heads because you want to stand in ideological purity—

    Hansard source
11. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joy Morrissey

    Rural Communities

    I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a very important topic and I am so sorry that I was carried away. I feel that the Government do not really care about animal welfare. They do not care because they want to double down on attacking the English rural way of life. English rural traditions going back centuries are being sacrificed on the altar of left-wing student political ideology. Rural economies and livelihoods are being ruined. I say to this Government: “You will fail in your attempt to destroy the English countryside and our rural communities. They will outlast you and they will recover from the damage you do to them, but they will never forgive you.”

    Hansard source
12. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·John Glen

    Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

    I thank the Secretary of State for his update. He is a serious and experienced politician, and I have no doubt that he always acts in the national interest. What concerns me is the gap between the coherence of NATO and its approach—the approach that he has set out that we will take if a peace agreement can be found in Ukraine—and the determination that we are seen to have to meet the new level of threat from Russia and elsewhere in the world with respect to our commitment on defence spending. I respect that he asserts that the Government are committed to 3% between 2029 and 2034, but with the greatest respect, there is a great difference in the timeframe between the start and end of that five-year window. In previous generations this country has had to make sacrifices to defend itself. I think that he needs to think about whether we should be making that case now, so that we can be ready for what may be ahead of us.

    Hansard source
13. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    European Convention on Human Rights: Belfast Agreement

    Does the Secretary of State not agree with expert opinion that says that while we remain signatories to the ECHR, we will not be able to protect our veterans from vexatious litigation?

    Hansard source
14. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    UK Town of Culture

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this important debate on the UK town of culture competition. Let me begin by welcoming the announcement of the UK town of culture programme. The UK city of culture initiative, first launched in 2009, is now in its fifth iteration and has supported places such as Derry/Londonderry, Hull, Coventry and most recently Bradford. In each case, the investment has proved to drive regeneration, attracting investment and visitors, all while showcasing the unique character, heritage and creativity of those places. Hull’s year as city of culture generated an estimated £300 million for the local economy, attracted millions of visitors and created thousands of jobs, apprenticeships and freelance opportunities. Coventry saw renewed confidence and investment, while in Bradford, more than 5,000 events took place during the year, with around 51 million spent. Within the first six months of Bradford 2025, more than 11,000 schoolchildren benefited from the education programme, and 40,000 local people participated in cultural events. My colleagues visited Bradford during that year to join in one of 5,000 events that took place. The success of this scheme shows how well-funded support can have a transformative impact. The UK town of culture rightly recognises that smaller and medium-sized settlements have powerful cultural stories to tell—we have heard a great variety of those today—and a vital role to play in our national life. Market towns such as Shrewsbury have long acted as bridges between rural and urban communities, serving as hubs for seasonal celebrations, sport, county dance and local trade. In my constituency on the Isle of Wight, our island’s towns are increasingly recognised as destinations for film and the creative industries. We have vibrant organisations, including Ventnor Exchange, Monkton Arts and the new Department venue in Ryde, plus of course Brading Roman Villa. Shanklin theatre, a historic building, survives only through the tireless volunteer efforts of local people. I enjoyed the local pantomime “Dick Whittington” there only last week with my children. Building on the success of the city of culture programme, the ambition to break down barriers to opportunity, drive local economic growth and create jobs is one that we strongly support. However, the last iteration of the city of culture competition demonstrated that the scheme could be open to places beyond cities, with examples including Wrexham, which bid as a town, and County Durham, which submitted a bid covering the entire county. Wrexham even became a city midway through its bid. This shows that the programme could already accommodate a broader range of places, without necessarily creating a town of culture competition separately. It raises the question: is it necessary to establish a separate competition when towns were allowed to bid in the last round? Experience from the previous city of culture competition shows that the places that performed best were those with strong local authority leadership and capacity. The most recent competition, with 20 entrants, was the largest ever. Although expertise is spreading across local government, not every council starts from the same place.

    Hansard source
15. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    UK Town of Culture

    I am happy to join the hon. Member in congratulating the local authority in Bradford on its bid. She illustrates very well the point that I am trying to make: there is a financial risk in undertaking the process and, indeed, the risk of not being successful. For smaller towns with less financial might, that could become a considerable issue, so will the Minister commit to supporting local authorities—in particular, smaller ones—in their capacity to bid and succeed in a separate towns competition? Further to that, a long-standing challenge of the scheme has been the uncertainty about funding, with prize money neither guaranteed nor clearly set out at the point of launch. Although we welcome the approach taken under the previous Government, which enabled runners-up to receive £125,000, the current Government have not yet extended that commitment to the town of culture competition. In the past, even unsuccessful bidders, such as Sunderland, received support that helped to strengthen local partnerships and build capacity in their communities. If the Government introduce a separate towns competition, they must clarify whether funding will be guaranteed immediately for winners and runners-up, particularly for towns that may have less capacity to absorb financial uncertainty. For many towns that are unsuccessful and receive little or no funding, cultural institutions remain at risk. Much of our cultural infrastructure depends on local authority funding, and discretionary spending on culture is often the first casualty when councils face financial pressure. If we are serious about supporting towns through culture, local authorities must be given the financial tools and flexibility to protect cultural and heritage assets. This initiative must also be understood in the wider context of the pressures facing our cultural, creative and heritage sectors. Towns’ unique characters are driven by their high streets and small businesses, ranging from historic pubs and craft workshops to independent creative venues and local cultural organisations. Yet this Government’s punitive tax regime places increasing burdens on these organisations. Higher employer national insurance contributions, reduced business rates relief and rising wage costs all fall heaviest on small businesses, which have the least capacity to absorb these costs. We have already seen too many local businesses close over the past year, so how will the Government ensure that the very organisations that we rely on to deliver cultural programmes—indeed, they form the cultural fabric of this nation—are not priced out of existence, thereby reducing investment into the local area? Thanks to the previous Government’s £2 billion culture recovery fund, many arts and heritage organisations were finally back on their feet, yet this Government’s job tax has hit them hard. I welcome the continuation of tax relief for theatres, museums and galleries, but the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s resource budget remains flat in cash terms, which of course represents a real-terms cut. At a time when 98% of adults agree that museums are important to UK culture, it is deeply concerning that the Government continue to fail to commit funding to major levelling-up cultural projects, despite announcing a UK town of culture competition, which we welcome.

    Hansard source
16. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Rural Communities

    It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on supporting rural communities, although to the casual observer who may have been here at the beginning to hear the Minister’s opening speech, it may have appeared that this was a general rambling debate about covid. Later on, if they were here when we heard from the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), they might have felt that they were in a general debate on the NHS. I understand why Labour Members do not want to talk about rural communities. Despite their protestations, they know that they have lost the trust of rural Britain. It is little wonder, given the family farm tax—what could be more damaging? It has taken them more than a year, from the first Budget when they introduced the tax, to finally U-turn on the majority of it. But before that point, they voted four times against Conservative proposals to scrap it: on four occasions they had the opportunity to say, “Enough is enough.” We will continue to campaign on scrapping the family farm tax in its entirety, until it has gone completely, but for rural and coastal communities such as mine on the Isle of Wight, it is not just farmers who have the worst possible deal from this Government; it is the fishing communities too. Just two decades ago, there were 30 fully crewed fishing boats in my constituency; there are now three. This Government rubbed the fishing community’s face in it when they renegotiated with the EU, folded and gave away our fishing rights for 12 years. [Interruption.] Those reading this in Hansard in the future should know that there seem to be smirks, expressions of laughter and jeering from those on the Labour Benches. This is a party and a Government who fundamentally misunderstand the damage they are doing to rural Britain. The Conservative party has always been and will always be the party of rural Britain.

    Hansard source
17. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Rural Communities

    I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, and thank her for raising that point. The Government are also destroying many rural areas with a clamour for house building in the wrong places. We can all agree that we need more houses for future generations; the argument is about where we build them, and I am surprised to hear Labour Members say that they speak to farming communities and rural communities who are “yes in my back yard”—who want building. People do not want the wrong type of houses built for people who do not live in their area and have no desire to live there. Most services are available in cities. That is where the majority of building should be taking place, and this Government should look again at the whole way in which house building and planning works in this country. Until they understand the damage they are doing to rural Britain, they will continue to haemorrhage votes.

    Hansard source
18. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Economic Impact of Government Policies

    6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Government policies on the economy in Northern Ireland.

    Hansard source
19. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Economic Impact of Government Policies

    Mr Speaker, “a continuing cost-of-living crisis and a recent budget that failed to support workers, families and businesses in a meaningful way”. It is not often that I agree with the First Minister but, with absolutely no action to address lagging productivity, she is right, isn’t she?

    Hansard source
20. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Rural Communities

    The Minister talks about rural transport. Does she not recognise that enhanced partnerships run by Conservative county councils in Norfolk and Essex have increased bus usage by more than anywhere else in the country because they are working with the private sector, not against it?

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

    Rural Fuel Duty Relief

    I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) on securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members for the contributions that we have heard. It was a Conservative Government that introduced the rural fuel duty relief scheme in 2011, and that was in recognition of the fact that remote communities face higher pump prices due to the high cost of transporting and distributing fuel. The scheme was subsequently extended again in 2015 to include more areas across England and Scotland, providing a welcome 5p per litre reduction in prices to help families and businesses in those areas, particularly where they might have only one filling station to choose from. The scheme recognised that rural communities, especially isolated ones, face challenges that justify targeted support. As we have heard from hon. Members, it has proved effective and needed. In the main Chamber, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), the shadow Environment Secretary, has been setting out the support that the Conservatives have consistently provided for people in rural Britain; many of my colleagues are speaking in that debate. In government, we demonstrated our commitment to those who live and work in the countryside, including my North West Norfolk constituents. Our fuel duty record underlined that. As well as the rural fuel duty relief, we froze fuel duty every year from 2011. In March 2022, we went further and introduced a 5p cut to fuel duty across the board. That was not merely about tax policy; it was about recognising that, for rural communities, a car or a van is a lifeline, not a luxury. It connects farmers to markets, helps children get to school, helps people get to work or health appointments and keeps rural enterprises in business. Every penny added to the cost of fuel has a multiplied effect in areas where public transport is limited and journeys are longer. Our support for rural communities extended far beyond fuel duty to infrastructure and supporting agricultural businesses, recognising their vital contribution to our country and to the social fabric—what a contrast to what we have seen under this Government. The Government say that the cost of living is their priority, but they are adding to the costs for families and businesses. Inflation was at 2% when the Government came in, and they have nearly doubled it. The much-vaunted promise of £300 off energy bills is nowhere to be seen. In her Budget, the Chancellor announced that Labour would end the 5p fuel duty cut that we introduced. That measure will take effect from September this year, and will see the average family pay £100 a year more. The Road Haulage Association estimates that it will add more than £2,000 a year to the operating costs of a heavy goods vehicle. From April next year, the Government will scrap the 16-year fuel duty freeze that we introduced, and inflation-linked rises will follow. That marks the end of the support offered to motorists through the freeze since 2010, which has saved them £120 billion. That puts in context the modest £5 million or so cost of the rural fuel duty relief. In November, the Chancellor also announced her pay-per-mile tax on electric vehicles, which is set to cost drivers an extra £255 a year. It is little wonder that the RAC has said that simply keeping vehicles on the road has become a significant financial challenge. The Prime Minister has been boasting about the £3 bus cap—a cap that he increased by 50%. Whether it is fuel duty or public transport, the Government are making things harder and more expensive for rural communities. Rural communities are not only being punished at the pump. In the debate, we have heard reference to the family farm tax, which breaks up the farms that form the backbone of our rural communities. The modest change that the Minister has announced is welcome as far as it goes, but given the damage that the tax will do, the Conservatives are committed to reversing it entirely. As well as the increases to fuel duty, business rates will increase, hitting rural pubs and businesses. UKHospitality estimates that an average pub will pay an extra £12,900 over the next three years. The Minister was sent out to defend the farm tax, and he said there would not be changes, but then there were. At Treasury questions, I called on the Chancellor to look again at business rates increases, and the Minister ruled that out then, but we read today that there may be changes. Apparently the Business Secretary has even noticed the damage that the increases will do—presumably not after discussing them in a pub, given that many Labour MPs have been barred. Will the Minister therefore confirm whether the Government are considering making those changes, as the sector and many across the House have called for? The rural fuel duty relief scheme reflects an approach to governing that recognises the distinct challenges and vital importance of our rural communities. We introduced the scheme and extended it, and throughout our time in government we demonstrated that we understand and support those who live and work in the countryside. Given that it is now more than a decade since the scheme was last expanded, and given its modest cost, I fully support a review of the relief. The Treasury often says that it keeps taxes under review, but this measure deserves a proactive review, and I hope that the Minister will commit to one. By contrast, this Government’s tax rise after tax rise make life harder for rural businesses and rural people. Against a backdrop of weak growth and rising unemployment, Labour’s approach sadly threatens the fabric of our rural communities. Those rural communities deserve much better.

    Hansard source
22. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·James Wild

    Jury Trials

    The Government’s amendment, which the Minister has signed, refers to the Government’s impact assessment. Have the Government done an impact assessment but are refusing to publish it, or did they announce plans to end jury trials for certain cases without that evidence?

    Hansard source
23. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·James Cartlidge

    Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

    I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement, and for the briefing he provided to me and other parliamentarians on today’s operation. As the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, there should always be a statement to Parliament when UK troops are committed abroad, and we hope that the Secretary of State can provide a little more clarity than the Prime Minister was willing to provide earlier. In recent days, we have seen extraordinary international developments, particularly in relation to Venezuela, but it remains the case that the single most important military action of recent years affecting our nation’s security is Putin’s illegal and wholly unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. The ensuing war has led to terrible loss of life, and we all want peace, but it must be a lasting one on acceptable terms to Ukraine, and with credible security guarantees, so that any post-ceasefire settlement can endure. Having led the way in supporting Ukraine at the outset of the invasion, we will, as the Leader of the Opposition said earlier today, absolutely support any efforts to help bring peace to Ukraine. Specifically, it is entirely right to plan for a ceasefire. Just as we brought together an international coalition to provide weapons to Ukraine, we welcome the way the Government have worked with international partners to plan how a potential ceasefire will be supported militarily. As to the detail of the plans, can the Secretary of State provide further information on the number of personnel involved? Earlier today, the Prime Minister did not give any specific details on troop numbers, yet The Times is reporting that the figure will be fewer than 7,500. What more can he tell us on that? Can he say more about the composition of the force that is to be deployed? Specifically, we note that British soldiers will be involved in logistics and training, but what proportion, if any, will be actively involved in the policing and patrolling of any border or demilitarised zone? What air and naval assets does he plan to provide as part of the multinational force for Ukraine? On rules of engagement, we note from the joint declaration of intent that our service personnel will be granted “the use of force to fulfil the mission” of the MFU, and will “co-operate in accordance with international law” and “respect for human rights…as reflected in other international agreements whose participants are the Signatories.” Can the Secretary of State confirm that this means that our soldiers operating in Ukraine will be subject to the European convention on human rights during any deployment? Can he also state the exact mission of the MFU? The declaration of intent refers to “other contributing nations”, but does not name any countries from outside Ukraine other than Britain and France, so can he list those nations and tell the House what their primary contribution will be? On the crucial matter of security guarantees, there appears to be no mention of any such guarantees in the declaration of intent. Can the Secretary of State tell us what explicit security guarantees the United States has agreed to, and will they involve US boots on the ground? Of course, this force would only be deployed in the event of a ceasefire being agreed with Russia, so what is his contingency plan in the event that the ceasefire is broken after the MFU has been deployed? Does this not point to the most important consideration: that this whole plan is based on the assumption that there is a genuine ceasefire? Having personally passionately backed Ukraine’s fight for freedom throughout, I would dearly love to believe that this peace is possible soon, but I fear that the occupant of the Kremlin is not interested in peace. Does the Secretary of State agree that in parallel with any preparation for the MFU, there must be no let-up whatsoever in the application of maximum economic pressure on Russia, along with all possible continued support for Ukraine? Turning to other developments, we support today’s operation by the United States to seize the MV Bella 1 tanker in order to enforce sanctions on Iran. We also welcome the UK’s enabling role, undertaken by Royal Navy and RAF assets, and I agree wholeheartedly with the Secretary of State on the objectives he set out, not least the objective of reinforcing our homeland security. I am pleased to hear that the operation has been successful, and on behalf of the Opposition, I pay tribute to all personnel involved, and I join the Secretary of State in recognising the skill and bravery of the US forces who participated. On the wider matter of Iran, I take this opportunity to express our solidarity with all those who in recent days have had the courage to defy that nation’s despotic and repressive regime. While I appreciate that the Secretary of State will not speculate on operational planning by us or our allies, can he reassure the House that his Department is conducting contingency planning in case of any further escalation of internal unrest in Iran? On Greenland, we totally support Denmark’s sovereignty over that territory. While the United States remains our closest ally, it is surely not in the interest of the US or any of our allies for NATO’s shared commitments to be undermined to any degree. Given that the Prime Minister did not answer the Leader of the Opposition earlier, can the Secretary of State assure the House that he will be seeking an urgent meeting of all NATO members to provide mutual reassurance on the matter of Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland? Finally, is not the common thread in all this that the world is becoming a more dangerous place, and we must therefore rapidly ramp up our defence spending and rearmament? When will the Secretary of State finally publish the defence investment plan?

    Hansard source
24. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Rural Communities

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am really grateful to have been called to speak in today’s debate. In any other week, I would focus on more substantive day-to-day, week-to-week rural matters such as the family farm tax. I am grateful that there has been a partial U-turn on the tax, but it should not have taken this long. It should not have taken the pain, frustration and hurt that it caused our farming and rural communities. The Government must go further—we must get a full U-turn. We have to protect our rural communities. There is a reason why over 6,200 farming, agricultural and forestry businesses have closed since this Government came to power. It is not just farms that are impacted by the family farm tax; it is our rural communities as a whole, including the suppliers and contractors. They are all important, they are all part of our rural matrix, and they are all being let down by the family farm tax. Given the snow this week in north-east Scotland and Aberdeenshire, I will focus on what is happening there, and on support for our rural communities. Aberdeenshire is the fourth-lowest-funded council in Scotland, and the lowest-funded rural council. Because of that, Aberdeenshire council has had to make awful decisions in recent years on the provision of services. Many of those focused on our roads, gritting and winter preparedness, and we are seeing the results of that. Aberdeenshire is under not a dusting of snow, but a few feet of snow. Our farmers are literally walking through waist-deep snow to dig their sheep and livestock out of snowdrifts. They are then getting in their tractors to clear the roads for communities. They are bringing people who are stuck and who need medical attention in their cabs to the main roads to try to get them to hospital. Our rural communities pull together in times of need and when it is time to take action, and they have done that for years. They will keep doing that, and they deserve our support, but support is not enough. We must ensure that rural communities are properly funded and supported, and able to act and prepare for situations like this. I end with a thank you to everyone in Aberdeenshire who has lent a hand in the last week—farmers; council workers; organisations; volunteers such as the Community Off-road Transport Action Group, or COTAG, which has been amazing in getting people out of tough situations; and neighbours and passers-by who have pushed cars or dug roads. I thank the children who have been digging out their neighbours’ driveways. It has been a massive effort in Aberdeenshire, and it will continue. We are getting freezing temperatures, and once the masses of snow start to melt, ice and flooding will be the next issue. We must be prepared. We need assistance and funding to make sure that when this happens again, which it will, Aberdeenshire and other rural counties are properly prepared.

    Hansard source
25. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Jury Trials

    Who would have thought that a Government led by a human rights lawyer would be leading the charge to remove one of our most basic human rights, trial by jury? The Government are removing the right to a jury trial for any offences that carry a likely sentence of less than three years, supposedly to reduce the backlog of cases waiting to go to trial—but let us look at the evidence. There is a backlog of 78,000 cases. There are around 1.3 million prosecutions in England and Wales every year, and 10% of those cases go before a Crown court. Of those, three out of 10 go to trial. These reforms mean that more than two out of 10 will still go before a jury. Given those figures, there will be no realistic change to the waiting times from removing that fundamental right. Who was doing the maths for this—the “Mastermind” Lord Chancellor? No wonder the Prime Minister appointed him. My constituents in Tatton, from school pupils to the leader of the northern circuit and barristers from the Middle Temple, urged me to speak today to say that this is an absolute disgrace, and they put forward some of their suggestions. A barrister at St John’s Buildings said, “Actually, I don’t believe at all that cutting trial by jury will get down these lists and sort out the problem. In fact, I’m deeply concerned that such proposals will further erode the trust of the public in our justice system. It will remove their participation in criminal justice. There is no evidence that it will have any impact on the delays. A better solution for the backlog would be to stop the cap on the number of sitting days and let courts sit around the clock, and also to sort out the failure of the prisoner transport system, which does not get defendants to court, or that gets them there late and wastes time.” Another barrister—a King’s Counsel criminal barrister at Lincoln House Chambers in Manchester—said, “I’m very concerned that curtailing jury trials is based on no credible evidence at all. In particular, there has been no pilot scheme. It appears that the suggested savings of 20% have been pulled out of thin air. Very importantly, it will erode a deeply entrenched constitutional principle that a jury may acquit as a matter of conscience in these cases. It will remove a bulwark against misuse of the criminal court by the Government and those in authority, and the ability of a jury to take a view favourable to a defendant for reasons other than evidence of guilt.” What about the Lord Chancellor? Until a few weeks ago, he believed in juries and trial by jury, too. This is one thing that Government Back Benchers should really be concerned about: constituents have said to me that for such an important change to our unwritten constitution, there should have been mention of it in the Labour party manifesto. One person said, “That would have factored into my voting decision, and it could well have been—if not would have been—a very different decision.” The debate has been revealing. There are no data, no impact assessments and no pilot. The Minister herself, who even suggests—

    Hansard source
26. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Jury Trials

    The right to trial by jury is not some procedural convenience capable of being abridged when the administrative weather turns foul; it is one of the great constitutional expressions of liberty under the law. It is overwhelmingly legitimate, because it places the citizen, and not the state, at the heart of criminal judgment. When the state proposes to narrow the circumstances in which it must persuade 12 of a defendant’s peers, it is not merely managing a backlog; it is fundamentally recalibrating the balance between the individual and the Crown. There is no doubt that the criminal justice system is under acute strain. Victims and defendants wait too long. Justice is stretched thin. However, the issue before us is not whether reform is necessary, but whether this reform is justified, proportionate and supported by evidence.

    Hansard source
27. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Jury Trials

    My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I will touch on some of those points in a moment. There has quite rightly been much reliance on Sir Brian Leveson’s report; he is a jurist of great distinction, and his work deserves careful reading, rather than convenient citation. Notwithstanding his analysis, this is a fundamental change to our legal system, and what is conspicuously absent from the Government’s argument is compelling evidence that jury trials are the principal driver of delay. If we are serious about confronting the backlog, we must look unflinchingly at the real causes: the prosaic but decisive failures of capacity, of which the jury trial is merely the most visible casualty. The first issue is judicial sitting days. Courts cannot hear cases without judges. For too long, we have rationed judicial time as though it were a luxury, rather than the lifeblood of the system. Courtrooms stand idle not because juries cannot be summoned, but because there are no judges available to sit. The second issue is the court estate. In too many parts of the country, criminal courts are dilapidated, unreliable and, frankly, unfit for purpose. Trials are delayed because of leaking roofs, broken technology and inadequate facilities.

    Hansard source
28. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Jury Trials

    The hon. Lady is right to a degree: there has been failure by successive Governments to invest in the criminal justice system. If we were serious about this issue in this place, we would look at cutting welfare, which spends the entirety of the Ministry of Justice’s annual budget in just two weeks. We need to prioritise spending, and the criminal justice system has been left high and dry for far too long by Governments of all colours. It is now routine for trials to be adjourned because defendants either arrive late or do not arrive at all, with juries discharged, witnesses turned away and days of court time lost as a consequence. These delays have nothing whatsoever to do with the presence of a jury, and everything to do with operational failure in the system. The next point I wish to make, and possibly the most grave, is about the erosion of the criminal Bar. We face a serious shortage of suitably qualified advocates both to prosecute and to defend. Cases are delayed because no one of appropriate experience is available or willing to take them on. That is not inefficiency, but attrition. Curtailing jury trial risks mistaking the symptom for the disease. Worse, it risks creating a system that is perhaps faster, but thinner, and ostensibly more efficient, but unquestionably less legitimate. I think of the words of Lord Hailsham, a former Lord Chancellor and one of the greatest legal minds of the previous century, who warned this very House of the dangers of an “elective dictatorship”, and the slow accretion of power to the state at the expense of the citizen. The jury trial is one of the great counterweights to that tendency, ensuring that the coercive power of criminal law is exercised only with the consent of the community. Juries do much more than merely find facts; they embody public confidence, guard against institutional complacency and remind us that justice is not something merely administered to the people, but done with them. If the Government believe that it is right to curtail that right, they must show clear evidence that jury trials cause the delay, that alternative modes of trial would be demonstrably faster, and that fairness, legitimacy and public confidence would not be diminished.

    Hansard source
29. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Jury Trials

    The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: there is no mandate for this decision. It represents such a significant constitutional change to our legal system, and it is being made without reference to the will of the people. Justice delayed is indeed justice denied, but justice expedited at the cost of constitutional principle may prove a far greater denial still.

    Hansard source
30. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

    Draft United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (Exclusions from Market Access Principles: Glue Traps) Regulations 2025

    It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Stuart. I thank the Government for bringing forward this important statutory instrument, and I compliment the Minister on her advocacy for animal welfare—she is obviously highly informed from her former role in the animal welfare charity sector. We should be very proud in this country that the UK is a world leader in animal welfare. The previous Conservative Government took extensive and proactive action to improve animal welfare. For example, we banned the export of live animals—including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses—for fattening or slaughter with the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024; we increased the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years with the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021; and we enshrined animal sentience into UK law with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, thereby establishing the Animal Sentience Committee, such that any new legislation must pay due regard to animal welfare. I was delighted to co-sponsor the Conservative-initiated and drafted Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025, and to support the passage of the again Conservative-initiated and drafted Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025, which was brilliantly steered and led through Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, and Baroness Coffey in the other place. On the instrument that we are looking at today, the last Government gave their full support to the groundbreaking private Member’s Bill introduced by my friend and former colleague Jane Stevenson, the former Member for Wolverhampton North East, which became the Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022—I too was very pleased to support that Act. That vital piece of legislation bans the use of glue traps in all but exceptional circumstances, when they can be used only by licensed professional pest controllers. This is similarly controlled in Wales with the Agriculture (Wales) Act 2023; it takes glue traps out of the hands of amateurs and ensures that they are used only by professionals when absolutely necessary—when there is a risk to public health or safety, and there is no satisfactory alternative. Many Members may remember the powerful debate during the passage of the 2022 Act in which we heard—as we have heard again today from the Minister—the extreme suffering that can be inflicted by these glue traps. They are indiscriminate and can ensnare wildlife, including birds, and also, horrifically, domestic pets. As a veterinary surgeon, this is something I feel passionately about. This instrument seeks to enable the measures included in Scotland’s Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 to come into force, specifically the provisions to ban the supply of glue traps through selling, exchanging for a consideration other than money, giving as a prize or otherwise making a gift of them, or otherwise making glue traps available. Can the Minister clarify whether the UK Government are planning to make provisions for England to follow suit on this? If this is the direction the Government are heading in, what assessment has she made of the effectiveness of alternative methods of rodent control in upholding the highest public health and food safety standards? Furthermore, will the Minister engage and consult the pest control industry so that it is not kept in the dark about this process? As the Minister will know, the provisions in the Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022 came into force at the end of July 2024. Since then, the British Pest Control Association and the National Pest Technicians Association have written to the Government to highlight issues they have been experiencing with the licensing regime and enforcement of the legislation. On the issue of enforcement, the Government have said that comprehensive briefings for wildlife crime police officers are available on the National Wildlife Crime Unit’s DISC hub. Does the Minister appreciate that the issue is not that the content does not exist, but that there is no requirement for officers to read or familiarise themselves with it? Finally, glue traps remain available and legal for use in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister raise that with the Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs so that animal welfare standards can be promoted across the entire United Kingdom by such measures as the banning of damaging and horrific glue traps?

    Hansard source
31. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Jury Trials

    The letter on criminal court reform written by the Justice Secretary to the Justice Committee states on rape and prioritisation: “We are not introducing a specific target for rape cases, but our overall objective is to drive down these wait times as quickly as possible. Listing is a judicial function and the judiciary already prioritises cases involving vulnerable victims and witnesses, which includes victims of sexual offences, including rape.” The Minister’s example about a bottle of whisky is therefore not appropriate; it is fundamentally wrong, according to the letter written by the Justice Secretary himself.

    Hansard source
32. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Jury Trials

    From prepping for this debate, I know that the policy is one that tries to solve an administrative problem by simply changing a principle. The three areas I will try to cover—we will see how I get on—are the principle, the policy process and the practical side. To deal with the principle first, we have heard a number of times that justice delayed is justice denied. Delay does harm trust and it can prolong suffering, but justice done wrongly corrupts the system itself. The Justice Secretary knows that, as in his own Lammy report he said that juries act as “a filter for prejudice” during trials. Moving on to the policy process, on the one hand the Government are saying that the policy is much needed to help with the admin side, but on the other hand they are saying that these are very small changes. We only have to look at the letter written by the Secretary of State to the Justice Committee to pull some of that apart. It states: “Of the c.3% of criminal trial cases that proceed to a jury trial in the Crown Court, over half would still proceed to the Crown Court and get a jury trial post-reform.” However, later it says: “An alternative way of expressing impacts is to account for cases that will be retained in the magistrates’ courts after the reforms. Based on projected case volumes and case mix, of those cases that still proceed to the Crown Court post-reforms, around three-quarters of them are still expected to be allocated a jury trial.” So we already have a discrepancy, in the same paragraph of the letter, in what the numbers are. The question, “Has any modelling been done?”, has been asked multiple times. We again know from the letter addressed to the Committee that modelling has been done, because it says: “The assumptions underpinning the modelling of the reforms I announced last week are subject to the Concordat process that agrees sitting days with the judiciary and it would be improper to pre-empt the conclusion of this process.” In short, modelling has been done, so if Ministers want to strengthen their argument, why would they not produce that modelling? When we have asked the Minister who is at the Dispatch Box—she was asked again by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), for the seventh time—whether an impact assessment has been done and not released, or is being done and will be brought forward, we have not got an answer. One would have thought that if you had done the work—

    Hansard source
33. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Jury Trials

    I refer the hon. Lady directly to the opening speech. If she sits and reads Hansard, it was very much different regarding that point. I will move on to the other practical points we need to talk about—some even in the letter—about process. For example, the letter states: “judges will assess the likely sentence in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines. They will consider the facts of the case to make a determination of likely culpability, harm”— and so on. It then goes on to say: “eligibility is based on likely sentence length, any triable either-way offence could be in scope of the CCBD, if it were likely to receive a sentence of 3 years or less”. What happens if the judge decides that they would not go to a jury trial? Later on, the same letter states: “judges will retain the full sentencing powers available in the Crown Court, meaning there is no restriction on the sentence that can be handed down in the case.” That points out the fact that a judge could make a decision at pre-hearing that the case need not go to trial because the sentence will be less than three years, and after that find out that the sentence will actually be five, six or seven years. There is a real discrepancy. The letter also states: “As you know, we do not have minimum sentences in law.” That is demonstrably not true—think about drug trafficking, firearms or repeat knife offences. We only have to look at section 28 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, which talks about how using a knife for a second time will result in a minimum of six months. That was codified and updated in section 315 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The letter is filled with holes. I thank Joanna Hardy-Susskind, who has pointed out a lot of these issues. She has done a lot of working explaining that the MOJ does not even understand the letters it is putting out in defence of this policy. If the Ministry was to release the modelling and the impact assessment, it could demonstrate to us all why we should make the change. I am running short of time to talk about the practicality, so I will close where I started.

    Hansard source
34. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Jury Trials

    Absolutely. That is fundamental. There must be trust in the system and in the decision taken, and I worry that that is being eroded by this proposal. I am going to change my speech. I started on the presumption that the Government are trying to solve an admin problem with a principled change, but I think, after listening to the Government Front Bench, that I am wrong. The Minister was asked, “Sarah, would you still go with this regardless of the backlog?” and the answer was yes. There we have it. It is clearer than ever before. Efficiency is the excuse and ideology is the aim. Regardless of the vote today, the answer is here for all to see that the Government do not believe in maintaining jury trial. For that reason, Members must stay and vote with the Opposition.

    Hansard source
35. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Jury Trials

    When the Courts Minister closed her statement, the principle was not about the backlog: she said that she would have gone ahead with scrapping juries to this extent regardless of the backlog. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s position? Is it a principled position or is it about dealing with the administrative burden?

    Hansard source
36. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Rural Communities

    If the Minister’s argument is about enforcement, and given that is it already illegal to hunt with dogs, is she not arguing for more resources for our rural communities to enforce what is legal or illegal? Let us take the example of Leicestershire. We instituted our rural crime team in 2019 and have seen that type of crime drop by 23%. My worry is that if the Government have their way, that funding will disappear and therefore rural crime and enforcement will get worse. Will she square that circle for me? Also, is she speaking to the Home Office to make sure that rural communities get the policing they need and the funding for that?

    Hansard source
37. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Jury Trials

    Were backlogs higher or lower in 2010 than they were in 2019, before the pandemic?

    Hansard source
38. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Jury Trials

    I am pleased to wind up this Opposition day debate on the Prime Minister and Justice Secretary’s ill-considered, poorly evidenced and rash plan to curtail one of our cornerstone rights—the right to a trial by jury—which the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) colourfully described as one in which the bottom fell out of the Government’s argument. I disagree with the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary on very many issues, but today, for once, I find myself in fulsome, wholehearted agreement with not just the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary, but the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards). I agree with all three of them that jury trials are a crucial, vital part of our justice system that should be protected wherever possible. Even with this Prime Minister, who has an unrivalled reputation for having opinions that last as long as they remain popular with whoever’s vote he is seeking at a particular point in time, we are in the extraordinary position where the Government are now putting forward a proposal that the Justice Secretary, the Justice Minister and the Prime Minister himself all previously argued vigorously against. In fact, I am going to indulge in a degree of parliamentary plagiarism—I am going to let them do the hard work of writing at least some of my speech for today. First, I will hand over to the Justice Minister, who previously said on the issue of limiting jury trials: “Instead of weakening a key constitutional right, the government should do the hard work…We all have the right to be judged by our peers when the prospect of imprisonment from society is before us. To take that right away would be a wholly draconian act.” Next, let me ask the Justice Secretary to take over. He said: “Jury trials are fundamental to our democracy. We must protect them.” He also said: “Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.” I could not have said it better myself. Finally, although I appreciate that he is a busy man, I will lean on the Prime Minister’s carefully considered words. He said: “The general and overriding presumption should be jury trial, with very, very limited exceptions”, and, “The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.” That question of balance is at the heart of the matter. The Minister, as well as Labour Back Benchers—thin on the ground though they have been—have rightly pointed out that we have criminal trials without juries. That is a fact, but it is no argument for these measures. If that is the Government’s argument, we could simply do away with jury trials entirely without anyone being concerned. It is and has always been a balance, but as the Justice Minister, the Justice Secretary and the Prime Minister understand—or understood at one point at least—altering that balance should be considered only when there is no other option. To draw a comparison that illustrates the seriousness of the matter, during the pandemic—at the heart of the crisis that was widely accepted to be the biggest challenge to face our nation since world war two—jury trials continued. In fact, it was during world war two that we last saw proposals anything like as radical as those we are considering today, but even they did not come close to this proposed curtailment. During that time, we reduced the number of jurors from 12 to seven in most cases. When our nation was under attack and every element of life was turned over to the war effort, we modified but fundamentally retained the right to jury trials. I am pleased to say that the meeting of minds between me and the triumvirate who are making this decision is only the beginning; I find myself in common cause with 37 Labour MPs today. It is fair to say that the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), as well as the hon. Members for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) are very far from me on the political spectrum, but, like other colleagues, they are clear that these proposals are wrong, and I wholeheartedly agree. When there are 37 names on a signed public letter, any decent Whip would know that there are at least the same number lurking in the background, not willing to go public but rushing to answer the phone call from the Whips at the weekend to say that they are not happy with the proposals. What do those 37 Members say? They say that the proposal is “madness”, that it “will cause more problems than it solves”, and that “the public will not stand for the erosion of a fundamental right, particularly given that there are numerous other things the Government could do to more effectively reduce the backlog.” That final point takes us right back to the issue of balance. The Government have quite simply failed to articulate why these proposals are the only way forward. They might have received a more sympathetic reception had they strained every sinew to tackle the issue and truly exhausted all other options since their election. As our motion acknowledges, the courts are under unprecedented pressure—no one disputes that. The delays are too long, victims are waiting too long for justice, and defendants are left in limbo. Prior to the pandemic, the Crown court backlogs were lower than those that we inherited from the previous Labour Government—I do not remember Labour MPs being concerned about that at the time—but then covid hit and placed unprecedented strain on the criminal justice system, leaving a long and difficult legacy. The result was an enormous reduction in court capacity that led to backlogs shooting up in a way they never had before. I remind the ouse again that even during that challenging time, there was cross-party support for the guiding principle that jury trials should continue. After the pandemic, England and Wales resumed jury trials faster than many comparable countries, following one of the shortest suspensions anywhere, because they were treated as a priority. The previous Government opened, and extended the use of, 20 Nightingale courtrooms, increased the number of judges and raised the judicial retirement age to retain experience in the system. In a short number of years, we increased the number of sitting days by more than 20,000—an unprecedented level. Despite that, the loss of capacity could not simply be undone.

    Hansard source
39. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Jury Trials

    As the shadow Justice Secretary outlined, there has not been enough investment in the justice system over many decades. I also want to make it clear that the claim about a record number of sitting days is a bit of a statistical anomaly, because, as the Government know, there was a change in how sitting days are measured. Using the historical measure to make the comparison, we matched that number of sitting days—and perhaps even surpassed it. Of course, we uncapped sitting days for a number of years during the pandemic. This Government have failed to do that, and they have failed to rapidly increase the number of sitting days, which the Institute for Government said makes things more difficult. As I said, there is no dispute about whether there are long-standing issues, as Members across the House acknowledge. The question is what to do about them. Let us be clear about how many of the unacceptably long waits are the result of a wait for a jury trial. The Justice Secretary has rightly been criticised for quoting statistics about victim drop-out rates in a deeply misleading way. We do not want to see any victims drop out for any reason, or any long waits, but fewer than 10% of drop-outs occur post-charge, and that figure is coming down. It is not helpful to understanding this issue for Members to cite waits of six or seven years that in fact relate to the delay from alleged offence to sentencing. Yes, waits for trial from point of charge are too long, but that is just part of the picture. Jury trials are not a quirk or a happenstance for how we deliver criminal justice in this country; they are a foundational principle of our justice system reaching back to Magna Carta. For more than 800 years, ordinary men and women have been trusted to sit in judgment, to weigh evidence, and to decide guilt or innocence. That public participation is not a flaw in the system; it is one of its greatest sources of legitimacy. Removing juries, even for a narrow category of cases, let alone the radical changes before us, alters the relationship between the citizen and the state, and replaces collective judgment with individual arbitrary authority.

    Hansard source
40. 7 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Jury Trials

    I wonder whether the hon. Member was listening to my speech. I have said throughout that the issue is one of balance. As the Prime Minister, the Justice Secretary and the Minister have said, we must tread carefully; for the hon. Member to draw comparisons between minor changes and wholescale huge reductions in the use of jury trials shows that she fails to understand that the issue is one of balance. The obvious flaw in the argument being made by the Government in support of these measures—that they are to tackle what we should all consider a temporary problem—is that the measures are permanent. There is no plan to reverse them when the backlog is down, as the temporary measures in world war two that I mentioned were reversed.

    Hansard source