Peatland: Energy Infrastructure
We do not have an abundance of peatland in east Kent, but we do have acres of wonderful marshland and sites of special scientific interest. On that land—[Interruption.]
5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Peatland: Energy Infrastructure
I am most grateful, Mr Speaker. Let me go back to the beginning: we do not have acres of peatland in east Kent, but we do have acres of wonderful marshland and sites of scientific interest. On that marshland, National Grid is proposing to build a 90-foot-high converter station the size of five football pitches, floated on concrete 2 metres deep. The Secretary of State is due to determine the planning application in short order. When she takes that decision, will she give an assurance that she will take into account the irreparable environmental damage that that ill-conceived project will do to the environment?
- Hansard source
Prisoner Early Release Scheme
If I understood it correctly, the Minister said earlier that past victims—and, therefore, presumably potential future victims—are being informed and supported. If they need that sort of information and support, does that not imply that the people who are being released pose a threat to them? What sort of category of person is being released? Is it a dangerous person? If it is not, why do the victims need the support that the Minister describes?
- Hansard source
Iran: Threats to British Interests
Does the Minister agree with me that it sends a strange signal when people suspected of mounting a terrorist attack backed by Iran are let out on bail? Does he also share my concern at recent media reports of several—fortunately foiled—terrorist attacks that were being planned by people who came into this country illegally, on boats crossing the channel?
- Hansard source
Falkland Islands
May I strongly welcome all three Front-Bench statements on this vital matter? I would like to say, as someone who was politically active in 1982, that I well remember the failure of deterrence, which was partly fuelled by mass agitation for nuclear disarmament—an unrelated subject—at that time. Although the Minister says that there is no connection or parallel with the Chagos dispute, let me assure her that the signals that have been sent by the Government over Chagos are undermining of deterrence. Will she therefore make it crystal clear to Argentina now that any military action against the Falkland Islands will be met with an overwhelming military response?
- Hansard source
UK Coach Industry
I apologise for missing the beginning of the hon. Lady’s speech. She is making a bold case and a welcome one, and I congratulate her on bringing this matter to the House. She mentioned the issue of recruitment; she will know that two of the barriers to recruitment relate to the restrictions on young people driving. First, Gary and Michele Salter from Long Sutton in my constituency, who run GDS Travel, tell me that young drivers cannot start their off-road and theory training until they have a provisional licence. That seems to be a nonsense. Secondly, young drivers are restricted as to where and how far they can drive. Changing those two things would attract more young people into the industry and deal with some of the issues the hon. Lady has raised.
- Hansard source
UK Coach Industry
The sort of people who travel on coaches are typically not the most advantaged—pensioners, for example, or children getting to school. Some people can afford coach travel but cannot afford other forms of travel. For the constituents I have mentioned already, as well as Fowler’s in Holbeach Drove, Cropley in Fosdyke and other local coach operators, will the Minister agree to the rebate on fuel that they have suggested? The industry has suggested a small short-term rebate to help it get over the hump of escalating fuel prices and therefore provide the service to the vulnerable people and many others whom I have mentioned.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)
The right hon. Gentleman is right that the Secretary of State has tried to weave, with a certain degree of assiduity and dexterity, a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. We have ended up with something satin, and it may not be a purse at all, but what is certain is that we need more time to consider it. It would be preposterous to have such a short time to consider the Government amendments that have been tabled. I suggest that they were tabled in good faith, but good will needs to prevail. We need much more time to consider this matter than the very short time allocated next week.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
The hon. Gentleman is talking about complex and lengthy trials. Has he considered the effect on the Court of Appeal of making those types of trial judge-only? If I have correctly understood the Government’s proposals, they wish to require a judge to give reasons for conviction. Juries need give no reasons for conviction. Does he think that that will change the rate and frequency of appeals to the Court of Appeal in such cases?
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I recognise the hon. Member’s enthusiasm for making the criminal courts work more efficiently, but I put to her a practical problem with the solution she proposes of courts starting at 9 o’clock in the morning—especially if we were not able to resolve the problem she identified of prisoners not always being brought to court on time. She will recognise that those of us who represent criminal clients in the criminal courts do not start our day at the time the court starts; we start a lot earlier. The opportunity to speak to our client, discuss the case properly with them and perhaps find a way of resolving the case without the need for a trial is extremely valuable. Does she recognise that problem?
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Is the hon. and learned Lady as concerned as I am about the backlog in the magistrates court, which is four times larger than that in the Crown court and growing at 16% a year, whereas the Crown court backlog is stabilised? If this really is a reform in the interests of efficiency, should she not be sparing the magistrates court at a time when their backlog is growing so fast?
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It has been a peculiar pleasure to listen to the two speeches made so far by Labour Back Benchers. Both the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and that of the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), have been treats to listen to, and I feel I can do no better than to say, “Listen to both of them.” However, it would be wrong of me to say that I oppose the Bill in its entirety. The truth is that some of its provisions contain very useful and reasonable directions of travel. Personally, I do not have the profoundest objection to grounds needing to be given for an appeal to the Crown court. I think that would be a reasonable thing to require, provided that the Chairman of the Select Committee’s warnings are heeded and those who have to fill out that appeal are given the opportunity of advice. As has been said, I think by Opposition Members, the problem is that there is a lack of legal advisers in the magistrates court—what we used to call magistrates court clerks. That brings me to another way in which I should commend the Minister and the Government. The initiative to enhance the resources of the magistrates court can only be a good thing, although I must warn the Minister that the recruitment of more magistrates is something that we looked at years ago, when I sat in the position that she now sits in. It is social and economic factors that are effecting the diminution in the number of those willing and able to put themselves forward for this onerous type of public service, so that diminution is not going to be remediable just by brave words and advertisements. It is going to have to be a sustained campaign, and it will not happen even in the term that she will serve as Minister—long may that continue. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That was not a wish—it was an observation—but nevertheless, it was heartfelt. With those cautious commendations given, though, I have to return to the very focus and centre of this Bill. It is a bit like asking us to be grateful to the crocodile who leaves us with our head after it has taken our legs. The reality is that the right of election of trial by jury is at the very heart of the right itself. Since the 17th century, Governments of all colours that have come and gone have continued to respect that as a right, not as a concession or a privilege afforded by the state to a defendant. It is perfectly true that in Scotland it is the court that decides whether or not the defendant should enjoy the right of trial by jury, but in England, it has always been a right—a right given, broadly speaking, to anybody accused of an offence serious enough to warrant more than 12 months’ imprisonment. For the first time in English legal and political history, a Government have decided to breach that right, and to make the decision reside with the representatives of the state. That places the decision out of the hands of a powerless defendant—some of the most powerless in our society. Some of them may very well be guilty. Many of them may very well be guilty, but the system we have adopted over the centuries does not legislate so much for the guilty, but for the innocent caught up in the system. So many examples in history have shown how the innocent can be caught up in this system, and it is for the innocent that the criminal justice system is ultimately designed. It is designed for their vindication, requiring against them the level, burden and standard of proof that the criminal justice system enforces, with the presumption of innocence.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Because time is short, I will give way to the hon. Lady, but only she.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
That invites a long answer, which I do not have time now to give, but any defendant who appears before a court enjoys the presumption of innocence, and it is upon that basis that any system has to proceed. In England, the right has been accorded to those who enjoy this presumption of innocence to decide where they should be tried. Any abrogation of that right, such as for an offence that carries a sentence of more than 12 months’ imprisonment, removes the power from the individual and hands it to the state. In England—peculiarly in England—it has always been regarded as the right of a defendant. Make no mistake, this is an historic Bill for that reason. To remove and abrogate the right of a litigant to trial by a jury of their peers has exactly the effect that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East has said. A person of good character, a professional person or an employee in the workplace accused of theft from his employer—all of these would have had the right to say, “No, I wish to have the careful and meticulous process that the Crown court provides, not the swift and summary justice that the magistrates court provides.” That person may suffer for the remaining years of their life the most profound impact upon their history. A Member of this House accused could be tried before the magistrates court, despite the impact and consequences that that might produce. In the magistrates court, the only criteria will be whether it might receive more than two years’ imprisonment. Many such offences would not. That is broadly the criteria that is applied by the magistrates. If this egregious act is to be taken by this House, I strongly support that the Chairman of the Select Committee’s recommendation be taken on board by the Minister, because unless the magistrates have the express ability to consider whether someone is of good character, whether they have a profession, whether it would mean that they would be disqualified forever from whatever profession they are in, or expelled from their employment—with massive implications for the rest of their life—how can it be fair or proper to impose upon that person a system of summary justice that cannot, at its heart, achieve the levels of fairness of a Crown court trial? That is not only because legal aid is available in the Crown court, but because of the forensic scrutiny that the allegation is placed under. The automatic right of appeal has always been provided in the magistrates court, even where the sentence would be less than 12 months, because it has always been acknowledged that the kind of justice distributed in the magistrates court is necessarily swift and necessarily summary. There are not provisions for the disclosure of unused material in the magistrates court. What is to be done about those, if offences are now going to be tried that might carry a two-year imprisonment? None of these things have yet been thought through within this Bill. There has simply been a transference from the Crown court to the magistrates court, in breach of a provision and a right that has been respected in this country for 300 years. I therefore say that Members should listen to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East and to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Derby North. They spoke the milk of human wisdom, and I suspect the fact that it came from them is not wholly unrelated to the fact that each of them have years of experience in professional practice in the courts. Heed them. I urge the Minister—even if she is to take the step that I profoundly oppose and regard as an historic mistake: the abrogation and dilution of the right to trial by jury, making it, in fact, no longer a right but a concession made by the state to the individual—to listen, please, to the comments, the recommendations and the warnings given by those on her own side. For someone of good character to come before a court for the first time, facing a two-year sentence of imprisonment, and for the magistrate to be unable to consider such a factor would, in many cases, constitute the profoundest injustice. The risk is that over the coming years there will be all the appalling, wearisome, grievous experiences of realising that injustice has actually been done, although the whole system that we have devised over the centuries was designed to avoid that at all costs.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)
What substantive difference does he think the Attorney General’s consent will make to a decision of this kind?
- Hansard source
Household Energy Bills Support
Many people, not just in my constituency but throughout the country, rely on off-grid energy. I recognise that the Government have taken steps to try and help them, but so many of them have been exposed to massive shocks and leaps in the cost of filling their tanks with oil or gas. Will the Government consider doing a little more to help the many people who are incredibly vulnerable to these energy shocks?
- Hansard source
Iran: Threats to British Interests
There is a real fear that Iran has achieved the aim of its attack on RAF Fairford. We have seen the US respond by removing very important military capability away from Europe and away from the United Kingdom. Does the Minister agree—he is very thoughtful on this point and sympathetic to it—that there is a need for increased military spending? Will he use his office to put pressure on Downing Street and the Treasury to come forward with a settlement for our armed forces that ensures we have the capabilities to properly defend RAF Fairford and the many other bases up and down the country?
- Hansard source
Pensions Triple Lock
I think many of us agree with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State about the need to tackle social care. The plans that have come forward are interesting, but there is a real concern about the £18 billion bill. The Secretary of State has identified £4 billion to go towards it—where is the other £14 billion coming from?
- Hansard source
Household Energy Bills Support
Britain already has the highest electricity prices in Europe, which makes all our families worse off. The Prime Minister’s decision to end VAT on household electricity bills—for only six months—is a tiny step in the right direction, but the Government need to do much more. Will the Secretary of State reduce household energy bills by £200 a year by adopting the Conservatives’ cheap power plan? Will she extend that VAT cut, axe the carbon tax and scrap renewables obligation contracts, so that all British households are better off?
- Hansard source
Prisoner Early Release Scheme
The Minister will know that all of the 3,000 new prison places that have come online since the election were initiated by the last Conservative Government. Will he tell the House why this Government have not planned or approved any new prison spaces since they came to office?
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I start by expressing my relief that the Government are removing clause 3 from the Bill. I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on performing that U-turn so swiftly upon taking office. In earlier debates, the Courts Minister said that curtailing the right to a jury trial was a good thing in any event and that she would go ahead with the change even if there were not a court backlog. What caused her to change her mind? Perhaps it was the change of Prime Minister. The Minister is a skilled orator. I am quite sure that she will manage to persuade the Lord Chancellor that she meant something completely different and always supported his position, and her rise through the ranks of Government will continue. We on the Conservative Benches wish her well. The Crown court backlog is a serious challenge, and both victims and defendants deserve timely justice. Throughout the debate, Ministers have struggled to demonstrate that curtailing jury trials would meaningfully solve the problem. I still have concerns about clauses 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which serve to add restrictions to jury trials and transfer more power to magistrates courts. That is why I support new clause 25, tabled by the shadow Justice Secretary, which seeks to put a sunset clause in the Bill. That would see the remaining restrictions on jury trials proposed by the Government end when the backlog is reduced to its pre-covid level. I urge the Government to be cautious about the expansion of the powers of magistrates. The evidence is not clear that that will result in a reduction of the backlog. Where is the assurance that increased jurisdiction will not simply create new delays in different courts? Thousands of additional magistrates will be required in the coming years, yet previous recruitment efforts have failed. What will be different this time? The Justice Committee described the targets as “unrealistic”. Perhaps the Minister should consult her new Solicitor General and ask what his views are on the subject. The Government still intend to remove the right to a jury trial for those charged with an either-way offence. I oppose that and support amendment 1, tabled by the shadow Justice Secretary. This matter poses a particularly grave threat to those who would face professional ruin if they were convicted of an offence of dishonesty. Solicitors, barristers and Members of Parliament, for example, would all have their careers destroyed were they convicted of theft, which is an either-way offence. That is why I support the sentiments in amendment 47 tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and amendment 69 tabled by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson). I appreciate that we will not vote on those amendments tonight, but I hope that Members of the House of Lords will look at the issue again when they consider the Bill.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I want to draw the House’s attention to new clause 22, which I have tabled with the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), my parliamentary neighbour, whose absence from the Government Front Bench is a matter of regret to all of us on the Conservative Benches. I thank both the Lord Chancellor and the shadow Lord Chancellor for engaging with us on these issues. The new clause would restrict immunity from civil suits for police officers in relation to certain conduct in preparation for criminal court proceedings. I want to draw the House’s attention to a deeply troubling development in our law. Last year the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment that, in my view, risks placing police forces beyond proper accountability for serious wrongdoing committed during the preparation of criminal cases. If left unaddressed, this new legal principle could make it far harder for victims of police misconduct to obtain justice, even where the harm that they have suffered is severe and life-changing. The doctrine has been described as a form of police misconduct immunity. We all know that the rule of law depends on a simple principle: no one is above the law—not politicians, not public officials and not the police. New clause 22, which I have tabled with the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley, would restore accountability and make it clear that there cannot be one rule for the police and another for everyone else. The issue arises directly from the 2025 Court of Appeal case of the chief constable of Sussex police and the CPS v. XGY. I know that the hon. Lady will refer to the case of XGY if she catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. The victim of the abuse had given her confidential refuge address to the Sussex police, and that address was later disclosed in court, exposing her location to the abuser and forcing her to flee. The Court of Appeal answered the question by extending what is known as core immunity. Historically, this immunity was narrow but existed to protect witnesses and advocates for what they say and do in court, allowing them to give evidence freely without fear of being sued, but the Court’s judgment went much further. It expanded that protection beyond the courtroom and into the wider process of criminal investigation and prosecution preparation. In practical terms, it means that certain police actions connected to a future prosecution may now be shielded from legal challenge, even where those actions caused significant harm. The Court’s ruling therefore raises serious concerns about whether victims will be able to seek redress when police misconduct, negligence, human rights breaches or serious errors occur. That is why the case of XGY matters far beyond the individual victim involved. I want to illustrate the practical consequences of the new doctrine, and the human cost, through another case with which I have been closely involved for some years: the case of Ali Kololo. Mr Kololo is a Kenyan forest dweller and woodcutter who was wrongfully convicted in 2013 in connection with the murder of a British tourist and the kidnapping of that tourist’s spouse, Judith Tebbutt. These were grave crimes. At the time, I was the Secretary of State for International Development and was engaged in the Government’s response to the kidnapping through COBRA, but we now know that Ali Kololo was innocent. A Kenyan court has since overturned his conviction, with the evidence showing that he had become a scapegoat in a deeply flawed investigation. What makes this case particularly troubling is that the Metropolitan police played a significant role in supporting the investigation. The Independent Office for Police Conduct found that a senior Metropolitan police officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct. The investigation concluded that the evidence provided by the officer had the potential to mislead the court, because important forensic information had been omitted. The consequences for Mr Kololo were catastrophic. He spent 11 years in prison, he faced a death sentence, and he endured abuse, illness and separation from his family. He lost years of his life that can never be returned, and although his conviction was eventually quashed and he was released, he has yet to receive redress for the harm he suffered. Let me be clear: the original principle of witness immunity serves an important purpose—witnesses should be able to give evidence without fear of personal litigation, and our justice system depends on that protection—but extending immunity far beyond the courtroom and into the wider conduct of criminal investigations risks creating an accountability gap.
- Hansard source
Prisoner Early Release Scheme
I have Guys Marsh prison in my constituency. It provides valued jobs, and I pay tribute to the prison officers who work there. The Minister will know that all of these policies flow from the pressure on spaces in our prison estate. Not that long ago, the Government had Crown prerogative powers to bring forward new prisons or to extend prisons without going through a lengthy planning process. That would solve the problem at a stroke. Why will the Minister not investigate that in order to speed up an expansion in prison spaces?
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Clause 17 would repeal the presumption of parental involvement contained in section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989. That presumption currently provides that unless the contrary is shown, the involvement of each parent in the life of the child will further the child’s welfare. Amendment 67, tabled in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) and for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), would keep the presumption that parental involvement is beneficial for the welfare of the child. It is my belief that our legal system should reflect the fact that in most cases, a child benefits from having both parents involved in their life. Clause 17 would do the opposite. It sends a serious social signal that the active involvement of both parents is no longer our expected starting point when considering a child’s welfare.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and for her powerful speech earlier. Ultimately, the impact assessment for this Bill says that there would be no impact, but I believe that the impact on families more broadly is not worth the change.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Exactly. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. My concern is that, in some cases, clause 17 will increase the state’s power to erase one parent from a child’s life, and we know that that is often their father. It will rebalance the relationship between parents and the state.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
No, I have already given way twice. I will not get any more time. I am very sorry. We must avoid a situation in which the law views children as the state’s ultimate responsibility while parents must justify their involvement on a case-by-case basis. We must also avoid anything that presumes that the state makes a better parent than the actual parents themselves. Of course, the state should intervene when a child is at risk, but our default position should be that, wherever it is safe and appropriate, children benefit from the love and guidance of both their parents. The state should step in only when there is clear evidence that it should do so, and we do not reject that point. If we remove this principle from the law, we take another step towards a system in which parental involvement becomes discretionary and the state’s role becomes paramount. That is not a healthy direction for family justice. I recognise, of course, that this is a sensitive issue for survivors of domestic abuse. To be clear, there is no absolute right to contact under existing law. Courts already have the power to restrict unsafe contact. The presumption of parental involvement is already qualified by risk of harm to the child, so why do we need this clause at all? Surely we in this House should be ensuring that current safeguards work properly instead. As I said in a recent debate on fathers and male role models, “There is a widespread perception that family courts make it difficult for fathers to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children.”—[Official Report, 10 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 450WH.] One possible solution is a child-centred parental relationship test. The test would direct courts to consider the quality and sustainability of the child’s relationship with each parent. It would help courts to distinguish between safe and harmful contact. As things stand, there is a real risk that clause 17 will weaken, not strengthen, children’s relationships with safe parents without addressing the current failures that leave children exposed to their unsafe ones. Fundamentally, parental involvement is a relationship recognised by the state, not a privilege granted by the state. Both parents matter, and we should not be afraid to say so.
- Hansard source
Falkland Islands
I declare an interest: I visited the Falklands a number of months ago as a trustee of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I welcome the Minister to her position, and I entirely endorse the sentiment of her statement, which maintains that the Falklands must remain British. I welcome the Chair of the Legislative Assembly to the Gallery today. We must match diplomacy with military deterrence. When I visited the islands, I was most concerned that permanent refuelling capability for our military assets there was based elsewhere. I do not expect the Minister to give a detailed answer—although I see that the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry is next to her—but can she ensure that permanent refuelling capability for the Typhoons is put back on the islands if it has not been already?
- Hansard source
Climate Change Resilience
The proposers of the Easton-Letheringham solar farm application in my constituency have finally been forced to get an environmental impact assessment. Considering the vast size of the proposed development, which would cover over 200 acres of fertile farmland, it was a complete waste of time to think it would ever get through planning without one. Will the Minister consider requiring an environmental impact assessment for all solar developments on rural land?
- Hansard source
Prisoner Early Release Scheme
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the early release scheme.
- Hansard source
Prisoner Early Release Scheme
Two weeks ago, 700 prisoners were released from prison across the country, and today a further 650 will be released, most after serving just one third of their sentence. The Justice Secretary told the country that proper safeguards would be put in place, with a presumption that all released prisoners would be tagged. He called it the “toughest” tagging regime in history, but that was nonsense. Four days after the first release, the Justice Secretary admitted that he had no idea how many released prisoners had been tagged, and protested that it was unreasonable to expect him to know how many had been tagged so soon into the scheme. I have some advice for him and his Ministers: it is better to work out how to implement your policy before it starts, not after. We know that a majority of prisoners are not being tagged before release, and we know that reoffending is already off the charts. The Met says that there have been 100 tag breaches in London each day since Labour’s first early release scheme began, while two or three prisoners released early are being re-arrested every week. I do not want to hear the same old lines from the Minister about prison building, though I note he has changed his tune since the Prime Minister took office in July. Since the election, not a single new prison development has been planned or approved—those were the Minister’s words in a written answer. The only new prison opened was begun under the last Government, and prison places are unused because officer numbers are down under Labour. Can the Minister tell us very clearly the answers to the following three questions? How many prisoners released so far have and have not been tagged? How many tag breaches by released prisoners have there been? If he does not know the answers to those questions, when will the Justice Secretary and his team find out and tell the House of Commons?
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Time and again, for more than a year now, Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box and told the House that their attack on jury trials was essential to making the courts work efficiently. Time and again we told them that they were wrong, and so did more than 100 of their colleagues on the Government Benches. We said that the right to a trial by jury is an ancient English right—a vital part of our national inheritance and a necessary safeguard against the might of the state. Ministers ignored us and said that we did not understand. They briefed against their colleagues and, in the case of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), they smeared him disgracefully. Now they admit that they were wrong and we were right. All those Ministers and Labour MPs who stuck to the Government line in the face of all the evidence should reflect on the limits of blind party allegiance and following the instructions of their Whips. It makes them look very foolish today. I remind the Courts Minister in particular of our exchange in the House in June. When I told her that the incoming leader of the Labour party, now the Prime Minister, was going to scrap her prized policy, she told the House that I misunderstood his position. She said that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) did not in fact oppose their assault on jury trials. Yet here they are, with their policy largely abandoned, and her authority as Courts Minister lies in pieces. Like Monty Python’s Black Knight, the Courts Minister declared in June, “I move for no man.” As her policy lost one limb, she insisted it was but a scratch. As it lost another, she claimed it was just a flesh wound. Now that the Bill is left completely dismembered, she has gone from insisting, “I am invincible,” to finally saying, “All right, we’ll call it a draw.” But it is not a draw; it is a very serious defeat, and it is a victory for our constitutional settlement, our rights under the Crown and the sacred principle that no one shall be convicted and deprived of their liberty except by a jury of their peers. This was a battle that should never have been fought. In the last year, 17,601 sitting days were lost because Crown courtrooms sat empty. On average, about 16% of Crown courts are not sitting on any given day. We have repeatedly called on the Government to get the courts sitting throughout the year. That is how they should cut backlogs, not by attacking juries. I said that the attack on juries had been largely abandoned, but the Government have not completely given up. There remain serious problems with the Bill, which will remove the right of defendants to elect a jury in either-way cases and increase the sentencing power of magistrates courts so that more cases are heard there. However, the magistrates backlog has reached 380,000 open cases—a 9% increase on the previous year. The Government have not told us what additional resources will be given to magistrates to manage the increase in workload, nor what new safeguards will ensure justice. Indeed, there has been no assessment of the likely effect of the change on appeal rates. We know that of appeals against verdicts given by magistrates, up to 56% are allowed. The Bill will also remove juries from what it calls complex and lengthy trials, which are normally said to be cases involving fraud. The independent reviewer of fraud, Jonathan Fisher KC, concluded that there was no justification for the change. But clause 4 does not only concern fraud trials; the Government seek to extend the scope of judge-only trials to other complex cases in later years by secondary legislation. That would give them the power to resume their attack on jury trials without proper scrutiny or debate. The proposal is a disgrace and we reject it emphatically. The Bill as amended will also establish a review of the court system with a specific remit to consider inequality of outcome based on racial identity. Once again, the Labour party is trying to engineer judicial outcomes based on identity rather than treating us all as free individuals accountable before the law. The Opposition will resist that and stand for the principle that it is only our actions that matter, not who and what we are. Opposition Members are committed to the ancient right to trial by jury, but while the principle of jury trials is sacrosanct, there is increasing evidence from recent cases that juries may, in some examples, have been compromised by the political or religious bias of some jury members. We have seen the acquittal of violent thugs, including the man who smashed a female police officer’s spine apparently because he was a member of Palestine Action. We have seen vandals from Just Stop Oil found not guilty despite clear evidence of their guilt. Many in the legal profession are concerned that this is an increasing trend in courts across the country. If those who break our laws walk free because jurors feel kinship towards them or because the cause for which the defendant committed a crime is just, justice is no longer blind. That flies in the face of the rule of law. It must be stopped.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Had the hon. Lady listened, she would have heard that I said individual barristers—I did not say organisations. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] The Justice Secretary and others ought to listen to those professionals who experience the justice system every day. The Government’s handling of the Bill has been a shambles from start to finish. It still contains dangerous provisions that limit the right to elect and to appeal, and that allow Ministers to attack jury trials by secondary legislation and put more cases through the magistrates court. We will vote to reject the Bill to preserve equality before the law and the right to a fair trial. Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
- Hansard source
Pensions Triple Lock
Well, the Secretary of State definitely had his porridge this morning! I remind Members that we reference colleagues not by their names but by their constituencies—although I appreciate that the Secretary of State was quoting.
- Hansard source
Pensions Triple Lock
Order. For future reference, Mr Darling, you were over time by 30 seconds.
- Hansard source
Pensions Triple Lock
Order. Just before the Secretary of State responds, I know that Mr Speaker reminded colleagues this morning that when they are speaking, they must do so through the Chair—they must not turn their back on the Chair.
- Hansard source
Falkland Islands
I remind the Minister that under paragraph 9.5 of the ministerial code, Opposition Front Benchers and the Speaker’s Office should be sent the text of a draft statement a minimum of 45 minutes beforehand. This statement was not received on time. I do not wish to suspend the House on a busy day, but it is regrettable that this important standard was not met in this instance.
- Hansard source
Falkland Islands
Order. I remind the Minister and all colleagues that they should not say “you” and “your”. They must speak through the Chair. I was not responsible for the question.
- Hansard source
Point of Order
I have no doubt that this matter will be raised many times by colleagues. There is a document called the “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons”, which deals with this matter. When a Member visits another Member’s constituency, except on a purely private visit, they should take reasonable steps in advance to tell the Member in whose constituency the visit is taking place. The guidance states that “failing to do so is regarded by colleagues as very discourteous.” I have no doubt that the point will be passed on by Front Benchers to the Member in question.
- Hansard source
Hares
Order. Before we get on to the next bit of business, I have been updated that the Foreign Office statement was indeed received on time. I did tell the Minister off earlier, but maybe that information can be passed on to her.