Pride in Place
I remind Members to keep questions short so that we can get try to get everybody in. I would not want Members to miss out on the opportunity to speak about their constituency because other Members had taken so long.
5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
Mr Glover, is it your pleasure that new clause 1 be withdrawn?
- Hansard source
Jhoots Pharmacy
The way Jhoots is treating its workforce, the community and suppliers is frankly appalling. It is failing communities who desperately rely on it. The Government are planning to introduce a health Bill at some point in the coming months that will see the abolition of NHS England. Can the Minister update the House on when the Bill will come forward and what provision it will contain to strengthen accountability for the delivery of community pharmacy?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023: Replacement
13. What steps he is taking to replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023: Replacement
One of the concerns around dragging veterans through lawfare and our courts is the effect on Army recruitment, so what is the Secretary of State’s reaction to Colonel Nick Kitson, the son of General Sir Frank Kitson, saying: “How can anyone volunteer to put their life on the line for a Government—indeed a nation—that does not have their back?”
- Hansard source
Knife Crime
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this crucial debate. He always says it as it is and speaks common sense. He is speaking for millions of people in this country who are sick of the knife-crime epidemic that we see across our nation. This is a timely debate, following the appalling events in Manchester only a few weeks ago. As the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) just said, the appalling murder of our friend Sir David Amess took place four years ago today. We continue to grieve for that great parliamentarian and his family. We all felt the loss when he was taken from us. Every one of us in this place will have heard of the fear and frustration of our constituents regarding the rising tide of violence in our cities. As the Member of Parliament for Romford, an Essex town on the periphery of Greater London, I see that fear at first hand. Ordinary, law-abiding people—mothers walking their children to school, young people heading home from work, shop workers locking up at night—are frightened to walk the streets of their own city. A fortnight ago, the police cordoned off Romford High Street due to a knife-crime-related incident. Last year, a man was stabbed and killed only metres from my constituency office. That is not how London used to be. When I was growing up, it was not like that at all. It is not, and should not be, characteristic of the world’s greatest city. My constituents are dutiful people. They respect the police and they respect authority; they expect their Government to defend them. Many residents have sought refuge in Romford from the crime that is spiralling out of control in inner-London areas. However, we fear that Havering will one day go the same way. It fills me with shame and anger when I hear that other nations now warn their citizens to exercise a high degree of caution when visiting our capital. Australia has raised its travel advice for the United Kingdom from level 1 to level 2. That places us in the same bracket as countries such as Albania, Senegal and Tunisia. The embassy of the United Arab Emirates has gone further still, warning of a recent increase in violence and knife crime in London. When foreign Governments are advising caution on British streets, something has gone very wrong indeed. Yet the Mayor of London chooses to accuse others of spreading misinformation, rather than confronting the truth on knife crime, along with the rest of his totally appalling record. I agree with President Trump’s assessment that Mayor Khan is doing “a terrible job” for our capital. According to the recent Policy Exchange report, which has already been mentioned, there are almost 17,000 knife crime offences in the capital, which is an 86% increase since 2015. London now accounts for nearly a third of all crime in England and Wales, and almost half of all knifepoint robberies. Robbery is now the largest single category of knife crime, with more than 10,000 offences in 2024, the majority involving mobile phone theft. During Boris Johnson’s term as Mayor of London between 2011 and 2016, knife crime in London fell by almost a third. Since Sadiq Khan entered City Hall—sorry, I should say Sir Sadiq Khan—the number of offences has climbed relentlessly, but Mayor Khan takes no responsibility for the shocking situation. The reality is that Londoners have been failed by a mayor who spends most of his time virtue signalling, rather than restoring order to our capital. The result is that criminals have been emboldened, while the law-abiding majority have been abandoned. Stop and search, used properly, is working and needs to be extended, and I am glad that my party is suggesting that. I am sure that others in this House agree. We need zero tolerance in policing the worst hotspots. That means returning to the principle of having large numbers of uniformed police officers patrolling our streets. It means tough sentences for those who carry knives and immediate prison terms for repeat offenders. The first of nine policing principles outlined by the former Prime Minister and founder of the Metropolitan police, Sir Robert Peel, is that the basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder. That may have worked in the 19th century; it certainly worked in the 20th century; and I am convinced that it will work in the 21st century. We must ensure, however, that the police are doing the job of policing and not acting as social workers. We want more police and fewer PC PCs—politically correct police constables. I commend the hon. Member for Ashfield for bringing this debate before the House. I hope that the Minister is listening to everything that is being said, because the people of my constituency and throughout London are fearful that the Government and the Mayor of London are simply not doing the job that they were elected to do.
- Hansard source
UK Internal Market
6. What steps he is taking to maintain Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market.
- Hansard source
UK Internal Market
It is a disgrace that the “Safeguarding the Union” provisions severely restrict trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, binding the Province to 300 areas of EU law over which the people have no say. Will the Secretary of State take steps to remove what is left of this damaging international trade border within our own nation and restore the birthright of the people of Northern Ireland as equal citizens of this United Kingdom?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023: Replacement
This morning, unusually, I congratulate the Government on having admitted a terrible mistake. Earlier this year, we on this side of the House voted against Labour’s draft remedial order, which would have allowed Gerry Adams to sue the taxpayer, so we welcome the fact that Labour amended that order yesterday. But the question remains: why did it ever bring forward such a ridiculous policy in the first place?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023: Replacement
I invite the Secretary of State to look at his own legislation, because clauses 89 and 90 are markedly similar to the sections that we left him. We on this side of the House may have won the battle over this, but we still have not won the war to protect our veterans from vexatious complaints. Is it not the truth that if it had not been for months of campaigning by the Conservatives, the shadow Defence team, the media and reports from Policy Exchange, which may now have saved the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds, Labour would have stuck to its plan and allowed Mr Adams and his comrades to sue anyway?
- Hansard source
Mental Health Bill [Lords]
I want first to recognise and thank everyone for the constructive debates we have heard here and in the other place throughout the Bill’s passage. In particular, I thank the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), for everything he has done on the Bill, especially in Committee. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for his expertise, whose involvement with the Bill began before he was elected to this place. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for their thoughtful contributions. This is clearly an important and emotive issue, and the respect and sensitivity that have been shown by all sides is a testament to this House. Since the election, we have said that we would not oppose for the sake of opposition. While we have rightly asked tough questions of the Government, we have done so with the best interests of patients at heart, because everybody here wants to help and support vulnerable people better—those patients with the most severe and complex mental health needs. This Bill, which started under the previous Government—I pay tribute to former Prime Minister Baroness May for that—and continued under this Government, will achieve that. We welcome efforts to improve the patient’s voice and involvement in their own care, to ensure that patients receive effective and appropriate treatments, to minimise restrictions on liberty so far as is consistent with patient and public safety, and to treat patients with dignity and respect. Although we are disappointed that opportunities to strengthen the Bill further have been missed, especially in public safety and the protection of vulnerable children, we listened closely to what the Minister said and to his assurances on action, for which we thank him. We will of course continue to push on these matters, not on party political grounds, but because doing so is the right thing for patients. We are very disappointed that the proportion of health spending on mental health has been reduced. We welcome the Government’s continuation of our work looking again at how we treat and protect people with the most severe mental health illnesses, so that we can improve the safety, treatment and dignity of patients and the wider public, and ensure that our laws remain relevant and proportionate in the modern world. The Government must now turn their words into action and deliver on the commitments that they have made. I thank everybody again for the constructive way in which they have dealt with the Bill. We are pleased to support its Third Reading. We hope that it will bring improvements for those we all care about: the patients.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles
I am against the repealing of the legacy Act, and I served in Northern Ireland. As I am now doing in opposition, I raised when we were in government the major concern and dishonour when none of those on the Labour Benches had the decency to come to this House and debate all the points the Minister is making now. They let the legislation go through, but it is recorded in Hansard that very few people bothered to come to the Chamber to debate it when we took it through the House. I want to make two quick points on the support for veterans. First, you have spoken about the process they will have to go through; I want to know what support will be available, as you have mentioned. Secondly, given that the terrorists did not keep records but the British Army did, how will you ensure fairer disclosure throughout the process?
- Hansard source
Middle East
After the horrors of Manchester, there is a sense of joy and relief in synagogues in my constituency at the final release of the hostages, many of whom were sponsored by synagogues, but there is also a sense of trepidation when they see Hamas terrorists patrolling the streets of Gaza and carrying out summary executions, so I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment that Hamas can have no role in Gaza. While he is on the issue of Islamic extremism, does he agree that now is the time to review the UK Government’s approach to the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been banned in many other countries, such as the United Arab Emirates?
- Hansard source
Middle East
It is fitting that this statement is followed by one on Northern Ireland. The UK has world-leading experience in sustaining peace, whether it is security, intelligence or military, and whether it is decommissioning, policing or political institutions. Could I urge the Prime Minister to do an audit of the generations of civil servants and, dare I say, special advisers who have experience in this area and put them on offer, to sustain this peace deal?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles
It is worth remembering that most victims are not in a group, are not in the media and are not taking action; they just want to know what happened to their loved ones. As we debate the forthcoming legislation, I hope we can all collectively remember that, because investigations are key to delivering for those families. I want to ask the Secretary of State two specific questions. First, there is some concern that there will be protection for combatants who may have been involved in rapes and other sexual activity. Could he look at that as the Bill proceeds to make sure that victims are able to talk and have protections, as those ex-combatants have? Secondly, what thought has he given to a change of Government in the south should Sinn Féin take power, and to the delivery of the Irish contribution and commitments in such a scenario?
- Hansard source
Speaker’s Statement
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to state that Sir Ming Campbell, as he then was, was the perfect example of how it is possible to disagree with another parliamentarian on a key issue and yet work side by side on other issues without any rancour or reservation. My dealings with Ming did not get off to the best start, as we were generally on opposite sides of a debate about the replacement of Trident submarines and the replacement of continuous at-sea deterrence by part-time patrols. Nevertheless, once we got to know each other better on the Intelligence and Security Committee, we found ourselves making common cause on such issues as the safeguarding of the vital BBC Monitoring service for the future, the need to enhance spending on defence with an improved defence budgeting priority and, above all, the folly that could have happened of Britain intervening militarily in the Syrian civil war. In short, Ming brought courtesy, style, courage and grace to public life to the benefit of society as a whole.
- Hansard source
Middle East
The Prime Minister has said again today that there can be no place for Hamas in governing the Gaza strip, but who can physically prevent Hamas from retaining their weapons and regaining control, as they did in 2006? When he talks about antisemitism in Britain, is there any other interpretation of the demand to internationalise the intifada than as a call to attack Jewish communities around the world?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles
I am surprised that no one has mentioned the letters of comfort that were given to the IRA and the question of whether or not they still hold water, but let me go back to what the Secretary of State said about the possibility of IRA bosses like Gerry Adams claiming compensation on technical grounds that the “wrong” Minister signed their internment papers. As I understand it from what the Secretary of State said earlier, the remedial order that he is laying before Parliament will open up the possibility of such people suing the Government for compensation, which the new legacy legislation that he is bringing in will nevertheless then rule out. He referred to a possible gap between the new legislation coming into force and the remedial order opening the gap. It has been suggested to me that the Government are briefing the press that the remedial order will not actually be voted on until the new legacy Bill has gone through Parliament. Is that his policy, and if not, what is his policy?
- Hansard source
Criminal Courts: Independent Review
I beg to move, That this House has considered the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Despite the title of this debate—which I will immediately concede is less than exciting—it focuses on a serious problem with significant consequences. The criminal courts of England and Wales are under very significant strain. That is translating to very long delays from early hearings in criminal cases to the hearing of trials. I was at my local Crown court a couple of weeks ago and the delay there was at least 18 months. It is as bad or worse elsewhere. That delay is not just an administrative problem; it has real, human consequences. It means a longer wait before a victim of crime or a witness in criminal proceedings can see the case resolved and move on with their lives. Of course, the longer it takes to get to trial, the harder it is to remember detail and to give the best evidence possible. For a defendant—and it is worth recalling that not every defendant is found guilty—the case continues to hang over their head along with, in some cases, the threat of potentially losing their liberty. A defendant in custody awaiting trial adds to the pressure on the prison population for longer than they should if the eventual outcome of their trial is acquittal or a non-custodial sentence. We can see that in the statistics: remand prisoners made up 11% of the prison population in 2018 but that figure was up to 20% in 2024. There are other consequences of long periods on remand. Remand prisoners are not convicted so no work is done on their rehabilitation in prison. Time spent on remand counts towards an eventual prison sentence but spending longer on remand means a greater proportion of the eventual sentence—in some cases, the majority of the sentence that is ultimately handed down—is served without any rehabilitative work being done to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Substantial periods on remand also mean that there are more cases where a custodial sentence is imposed at the end of it but the whole sentence has already been served on remand, so the offender is released immediately after the trial. That can be hard to understand and accept for victims and the public, who have to watch that offender walk free from court despite their conviction. Long delays in the criminal courts should worry us all. They certainly worry the Government, who have commissioned Sir Brian Leveson, a very senior and experienced judge, to review the operation of the criminal courts and recommend improvements. Part 1 of his review was published on 18 June and deals with the policy changes that he believes may improve the situation. I have no doubt that Ministers will have been considering those recommendations carefully and will take up some or all of them, but we in Parliament should consider them carefully too. That is why I sought this debate. I have worked with Sir Brian in a variety of roles and have huge respect for his insight and judgment. The report that he published is 378 pages long; I cannot do justice to all of it in this debate—you will be grateful to hear, Mr Efford—but I do want to say something about his analysis of the problem and some of his solutions. First, I will discuss the problem and the reasons for it. Those interested only in political attack lines will always be able to find them, but this issue deserves deeper analysis. Of course more resources will be important, and Sir Brian makes that clear, but previous reductions in funding can be at least partly explained by periods of reduced demand. The number of cases received by the Crown courts fell, for example, during the nine years I was in government from 150,000 in 2010 to 102,000 in 2019. The open caseload, which is the number of cases begun in the Crown court but not yet completed, fell from 55,000 in 2014 to 33,000 in 2018, but it has increased significantly since, standing at a historical high of 75,000 in 2024. As Sir Brian set out in his review, there are many reasons for that. It is true that the system has not yet entirely recovered from the covid pandemic, but the other reasons are more structural. Central among them is that the type of cases being heard matters as much as the overall number of cases. The criminal courts are now hearing a greater proportion of cases involving sexual offences or fraud, which are more complex and take longer to resolve, so the length of the average Crown court trial has doubled between 2001 and 2024. The complexity of trials has also been increased by the greater volume of digital evidence, including from mobile phones. All of that leads Sir Brian to conclude that we cannot go on as we are, and I think he is right. We all know how difficult it will be for the Government to find significant extra resource for the criminal court system. Even if they could, it would not be enough to address the very different workload and ways of working that the system now deals with so, as Sir Brian urges us, we should look at structural change. As I said at the outset, his review makes many recommendations that I do not have time to discuss, but I hope that the Government and the Minister, who I am delighted to see in her place, will look carefully at his proposals to end release under investigation instead of bail, which I think is sensible, and the increased standardisation of out-of-court disposals. I want to focus on Sir Brian’s recommendations in three areas. The first is how we can encourage guilty pleas, where they are appropriate, to be entered earlier. If a guilty plea is how a criminal case should and will be resolved, the earlier it is given the more quickly victims and witnesses can be reassured that they will not need to relive their experiences by giving evidence, and the more quickly valuable and scarce court time can be allocated to other cases, so that is a change worth pursuing. Those of us who have practised in the criminal courts know that there is only so much we can do to persuade a guilty defendant to plead guilty—some will always hold out until the day of the trial in the hope that the witnesses against them fail to turn up; I am afraid that delays in hearing the trial make that more likely—but Sir Brian makes three recommendations in particular that might help. Those recommendations are that the discount on sentence for an early guilty plea should be increased from one third to 40%; judges should give defendants more information on what their sentence may be if a guilty plea is forthcoming; and the plea hearing should be delayed to allow defendants to receive fuller advice before entering a plea. I suspect that the first two will receive the most attention, but I believe the third may have the most effect. Making sure that defendants know how much shorter their sentence may be if they plead guilty rather than are found guilty, and increasing that difference with bigger discounts for early guilty pleas, may well change some minds, but must not and is not intended to constitute inappropriate pressure to plead guilty when not guilty. Defence advocates, of course, have a clear professional duty to advise their clients not to plead guilty if they do not accept their guilt, but discussions between defendants and their advocates about the evidence and the law are very often constrained because they happen only at court on the morning of the trial. It is often that that truly restricts the prospects of realistic pleas at an earlier stage, so allowing more time for that advice to be given is vital. Such advice has to be accompanied, though, by changes that will make it more likely for that extra time to be productively used. If, as I hope they will be, the Government are attracted to the idea of delaying plea hearings for that purpose, it will also be important to ensure that advocates are properly incentivised, including through fee structures, to conduct conferences with their clients in advance of the plea hearing. Where the client is in custody, allowing access to the client—preferably in person, but via video link if not—must also be made easier than it is now, or appropriate advice will not be delivered early so that appropriate pleas can be delivered early. It is also worth saying again—these points have been made many times by many people, as the Minister knows—that early advice on the prosecution case and the available defences cannot be given if the prosecution evidence has not been served on the defence in time to allow it to be properly considered. Late disclosure by the prosecution remains a fundamental problem, as does the timely production of defendants in custody at court. The second area of Sir Brian’s review I want to focus on is the proposed rebalancing of work between the Crown court and the magistrates court. It is important to recognise that, as Sir Brian points out, the bulk of criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates already—around 90%, in fact, with only 1% of criminal cases being resolved by jury trial. Nevertheless, because a magistrates court trial is both quicker and cheaper than a jury trial in the Crown court, it makes sense in resource terms to shift the balance further in the direction of magistrates where there would be no injustice in doing so. Sir Brian suggests that that can be done in a number of ways. Some are fairly straightforward: for example, we could increase the financial threshold for trials of criminal damage cases in the magistrates court from £5,000 to £10,000. Of perhaps more significance from a policy perspective is the suggestion of removing the automatic right to appeal a magistrates court conviction in the Crown court and replacing it with a permission to appeal process, and that of removing the right to choose a jury trial altogether for offences with a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment or less. In the circumstances, I have no substantive objection to any of those proposals, but in relation to the last of them, I invite Ministers to consider the discrepancy it would create between, on the one hand, trials of offences for which sentences of up to two years’ imprisonment could be imposed taking place in magistrates courts and, on the other, sentencing powers for magistrates remaining limited to 12 months’ imprisonment, which Sir Brian does not seek to change. I am sure that Ministers will also want to factor in the capacity of magistrates courts to do the extra work, as there is a backlog there too, and consider whether a neater way of rebalancing the caseload towards magistrates courts would be the reclassification of some offences as summary only. They will also want to factor in, of course, the need to ensure that lay magistrates have access to good-quality legal advice when hearing cases. On changing access to jury trial, the important point is an obvious one, but one that is worth making for context. As things stand, not every criminal charge entitles a defendant to a jury trial. We already restrict the right to jury trial, so this debate is about moving the threshold for eligibility for jury trial, not about abandoning a principle of jury trials for all. I should say that I have great faith in the jury system. I have sought to persuade juries for the prosecution and for the defence in Crown court trials, and I have heard many jury verdicts, and I have retained throughout my confidence that, in general terms, this is a good system for determining guilt or innocence. However, that does not mean that we should refuse to contemplate any change or to recognise the pressure on jury trials for some of the offences that occupy large amounts of court time.
- Hansard source
Criminal Courts: Independent Review
I understand the point the hon. Lady is making, and to be fair to Sir Brian, he is not suggesting that we remove jury trial in all cases; he is very much talking about a subset of cases in which he thinks it is worth restricting that right. However, she is right that we must balance the clear advantages of jury trials, in terms of the interests of justice, with some of the structural and organisational challenge the system undoubtedly faces. To go back to the first point I made, Sir Brian is clear that the current situation cannot persist for much longer without significant change. All the changes we might consider will have downsides as well as upsides, but we must be prepared to contemplate change of some sort. The hon. Lady is also right that people have come to see jury trials as considerably advantageous in the delivery of justice, particularly for some of our fellow citizens. However, it is also right to recognise that although we cannot blame jury trial for all the mess we are in, jury trials do take longer than other trials. I am afraid that we will exacerbate the pressure on the criminal court system if we do not at least look carefully at the prospects for restricting those sorts of trials, in addition to other changes.
- Hansard source
Criminal Courts: Independent Review
The hon. Lady is right, and juries are cheap—that is undoubtedly the case—but they do not sit without a judge, and I am afraid that we pay the judge for a jury trial, just as we would for a judge-only trial. I do not think that the financial saving, in that sense, can be left out of account, and there is not much difference, in terms of what the judge is paid, whether they are hearing the case on their own or with a jury. The only difference may be that we will make better use of that judge, because the trial will complete more quickly, and they will be able to get on to other business more quickly. However, I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes.
- Hansard source
Criminal Courts: Independent Review
Yes. My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Again, to be fair to Sir Brian, it is not within his capacity to do all the analysis necessary to follow through his recommendations and to understand quite what the effect on the system will be. However, I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. As I was about to say, we have to balance the advantages that Sir Brian sets out with the disadvantages that would undoubtedly arise from his proposals. It is hard to do that in an informed way if we do not know exactly what the resource benefits will be of implementing these proposals. Let me come on to the third area of recommendations that I want to discuss, regarding the removal of a right to jury trial, particularly in complex fraud cases, where trials can take months and where, apart from anything else, the impact on the lives and jobs of jurors can be immense. As I have suggested, this is not a new idea by any stretch of the imagination, but I am not yet certain that it would be right to conduct all such trials without a jury. Many who practise in this area, and some judges, continue to believe that juries can consider these cases thoroughly and fairly and reach appropriate verdicts, even when the evidence is complex; indeed, I have seen that for myself. The argument is made that these cases are really about dishonesty, and that it is the job of counsel and of the judge to make the issues and the evidence clear to a jury. All of those are reasonable arguments, and those of us who believe in the jury system instinctively baulk at the idea of restricting it. However, I go back to the central premise of this report: the system is under intolerable pressure, and something must be done about it. If it can be established—this goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox)—that complex fraud trials are indeed the cause of much of that pressure and, crucially, that judge-only trials would help substantially to relieve it, then given the relatively even balance of arguments for and against this change, which have been made for decades, it is perhaps a least worst option worth considering. Sir Brian’s proposal to allow most defendants to opt for a judge-only trial if they wish is of course much less controversial and well worth pursuing, as it does not inhibit the right to a jury trial if a defendant still wishes to have one. The only caveat is that we must avoid the complexity of allowing different defendants in the same case to have different types of trial. If all defendants in one trial cannot agree on a judge-only trial, I am afraid that all must be tried by a jury. Any other approach would lead to multiple trials, which could and should have been avoided because of their impact on witnesses, who would have to give evidence repeatedly, and because they would reduce or eliminate the benefit of judge-only trials in using up less court time. As I said, there is too much in this review of the criminal courts for me to be able to talk about everything, and there are some important recommendations that I have not been able to mention—perhaps others will. I want to finish where I started, with the reason this review was commissioned and the inescapable context of it: our criminal courts are under incredible pressure, and there must be a policy response to relieve it. Otherwise, we may see the expectation of fair and swift justice, which underpins our society, erode or even fail. That is not something that we—Government or Parliament—can allow to happen. If Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals are not to be adopted, others must be. On that crucial question, I look forward to hearing what colleagues and the Minister have to say.
- Hansard source
Criminal Courts: Independent Review
As the Minister says, she will have to consider each of Sir Brian’s proposals, although she will know that he says that they are to be taken as a “package” and not with a “pick-n-mix” approach. Is that something that the Government accept? Will they take the view that it is either all of Sir Brian’s recommendations or none of them, or not?
- Hansard source
Criminal Courts: Independent Review
I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate. In particular, I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee for rearranging his Committee’s diaries so that its members could do so. This has, I hope, been a constructive debate, not least for the Minister to add to her considerations. I hope she will forgive the damage I do to her career prospects by saying that I am glad she is in a position to do it, and I know that she will approach it with the requisite seriousness that the process demands. The Minister is right to say that there is a degree of consensus—we all agree there is a problem. As she knows, the curse of this place is that we tend to identify a problem and ask an expert to help us find a solution, but when they do so, we do not always have the courage to implement the solutions that are put to us. I hope that we find that courage, because it may be that some of these solutions are controversial and have significant downsides, but the burning platform that Sir Brian has described is undoubtedly there. Therefore, we must act and must find a way of doing so with as much consensus as possible, and I know that is the approach that the Government will seek to take over the coming weeks. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles
Obviously the devil lies in the detail in these things, and never more so than in Northern Ireland. Before the Bill comes eventually before us, we really cannot say for certain whether it is good, bad or indifferent, as is often the case. I will raise two points. First, I will mention the agreement—I find it a little wishy-washy—over Ireland’s role in all this, which, as has been said by my hon. Friends, has a huge amount of history attached to it, given that Ireland has previously refused to hand over people who really were guilty of the most vexatious, disgusting attacks on civilians and soldiers. It does seem to me rather peculiar. We will wait and see what that actually means. Ireland says it is committed—I would love to see what that commitment actually means. Secondly, I will mention vexatious prosecutions. The note we have here talks about protection from repeated investigations “unless there are compelling reasons to do so”. My concern with things like that is that they are little hooks that allow development through legislation, instead of being powerful tools to do what the Secretary of State says. I therefore urge him right now to be very clear when this legislation comes forward that this cannot be broken through and to tie down the definition of “compelling”.
- Hansard source
Speaker’s Statement
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As a Conservative, I want to join our Liberal friends in paying tribute to such a gallant and charming gentleman. His least successful period in this House was probably as leader of his party—perhaps he was just too nice; perhaps he could see both sides of the question—but what a great man and what a great foreign affairs spokesman. Following on from the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the whole episode of the Iraq war was so difficult for us in this House, particularly for those of us who broke with our party to oppose it. He gave us leadership and rigour, and he has been proved right. Of course, there are no prizes for being proved right, but history will prove him right.
- Hansard source
Middle East
Beneath all the peace rhetoric, the brutal Hamas regime were openly executing people yesterday, and refused to give up their weapons. Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that he is going to remove them by force if necessary, and he refuses to accept a state in the west bank. It may be naive, but cannot both sides of the House unite in saying that we are absolutely, completely committed to creating a Palestinian state in the west bank? That is their God-given right and it is the only way we are going to end the cycle of despair and violence.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles
Like the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State should stop using the phrase, “The legislation was struck down by the courts.” The courts have no such power. As Jack Straw made clear from the Dispatch Box, a declaration of incompatibility is no more than a declaration; it places no obligation or expectation on Parliament. But may I thank the Secretary of State for at least listening to my representations in delaying the repeal of sections 46 and 47 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 until the new legislation is in place? Of course, he is doing so because they are effective. Otherwise, there would be no point in delaying their repeal, would there?
- Hansard source
Criminal Courts: Independent Review
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Sir Brian’s proposals to change access to jury trials represent a distinct restriction of freedom for citizens facing trial, yet he does not offer convincing evidence that that will save an enormous amount of time or speed up the trial process, and that that lack of evidence causes concern to many practitioners?
- Hansard source
Criminal Courts: Independent Review
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate. Increasing delays in Crown court trials are a very real problem. They pose a problem for victims, witnesses and those defendants who are eventually acquitted. We have heard that remand prisoners now make up 20% of the prison population—a population that is at capacity and needs reducing. If we could speed up the rate at which Crown courts, and indeed magistrates courts, deal with cases, that would lead to a partial solution for our crowded prisons. I thank Sir Brian Leveson for his report; he makes interesting and important recommendations, but in the time available I will focus on one of Sir Brian’s proposals with which I disagree: curtailing access to jury trials. I support the proposal to allow defendants to elect for trial by judge alone. I do not see any diminution in the rights of a citizen in that proposal. I am concerned at Sir Brian’s other proposals, which would reduce the defendant’s right to trial by jury. I regard that right as a fundamental freedom of our country. As parliamentarians, we should be very slow to limit it.
- Hansard source
Criminal Courts: Independent Review
The hon. Lady makes a good point, but before curtailing that restriction further I would want to be persuaded that there are very real benefits. I am afraid that I see none, or at least I see no evidence of any. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam pointed out, each of the trials under the new court that Sir Brian proposes would require a sitting judge and a sitting day. There is little evidence that removing the jury from that process will make a great deal of difference to the time it takes. In my view, therefore, the focus of the Ministry of Justice should be increasing the productivity and efficiency of our Courts Service. The House of Commons Library produced a useful document, on page 17 of which we can see the Crown court caseload in England and Wales. The receipts and the disposals have risen only marginally since the pandemic, and yet the outstanding caseload continues to rise. I put it to the Minister that the reason for those delays is not the jury system—that is simply a misunderstanding. The problem is that the Courts Service is not working as efficiently as it should be. That might be partly due to failing buildings or computer systems, but I fear that in Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendation, we have a solution in search of a problem. There have always been certain judges and barristers who have never liked jury trials, and I am reluctant to accept this proposal by Sir Brian.
- Hansard source
Criminal Courts: Independent Review
Has the Minister’s Department done any analysis of how much time would be saved by adopting Sir Brian’s proposals on jury trials, and if so, what was the result?
- Hansard source
Middle East
Was not yesterday an historic and much-longed-for day for which this Government and the last one worked tirelessly since the dreadful events of 7 October? Does the Prime Minister agree that, just as real progress at Oslo was made on the back of the intifada, so now we must use the exceptional connections and deep historical knowledge that Britain has throughout the region to help secure a definitive resolution for the middle east to problems that have disfigured the world and poisoned the well of international progress and opinion for so many generations?
- Hansard source
COP30: Food System Transformation
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) on securing this important debate. For any of us with a farming constituency, there is no doubt what a difficult year this has been. Drought has led to lower yields, especially in arable farming—I have a mix of arable and animal farming in my constituency. When we talk about lower yields, we are not just talking about grain or the size of potatoes; we are talking about things like straw. The stalks have been much shorter this year, which will have a knock-on effect. And that is on the back of a very wet year last year, which created its own problems. There is no doubt that the farming industry is under enormous pressure. Sustainable farming is an important process that has been supported by many Governments across many countries in many different ways. I will discuss climate change and what we need to do on renewables, but we must also recognise that, although there are appropriate places to put solar farms, it is not appropriate to put them on good-quality farming land. I am constantly fighting solar farms on farming land in the Vale of York in my constituency that is very productive but is now being sold off for solar farms. There has to be a balance between what we are trying to achieve in moving to renewable energy and what we have to achieve in sustainable farming. The Liberal Democrats are quick to attack the Conservatives, but I remind them that it was Nick Clegg who stood at the Dispatch Box and cancelled a nuclear power station project, saying: “I am not willing to spend money on things that will not happen until 2022.”
- Hansard source
COP30: Food System Transformation
Thank you, Mrs Harris. It is interesting that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) mentions the leader of her party, who was of course an Energy Minister at that time, but the process took place under the party’s then leader. Saying that net zero is hard to achieve is very different from saying that we are chucking out all ideas about climate change. It is a false target, but it needs to be worked towards. I participated in every aspect of the Energy Bill, so I am not just saying all this off the back of my hand. One thing I mentioned throughout that process is that it is important to take people with us, because this has to be a joint effort if we are to achieve the objectives that we want to achieve.
- Hansard source
COP30: Food System Transformation
I will not give way, because time is very limited. I remind the Chamber that we removed coal from electricity generation; we increased renewables to 47.3% of energy production; we secured £300 billion of investment in energy projects since 2010; we oversaw the world’s first, second, third, fourth and fifth largest offshore wind farms; and we increased the number of energy-efficient properties by 133%. I am not embarrassed about standing on that record, and nor should I be. The hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) sensibly talked about the effect that the war in Ukraine has had. Indeed, it has had a huge knock-on effect, including on the supply of fertilisers we need, which has caused inflationary pressures. Ukraine is also one of the breadbaskets of Europe—indeed, one of the breadbaskets of the world—with some of the highest-quality agricultural land in the world, as the hon. Gentleman said. We must therefore recognise that the war in Ukraine is having a devastating effect. In the time I have left, I will ask the Minister a few questions. First, the Deputy Prime Minister made no reference to food systems or food security when he was at the UN Security Council on 29 September, so can the Minister confirm whether the Government have a specific agenda on this point at COP30? If so, are we partnering with other countries in that endeavour? Returning to the situation in Ukraine, has the Minister raised concerns with Brazil, the host of COP30, about the fact that it is still buying significant quantities of Russian oil? Has the UK officially asked Brazil to wean itself off Russian oil? Has it offered alternative solutions? If not, will he do so ahead of COP30? Finally, Brazil is purchasing millions of tonnes of fertilisers from Russia. Will the Minister equally be raising those points?
- Hansard source
Speaker’s Statement
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Ming Campbell was a good friend of mine. There is a body called the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which has not been mentioned yet today. Ming Campbell was a member for over 30 years, only really pausing when he became leader of the Liberal Democrats. When I joined that body in 2015, the respect with which Ming Campbell was regarded across the entire alliance—indeed, by so many partner countries, almost across the world—became apparent almost immediately. It did not matter if we were meeting Presidents, Prime Ministers or even royal families. Ming would come into the room and greet, say, the King of Spain in the same way he would greet somebody in the Tea Room and the respect shone through. I remember very clearly when he was the chairman of several of the Assembly’s committees. Sometimes allies in those committees maybe did not quite see eye to eye and got into some really heated arguments. Ming simply hit the table and said, “Enough!” and the silence fell. That was the level of respect he had. During the coalition years, he was able to be appointed as leader of the United Kingdom delegation to the Assembly. When I had the honour of taking on that role, I do not think many weeks passed when I did not call Ming on his mobile phone and say, “Ming, I need some advice on this difficult situation.” That was especially true during the covid years, when we were trying to work out how we were going to make the annual and spring Assemblies work online. Ming was always there with sage advice on how to lead our delegations. One thing that is true about serving on an international body is that we spend an awful lot of time in airports, especially when flights are delayed. Ming always had a story and they were genuinely fascinating. His legal career has been mentioned. There was one particular story that I liked, because it showed his quick wit and his ability to move swiftly on his feet, which was an important ability for a KC. He said he had been prosecuting a defendant charged with causing affray and drunken disorderly behaviour. He put the question, “How much had you drunk?” Apparently, the defendant said, “Oh, only eight or nine pints.” He paused and said, “Are you meaning to tell this court that you drank a gallon of beer and you don’t consider that to be very much?” He said that at that point, he knew he had him. He would tell so many stories. He was very proud of his time in San Francisco, where he trained to be a top sprinter. He said, “Academically, it didn’t go quite as well as it should have done. I think I just spent far too much time at the track.” He was, as I have said, enormously respected across the world. He was a great friend to me and a great sage. His politics were clear, but his party allegiance did not matter when it came to important roles of state and the intellectual rigour that had to be brought to important issues. I will miss him, and I know a great number of people in this House will miss him. He truly was a giant of British politics.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles
In the interests of trying to solve this issue, I wish the Secretary of State well and hope that he will bring forward the Bill and deal with its progress in the spirit of compromise and co-operation between the parties to find the best landing spot possible. He mentioned good faith, which is a precious resource that is often in short supply when it comes to this issue. I think it would be helpful if he works vigorously with the Irish Government to get them to ascertain at speed and pace what, if any, legislative measures they require to make good on what they have committed to, and could he as best as possible work those two pieces of legislation in lockstep to give confidence to both sides, who have concerns when it comes to good faith—or rather the absence of it?
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)
There is a risk here that we are conflating what is actually happening on the ground. The Minister is absolutely right, and no one can argue that this Government have not been clear about the structures that they want to put forward. However, to say that there is a demand from local authorities requesting devolution is stretching it a bit, because it is quite clear out there—particularly in my area, in Hampshire and the Solent—that this Government have said to them, “You have to do this; otherwise we are going to force it on you.” That is not locally led, is it?