5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 15 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Healthcare: Bolton

   Hearing Leah’s story was very concerning and upsetting. When it comes to further online access, one of GPs’ biggest concerns is about what to do with the emergencies that may come in through a computer at 6.20 pm as a result of that access, having to make that assessment when the system is supposed to be closing, and the ability to move GPs to take them away from face-to-face consultations to deal with online access. How will the Government square the circle of access versus patient safety? That is at the crux of the dispute.

   Hansard source
2. 15 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Jhoots Pharmacy

   Only this weekend, the National Pharmacy Association chief executive, Henry Gregg, said that he is concerned that “reports of Jhoots Pharmacy branches across England failing patients risks damaging community pharmacy’s reputation and could imperil its ability to secure a good 2026-27 funding settlement.” Communities across the country have been left without functioning pharmacies. Doors have been locked without notice, patients have arrived to find no pharmacist, no prescriptions and no stock, and staff have gone unpaid and been threatened with the sack. Jhoots Pharmacy faces allegations of not paying wages, having premises repossessed and serious regulatory breaches. The General Pharmaceutical Council has already intervened several times, yet for many patients it is too late—they simply cannot get their medicines. This is not an isolated business failure; it exposes a deeper fragility in the community pharmacy network on which local people depend for basics and often lifesaving care. I have four questions for the Minister. First, when was NHS England first made aware of these closures, and has the Minister met the Jhoots leadership? If not, why not? If he did, what was the outcome? Secondly, has the Department assessed how many people have been left without local pharmacy access as a result of Jhoots’s actions, and what is the Minister doing to remedy this, considering it is happening across the country? He mentioned ICBs, but there are several involved. Thirdly, what mechanisms exist to ensure continuity of care when a contractor collapses or walks away? Again, he mentioned ICBs, but is there a national contingency plan? Finally, will the Government now review whether the current model, under which chains are expanding rapidly through acquisition and debt, is fit to safeguard community pharmacies in the long term? Linked to that, can the Minister definitively confirm that the funding settlement has not been compromised? The 10-year NHS plan states that it wants to move more care into the community, yet it is completely missing a delivery chapter on how to achieve that. At the same time, we have issues such as Jhoots. I hope the Minister will be taking steps to investigate this issue in its entirety and to safeguard against this type of incident happening again, and will spell out the delivery aspect of the 10-year plan.

   Hansard source
3. 15 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023

   The Secretary of State said yesterday that his new legacy commission will not relitigate previous investigations involving veterans unless there are “compelling reasons” to do so. That is reinforced in clause 30 of the Bill that has now been published. To remove scope from opportunistic lawyers, would he consider defining far more closely than he has done up to this point precisely what he means by “compelling reasons”?

   Hansard source
4. 15 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

   Pride in Place

   The future high streets fund worked well, because to get any funding, areas had to demonstrate that they had a plan, and that the money would be used effectively, in accordance with local priorities. Pride in place is structured in a very different way. I accept that the Minister’s intent is to ensure that redundant premises are repurposed and reused; that is really good, and as chairman of the Trowbridge Place Partnership, I certainly welcome that. However, how will she ensure that the whole thing is not just bunged up with endless legal challenges, as her unelected boards make diktats that will be subject to endless review?

   Hansard source
5. 15 Oct 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

   Pride in Place

   This statement speaks of pride. Conservative Members have pride in our local pubs, 200 of which have closed in the past six months, hammered by the Labour party’s business rates rises. We have pride in our restaurants, which are closing in record numbers under the business rates burden imposed by this Government. We are proud of our local shops, which—according to the British Retail Consortium—are buckling under an additional £7 billion of annual costs imposed by this Government. We are proud of our family businesses, the bedrock of our high streets, which are buckling under new taxes introduced by this Government. We are proud of our family farms, which are also buckling under the new taxes imposed by this Government. We are proud of our local councils, which face maxing out their council tax rates. We hear of £20 million at a local level, but councils across the country are maxing out their council tax, not to invest in new local services, but to pay an additional £1.5 billion of annual costs imposed on them by this Government’s job tax—every year, when it comes to delivering services, a net £1.5 billion worse off. We are proud of the workers of this country, of whom there were 4 million more when the Conservative party left office last year. In the retail sector alone, 97,000 have lost their jobs since this Government took office. As such, this programme is a fig leaf—elements relabelled from past programmes such as the long-term plan for towns, slightly redirected to Labour areas—that covers up a collapse in the ability of our elected local representatives to invest in their communities. As with so many things, that collapse gets worse every day under the Labour party. Let me pose some specific questions to the Minister. First, why is there so much complex governance around this? Why not listen to the cries of our local leaders in Croydon, Somerset and Hertfordshire—people across the political spectrum who are saying, “Why not just give the councils the money to get on with this? Why tie this up in bureaucracy and red tape?” How much of this money has simply been rebadged from other, previously announced Government programmes? Why the change in methodology? In the interests of transparency, can the Minister set out for the House why the funding now seems to be landing in areas that are more likely to support the Labour party? How much of this funding sits outside of the 2025 spending review, and is therefore deeply in question from the start? How much of this money—like so many of this Government’s announcements, such as on housing—has been put in the public domain, but promised as spending towards the tail-end of the next Parliament, perhaps the very definition of jam tomorrow? Finally, can the Minister tell us how today’s announcement will help small businesses on all our high streets across our country to recover from her colleague the Chancellor’s £2.7 billion tax hike in this year alone?

   Hansard source
6. 15 Oct 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

   Pride in Place

   Borderlands was a fully-funded initiative launched by the former Government, and it is now supported by the Department, the Scottish Government and the Scotland Office here in Westminster. It is designed to meet all the objectives that she has set out in the south of Scotland, Cumbria and Northumberland, but for some reason, only a very small proportion of the money has got out the door. Can the hon. Lady, in conjunction with the Scotland Office, do a full drains up to understand why the money is not getting to the community projects that it is designed to support?

   Hansard source
7. 15 Oct 2025·Parliament·David Davis

   Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023

   The Secretary of State’s allegations about the legacy Act rest on a fiction that the Labour Government have not already handed out amnesties to all those terrorist killers. Two facts need to be put in front of the House. One is from the Good Friday agreement, which “put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners…convicted of scheduled offences”. That is one half of the amnesty. The other half is the comfort letters, and the right place to look there is the judge’s ruling in the Downey case, which shot down any future prosecutions. The judge said—I will read it carefully—that there is a “public interest in holding officials of the state to promises they have made in full understanding of what is involved in the bargain. Hence I have concluded that this is one of those rare cases in which, in the particular circumstances, it offends the court’s sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try the defendant.” In other words, it is an amnesty, whether the Government like it or not.

   Hansard source
8. 15 Oct 2025·Parliament·Damian Hinds

   Educational Assessment System Reform

   It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. Assessment in education is obviously one of the most important aspects of what we do in education. It gives children a chance to show what they have learned, what they can do, and we want that to be stretching, but also to be fair. Anything that measures our attainment is inherently somewhat stressful. We also want to prepare children for adult life, and part of that is learning to deal with stress and to make it work in a positive direction. We obviously do not want exams to be overly stressful, and I commend the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for his work on mental health. He poses this as a mental health question, and it is true that there is an upward trend in mental ill health in children in this country and, by the way, in most other countries in the developed world, although they do not all have the same exam system as us. France and the United States have very different exam systems, with one largely a terminal exam system and the other not, but we see a pattern that is essentially the same. A linear study and terminal exams give us some important things. They give us consistency, transparency, and comparability across the country. Because the exams come at the end we can synthesise knowledge, so it is not just a test of what someone happens to have learned for a test, but it is putting together different aspects of knowledge. It is not just one big exam. First, there are seven, eight, nine or 10 subjects, and typically two papers and multiple formats—multiple choice, short-form open questions, essay questions, orals and practicals in different subjects. Ironically, if we reduce the number of papers we would increase the high-stakes nature of tests that come at the end of study. It is possible that if we had continuous assessments, we might not get rid of stress but just stretch it out over a longer period because, as I said, any assessment inherently has some stress attached. Let me talk briefly about younger children, because that issue is different. SATs are not public exams, and no child should ever be put under pressure coming up to SATs. SATs are a measure of schools, not pupils—I promise that when someone applies for a job or university in adult life, nobody will ever ask them what they got in their SATs. That is not what they are for. The biggest effect that they could have is what set a child gets into in year 7. But ironically, as the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) said, schools do that anyway. Even if we got rid of a high-stakes assessment at the end of year 6, there would still be one in year 7. I repeat that no child should be put under pressure about SATs. That is not their purpose. I wanted to say a lot, but that is not going to happen in three and a half minutes. I briefly ask the Minister to confirm that Progress 8 is coming back. We have not been able to do Progress 8 for a couple of years because of covid and not having a baseline, but it is by far the better measure—much better than contextual value added or a raw score. Please will the Minister confirm that the Government are not looking at getting rid of handwritten exams done in exam conditions? Those are the best way to guarantee security of assessment and to ensure that handwriting development continues apace. We should have an open mind on resits. The point about the policy is not to have more people sitting exams but to carry on studying English and maths. That in itself is a good objective, but we should be open about how it is achieved.

   Hansard source
9. 15 Oct 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

   Pride in Place

   My constituents in Rowner were delighted to hear that they had been chosen for pride in place funding, but they are now a little bit worried, and I hope that the Minister can help us. My constituents fear that rather than the money being spent on projects that will change lives in Rowner in a meaningful way, our Liberal Democrat council will attempt to siphon some of it off to bankroll one of its vanity projects, namely the Criterion, a dilapidated former bingo hall. I am pleased that this funding comes with some flexibility, but what protections will the Minister introduce to prevent the money from being frittered away on white elephants by unscrupulous councils?

   Hansard source
10. 15 Oct 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    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.

    Hansard source
11. 15 Oct 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

    That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
12. 15 Oct 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

    Mr Glover, is it your pleasure that new clause 1 be withdrawn?

    Hansard source
13. 15 Oct 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    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
14. 15 Oct 2025·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    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
15. 15 Oct 2025·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    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
16. 15 Oct 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    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
17. 15 Oct 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    UK Internal Market

    6. What steps he is taking to maintain Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market.

    Hansard source
18. 15 Oct 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    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
19. 15 Oct 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    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
20. 15 Oct 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    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
21. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    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
22. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    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
23. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Oliver Dowden

    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
24. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Smith

    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
25. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Smith

    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
26. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    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
27. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    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
28. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    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
29. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    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
30. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    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
31. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    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
32. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    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
33. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    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
34. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    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
35. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    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
36. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    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
37. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    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
38. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    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
39. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    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
40. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    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