Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

   Inheritance Tax

   My right hon. Friend is right. I do not think that any fair-minded person in the United Kingdom today would say, “The problem is that we have too many successful companies. Too many companies are setting up, being founded and listing on our stock exchanges; our economy is growing somehow too fast; we have not got enough young people to fill the jobs available; and the economy does not have enough debt.” Therefore, were there a measure that would allow productive capital to flow down the generations to allow enterprises across communities in all our countries to help our economy grow, we might think the Government would clutch on to it like a sinking man clings to a life raft. Perhaps we will get that damascene conversion from the Minister today—perhaps we will hear it in two weeks’ time—but I rather fear not.<span id="431" class="column-number" data-column-number="431"></span> That is why so many other countries in our situation—those many economies that are growing faster than ours—do not impose multi-generational taxes on businesses. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister why it is that he and his Government single out family businesses—not those owned by private equity, those owned by international domiciled corporations, or even listed companies—for this iniquitous measure. I would love to hear that, as we all would on the Conservative Benches.

   Hansard source
2. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

   Inheritance Tax

   I will happily give away—I am enjoying the contributions.

   Hansard source
3. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Andrew Griffith

   Inheritance Tax

   As I have said many times in the House, I think the G7 is the wrong comparator peer group. We are not the fastest growing member of the G7. If the hon. Member took the time to read more than the headlines handed out by the Labour Whips, he would know that yesterday the International Monetary Fund downgraded the growth forecast for our wonderful country and enterprise for 2027. That is what Labour is doing to our economy: it has reduced the rate of growth. While the G7 largely consists of relatively sclerotic economies that suffer from the same levels of indebtedness and lack of growth as the United Kingdom, in the meantime the G20 is coming up on the outside track. Those are the more prosperous countries, and they are building airports, building infrastructure and forming capital. Their companies are taking on the world and their young people have more job opportunities. Not that the Labour Government have any interest in calibrating, counting and identifying those who are leaving, but that is why the flow of wealth creators and ambitious young people is not to our wonderful country, with its history and heritage, but from our country to those economies that are successfully growing faster than ours. One of the reasons for that—to conclude—is that those countries are more understanding of family businesses, more understanding of family farms, and more sympathetic and on the side of those who work hard to create wealth and a better life for themselves, for their family and for the next generation.

   Hansard source
4. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

   Inheritance Tax

   I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on this point. He focuses on how much he believes this tax will raise, but what does the impact assessment say about how many businesses will close as a result of this tax?

   Hansard source
5. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

   Inheritance Tax

   There is a principle at the heart of the motion and it is a simple one: what a person earns through a lifetime of work belongs to them and not the Treasury, and that when the time comes, they have the right to pass on what they have earned to the people they love. It is neither a loophole nor a privilege. It is the oldest instinct there is: for people to work, to save and to leave their children better off than they were. That stands in stark contrast with the Government’s approach. The question that we have put before the House is not complicated: should Governments spend less so that families can keep more? The Conservatives’ answer to that question is yes. In the Mandelson files published this summer, we saw that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions wrote to Peter Mandelson: “Every meeting I have is, ‘Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others’.” He was right to be exasperated. Some 7 million people—more than 10% of our population—now claim at least one benefit. We will spend over £100 billion on health and disability benefits just this year. A full-time worker on the national living wage takes home £22,500 a year. Someone out of work on credit, with the average housing support and personal independence payment, receives £25,000 a year. We now pay more not to work than to work. However, if somebody has worked and then dies, her unspent pension will now be taxed because of this Government, and the house that she spent her life paying for will be taxed. It beggars belief that Labour MPs looked at those figures, recognised how they are strangling our country, and concluded that they would rebel against the modest reforms proposed by the last Prime Minister. Indeed, the Labour party would rather remove a sitting Prime Minister than attempt to create a fairer system. I ask Members to imagine that they are farmers in the communities that I serve. You are up at the crack of dawn and working until very, very late. It is relentless every day. Your profit margins are the lowest of almost any industry, but you persevere, because you value your land and your family’s connection to it, and you take pride in feeding our country. But Labour hits you with increased road taxes on double-cab pick-up trucks, <span id="462" class="column-number" data-column-number="462"></span>increased employer NICs and minimum wage, taxes on fertilisers, the cruel family farm tax, and now a levy on the land itself when it passes from parent to child. Lincolnshire and Rutland are the breadbasket and agricultural heartland of Britain. We are proud of what we do to feed this country, so it is offensive when the Nature Minister says that traditional rural Britain—the pubs, ale and loyal dogs that we adore—is a far-right fantasy that never really existed. I invite her and any Labour MP to come and visit Rutland, Stamford and the Harborough and South Kesteven villages, because we are not a fantasy; we are communities who deserve respect—although if I came from her constituency, I would also consider it a fantasy to see the type of idyllic life that we lead in our villages. We will never apologise for valuing the traditions and way of life that make our rural communities so special. The Nature Minister was wrong when she claimed that rural pubs “never really existed”. She would, however, have been correct if she said that she and her Government are doing their best to wipe them out of existence. Under Labour’s plans, the Bertie Arms in Uffington faces a 2,000% increase in business rates by 2029. The hard-working landlady has dismissed the minor relief that came as tokenistic and says that it will make no difference because of Labour’s other tax hikes.

   Hansard source
6. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

   Inheritance Tax

   I am grateful to have the chance to state our record. We cut employee national insurance twice, taking 9 million workers out of it. We raised the national insurance threshold. We abolished the lifetime allowance. We cut fuel duty. We had business rates relief for hospitality and pubs. We did all those things to support our pubs and businesses. The Prime Minister told the voters of Makerfield that the family farm tax “needs looking at again”, so I wonder whether Members in this Chamber who have given it their full-throated support this week will regret their words in a few weeks’ time. Let us see. Since he took office, Members on his Front Bench have excitedly chattered about reindustrialisation, as if the word on its own builds a factory; it does not, and neither does taxing a business at the moment that it passes to the next generation. From April, the family firms in my communities, such as Rutland Plastics, Coles Plant Centre, Arnold Wills, CS Ellis and Rutland Garden Village, and independent family shops on my high street, like Harrison &amp; Dunn and Walkers Bookshops, will all face the same death tax as our wonderful farmers, like Percy Gilman. Business property relief existed for a reason—so that a company need never be broken up to pay the Treasury. Those same businesses are not just economic powerhouses in communities like mine, but social powerhouses, as Philippa Wills said to me this morning. They are rooted in our communities and make decisions for the longer term, because they care about what happens to our people, communities and towns. The Government do <span id="463" class="column-number" data-column-number="463"></span>not care about that; they have broken the social contract between businesses and our young people and those in part-time work, because they have made it so much harder to hire them. Who loses out the most, apart from young people? Women, because it is women who rely on part-time employment when raising their children who are now unable to pick up additional work. That is the true cost of this tax: not the £15 billion a year that the Government forecast it will raise by 2030, but the businesses never started, the capital that leaves, and the women and young people left without jobs. Tax cuts must be paid for, which is why we have put spending cuts first, but let us be clear. If we tax a family firm at death, the founder sells early, moves abroad or never builds at all. If we tax a farm, the fields go to a solar developer, or they are built on and we become reliant on foreign imports. If we tax the people who work and pay the people who do not, we should not be surprised when fewer people work. We want people to work—we want them to be able to celebrate and benefit from a lifetime of toil and hard work. That is human nature, and nothing to be ashamed of. We have a Government who are asking who they can tax, and an Opposition asking how much more people can keep. Labour’s assault on farms and businesses, its insistence that rural life does not exist, and its addiction to spending will destroy this country. We want people to succeed, and we hold our rural way of life close to our hearts. That is why everyone must support this motion today.

   Hansard source
7. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

   Inheritance Tax

   The Minister has just touched on what the Prime Minister has said. The Prime Minister also told the people of Makerfield that he needed to look again at the family farm tax. Why are the Labour Benches so full of MPs this evening saying that we are absolutely not moving on it when the Prime Minister made that very clear promise during the by-election? Who are we to believe: the Prime Minister then or the Prime Minister now?

   Hansard source
8. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

   Falkland Islands

   I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, though it was somewhat belated. Let me start by welcoming Jack Ford, Chair of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly, to the Gallery. Yesterday marked 44 years since the Falklands Task Force victory parade, in which more than 300,000 people lined London’s streets to honour those who liberated the islands. Their sacrifice reminds us of our enduring responsibility to defend the Falkland Islanders’ freedom and right to self-determination. Argentina’s increasingly hostile rhetoric and threats towards the islands, their people and their economic interests are wholly unacceptable. The islanders have overwhelmingly expressed their wish to remain British. No amount of intimidation or economic coercion from Buenos Aires will change that. The Falkland Islanders deserve more than words of reassurance. They deserve to know that the British Government will stand firmly behind them, protect their interests and defend their right to determine their own future, so I welcome reports that the Foreign Secretary has signed off on the next steps for Sea Lion. The islanders have every right to develop their natural resources, but I am a little perplexed, because in Energy questions today, Ministers suggested that this was not a decision for the British Government. Can the Minister clarify the Foreign Secretary’s role, precisely what he has authorised, and whether further decisions are required? In fact, was the Energy Secretary even consulted? If the Foreign Secretary can support Sea Lion in the south Atlantic, why are the Government still leaving Rosebank and Jackdaw in the North sea waiting? But back to the Falkland Islands. We welcome the measures outlined today, but approval alone will not protect those involved from Argentina’s threats. British nationals and businesses operating under licences issued by the Falkland Islands Government should not face intimidation or threats of legal action. There are some questions that need answers and clarity today. The Minister has announced the Government’s intention to extend the protection of trading interests measures to cover Argentina. What will that mean in practice for companies and individuals facing Argentine legal action, and what risks will remain? Can she confirm reports that the Government have approached Interpol, and what assurances have they received that politically motivated requests will be rejected? Has the FCDO sought assurances from international partners that British citizens will not face arrest or detention when travelling abroad? What practical legal, consular and travel support is being offered to those affected, and how will the Government help companies to resist attempts to disrupt the project’s financing and supply chains? What direct support is being provided to the Falkland Islands Government to ensure that development can proceed without interference, because alongside these protections, there must be consequences if Argentina <span id="217" class="column-number" data-column-number="217"></span>continues to escalate its threats? Has the Minister examined targeted sanctions, or other proportionate diplomatic and economic restrictions? That must also inform our wider economic relationship. President Milei cannot simultaneously threaten British interests while expecting Britain to facilitate closer economic co-operation. Argentina has applied to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), has made clear that Britain should be prepared to oppose that application if Argentina continues to threaten peace and stability in the south Atlantic. Are the Government prepared to use Britain’s position in the CPTPP to make it clear that such behaviour carries consequences? These developments underline a wider point about Britain’s standing in the world. When Britain appears unwilling or unable to defend its interests, it risks encouraging those who would seek to challenge them. That is why we Opposition Members are committed to fully costed plans to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030. What discussions has the Minister had with the Defence Secretary about the resilience of Britain’s military presence in the south Atlantic, and are any additional measures being considered? Britain must bring together its diplomatic, economic and military strength to defend its interests and stand up to those who seek to intimidate us. Argentina should be working to strengthen its own economy, rather than threatening the livelihoods of the Falkland Islanders. There can be no question of bargaining away their democratic rights or their future. I will end where I began: the Falkland Islanders have chosen to remain British. We on the Opposition Benches will always stand with them and defend their fundamental right to self-determination.

   Hansard source
9. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

   Iran: Threats to British Interests

   <em>(Urgent Question):</em> To ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the threats posed by Iran to British interests. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting me an urgent question in this role for the first time. I fear that it will not be the last, but I am grateful to you for doing so.

   Hansard source
10. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

    Iran: Threats to British Interests

    I am grateful to the Minister, whom I call a friend, for his response today. However, after almost a decade of consistent Foreign Office advice to reject photographs with Iranian officials, and particularly handshake photographs, because of the propaganda tool that it gives the regime, it seems that our Foreign Secretary has just been ambushed in New York. Either he was ambushed by a snapper, or there has been a change of policy. It is important that we understand which, because although it is certainly clear that the Foreign Secretary did not look happy, Araghchi was absolutely beaming. If that was not deliberate, has the Foreign Office changed its advice, and if so, why? Frankly, following the Iranians’ threats against UK airbases that both the Minister and the Prime Minister have mentioned, the state threats that the head of MI5 has listed, which have been reported today, the murder of 40,000 of their own people, their expansion of violence in Yemen by using the Houthis to target civilians in Riyadh, and their attacks on Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, I would be very grateful to know what made the Foreign Secretary believe that it was worth giving them a propaganda win. Perhaps the Minister will tell me that this does not matter, but he knows better than that. He knows that images project a message, and in this case they project the message that the Iranian regime is equal to the moment. Well, it is not. The reality is that the Iranian regime—and, in fact, Mr Araghchi himself—is merely a front for the IRGC, which is of course the terror group responsible for the murder of thousands in Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Iraq and elsewhere. I will finish by asking the Minister a few questions. Was the Foreign Secretary aware of his Iranian friend’s threats to the United Kingdom before he decided to shake hands with him and have it photographed? Was he aware that the US and Israel had given warning to the British Government that the Iranian regime’s threats to US airbases in the UK were credible? Lastly, has the policy of the UK now reverted to not giving propaganda wins to such a vile regime?

    Hansard source
11. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Peatland: Energy Infrastructure

    We do not have an abundance of peatland in east Kent, but we do have acres of wonderful marshland and sites of special scientific interest. On that land—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em>

    Hansard source
12. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Peatland: Energy Infrastructure

    I am most grateful, Mr Speaker. Let me go back to the beginning: we do not have acres of peatland in east Kent, but we do have acres of wonderful marshland and sites of scientific interest. On that marshland, National Grid is proposing to build a 90-foot-high <span id="167" class="column-number" data-column-number="167"></span>converter station the size of five football pitches, floated on concrete 2 metres deep. The Secretary of State is due to determine the planning application in short order. When she takes that decision, will she give an assurance that she will take into account the irreparable environmental damage that that ill-conceived project will do to the environment?

    Hansard source
13. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Prisoner Early Release Scheme

    If I understood it correctly, the Minister said earlier that past victims—and, therefore, presumably potential future victims—are being informed and supported. If they need that sort of information and support, does that not imply that the people who are being released pose a threat to them? What sort of category of person is being released? Is it a dangerous person? If it is not, why do the victims need the support that the Minister describes?

    Hansard source
14. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Iran: Threats to British Interests

    Does the Minister agree with me that it sends a strange signal when people suspected of mounting a terrorist attack backed by Iran are let out on bail? Does he also share my concern at recent media reports of several—fortunately foiled—terrorist attacks that were being planned by people who came into this country illegally, on boats crossing the channel?

    Hansard source
15. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Falkland Islands

    May I strongly welcome all three Front-Bench statements on this vital matter? I would like to say, as someone who was politically active in 1982, that I well remember the failure of deterrence, which was partly fuelled by mass agitation for nuclear disarmament—an unrelated subject—at that time. Although the Minister says that there is no connection or parallel with the Chagos dispute, let me assure her that the signals that have been sent by the Government over Chagos are undermining of deterrence. Will she therefore make it crystal clear to Argentina now that any military action against the Falkland Islands will be met with an overwhelming military response?

    Hansard source
16. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    UK Coach Industry

    I apologise for missing the beginning of the hon. Lady’s speech. She is making a bold case and a welcome one, and I congratulate her on bringing this matter to the House. She mentioned the issue of recruitment; she will know that two of the barriers to recruitment relate to the restrictions on young people driving. First, Gary and Michele Salter from Long Sutton in my constituency, who run GDS Travel, tell me that young drivers cannot start their off-road and theory training until they have a provisional licence. That seems to be a nonsense. Secondly, young drivers are restricted as to where and how far <span id="49WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="49WH"></span>they can drive. Changing those two things would attract more young people into the industry and deal with some of the issues the hon. Lady has raised.

    Hansard source
17. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    UK Coach Industry

    The sort of people who travel on coaches are typically not the most advantaged—pensioners, for example, or children getting to school. Some people can afford coach travel but cannot afford other forms of travel. For the constituents I have mentioned already, as well as Fowler’s in Holbeach Drove, Cropley in Fosdyke and other local coach operators, will the Minister agree to the rebate on fuel that they have suggested? The industry has suggested a small short-term rebate to help it get over the hump of escalating fuel prices and therefore provide the service to the vulnerable people and many others whom I have mentioned.

    Hansard source
18. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

    The right hon. Gentleman is right that the Secretary of State has tried to weave, with a certain degree of assiduity and dexterity, a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. We have ended up with something satin, and it may not be a purse at all, but what is certain is that we need more time to consider it. It would be preposterous to have such a short time to consider the Government amendments that have been tabled. I suggest that they were tabled in good faith, but good will needs to prevail. We need much more time to consider this matter than the very short time allocated next week.

    Hansard source
19. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    The hon. Gentleman is talking about complex and lengthy trials. Has he considered the effect on the Court of Appeal of making those types of trial judge-only? If I have correctly understood the Government’s proposals, they wish to require a judge to give reasons for conviction. Juries need give no reasons for conviction. Does he think that that will change the rate and frequency of appeals to the Court of Appeal in such cases?

    Hansard source
20. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I recognise the hon. Member’s enthusiasm for making the criminal courts work more efficiently, but I put to her a practical problem with the solution she proposes of courts starting at 9 o’clock in the morning—especially if we were not able to resolve the problem she identified of prisoners not always being brought to court on time. She will recognise that those of us who represent criminal clients in the criminal courts do not start our day at the time the court starts; we start a lot earlier. The opportunity to speak to our client, discuss the case properly with them and perhaps find a way of resolving the case without the need for a trial is extremely valuable. Does she recognise that problem?

    Hansard source
21. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Cox

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    Is the hon. and learned Lady as concerned as I am about the backlog in the magistrates court, which is four times larger than that in the Crown court and growing at 16% a year, whereas the Crown court backlog is stabilised? If this really is a reform in the interests of efficiency, should she not be sparing the magistrates court at a time when their backlog is growing so fast?

    Hansard source
22. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Cox

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It has been a peculiar pleasure to listen to the two speeches made so far by Labour Back Benchers. Both the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and that of the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), have been treats to listen to, and I feel I can do no better than to say, “Listen to both of them.” However, it would be wrong of me to say that I oppose the Bill in its entirety. The truth is that some of its provisions contain very useful and reasonable directions of travel. Personally, I do not have the profoundest objection to grounds needing to be given for an appeal to the Crown court. I think that would be a reasonable thing to require, provided that the Chairman of the Select Committee’s warnings are heeded and those who have to fill out that appeal are given the opportunity of advice. As has been said, I think by Opposition Members, the problem is that there is a lack of legal advisers in the magistrates court—what we used to call magistrates court clerks. That brings me to another way in which I should commend the Minister and the Government. The initiative to enhance the resources of the magistrates court can only be a good thing, although I must warn the Minister that the recruitment of more magistrates is something that we looked at years ago, when I sat in the position that she now sits in. It is social and economic factors that are effecting the diminution in the number of those willing and able to put themselves forward for this onerous type of public service, so that diminution is not going to be remediable just by brave words and advertisements. It is going to have to be a sustained campaign, and it will not happen even in the term that she will serve as Minister—long may that continue. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That was not a wish—it was an observation—but nevertheless, it was heartfelt. With those cautious commendations given, though, I have to return to the very focus and centre of this Bill. It is a bit like asking us to be grateful to the crocodile who leaves us with our head after it has taken our legs. The reality is that the right of election of trial by jury is at the very heart of the right itself. Since the 17th century, Governments of all colours that have come and gone have continued to respect that as a right, not as a concession or a privilege afforded by the state to a defendant. It is perfectly true that in Scotland it is the court that decides whether or not the defendant should enjoy the right of trial by jury, but in England, it has always been a right—a right given, broadly speaking, to anybody accused of an offence serious enough to warrant more than 12 months’ imprisonment.<span id="268" class="column-number" data-column-number="268"></span> For the first time in English legal and political history, a Government have decided to breach that right, and to make the decision reside with the representatives of the state. That places the decision out of the hands of a powerless defendant—some of the most powerless in our society. Some of them may very well be guilty. Many of them may very well be guilty, but the system we have adopted over the centuries does not legislate so much for the guilty, but for the innocent caught up in the system. So many examples in history have shown how the innocent can be caught up in this system, and it is for the innocent that the criminal justice system is ultimately designed. It is designed for their vindication, requiring against them the level, burden and standard of proof that the criminal justice system enforces, with the presumption of innocence.

    Hansard source
23. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Cox

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    Because time is short, I will give way to the hon. Lady, but only she.

    Hansard source
24. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Cox

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    That invites a long answer, which I do not have time now to give, but any defendant who appears before a court enjoys the presumption of innocence, and it is upon that basis that any system has to proceed. In England, the right has been accorded to those who enjoy this presumption of innocence to decide where they should be tried. Any abrogation of that right, such as for an offence that carries a sentence of more than 12 months’ imprisonment, removes the power from the individual and hands it to the state. In England—peculiarly in England—it has always been regarded as the right of a defendant. Make no mistake, this is an historic Bill for that reason. To remove and abrogate the right of a litigant to trial by a jury of their peers has exactly the effect that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East has said. A person of good character, a professional person or an employee in the workplace accused of theft from his employer—all of these would have had the right to say, “No, I wish to have the careful and meticulous process that the Crown court provides, not the swift and summary justice that the magistrates court provides.” That person may suffer for the remaining years of their life the most profound impact upon their history. A Member of this House accused could be tried before the magistrates court, despite the impact and consequences that that might produce. In the magistrates court, the only criteria will be whether it might receive more than two years’ imprisonment. Many such offences would not. That is broadly the criteria that is applied by the magistrates. If this egregious act is to be taken by this House, I strongly support that the Chairman of the Select Committee’s recommendation be taken on board by the Minister, because unless the magistrates have the express ability to consider whether someone is of good character, whether they have a profession, whether it would mean that they would be disqualified forever from whatever <span id="269" class="column-number" data-column-number="269"></span>profession they are in, or expelled from their employment—with massive implications for the rest of their life—how can it be fair or proper to impose upon that person a system of summary justice that cannot, at its heart, achieve the levels of fairness of a Crown court trial? That is not only because legal aid is available in the Crown court, but because of the forensic scrutiny that the allegation is placed under. The automatic right of appeal has always been provided in the magistrates court, even where the sentence would be less than 12 months, because it has always been acknowledged that the kind of justice distributed in the magistrates court is necessarily swift and necessarily summary. There are not provisions for the disclosure of unused material in the magistrates court. What is to be done about those, if offences are now going to be tried that might carry a two-year imprisonment? None of these things have yet been thought through within this Bill. There has simply been a transference from the Crown court to the magistrates court, in breach of a provision and a right that has been respected in this country for 300 years. I therefore say that Members should listen to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East and to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Derby North. They spoke the milk of human wisdom, and I suspect the fact that it came from them is not wholly unrelated to the fact that each of them have years of experience in professional practice in the courts. Heed them. I urge the Minister—even if she is to take the step that I profoundly oppose and regard as an historic mistake: the abrogation and dilution of the right to trial by jury, making it, in fact, no longer a right but a concession made by the state to the individual—to listen, please, to the comments, the recommendations and the warnings given by those on her own side. For someone of good character to come before a court for the first time, facing a two-year sentence of imprisonment, and for the magistrate to be unable to consider such a factor would, in many cases, constitute the profoundest injustice. The risk is that over the coming years there will be all the appalling, wearisome, grievous experiences of realising that injustice has actually been done, although the whole system that we have devised over the centuries was designed to avoid that at all costs.

    Hansard source
25. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Cox

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

    What substantive difference does he think the Attorney General’s consent will make to a decision of this kind?

    Hansard source
26. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Household Energy Bills Support

    Many people, not just in my constituency but throughout the country, rely on off-grid energy. I recognise that the Government have taken steps to try and help them, but so many of them have been exposed to massive shocks and leaps in the cost of filling their tanks with oil or gas. Will the Government consider doing a little more to help the many people who are incredibly vulnerable to these energy shocks?

    Hansard source
27. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Iran: Threats to British Interests

    There is a real fear that Iran has achieved the aim of its attack on RAF Fairford. We have seen the US respond by removing very important military capability away from Europe and away from the United Kingdom. Does the Minister agree—he is very thoughtful on this point and sympathetic to it—that there is a need for increased military spending? Will he use his office to put pressure on Downing Street and the Treasury to come forward with a settlement for our armed forces that ensures we have the capabilities to properly defend RAF Fairford and the many other bases up and down the country?

    Hansard source
28. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Pensions Triple Lock

    I think many of us agree with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State about the need to tackle social care. The plans that have come forward are interesting, but there is a real concern about the £18 billion bill. The Secretary of State has identified £4 billion to go towards it—where is the other £14 billion coming from?

    Hansard source
29. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Household Energy Bills Support

    Britain already has the highest electricity prices in Europe, which makes all our families worse off. The Prime Minister’s decision to end VAT on household electricity bills—for only six months—is a tiny step in the right direction, but the Government need to do much more. Will the Secretary of State reduce household energy bills by £200 a year by adopting the Conservatives’ cheap power plan? Will she extend that VAT cut, axe the carbon tax and scrap renewables obligation contracts, so that all British households are better off?

    Hansard source
30. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Prisoner Early Release Scheme

    The Minister will know that all of the 3,000 new prison places that have come online since the election were initiated by the last Conservative Government. Will he tell the House why this Government have not planned or approved any new prison spaces since they came to office?

    Hansard source
31. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I start by expressing my relief that the Government are removing clause 3 from the Bill. I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on performing that U-turn so swiftly upon taking office. In earlier debates, the Courts Minister said that curtailing the right to a jury trial was a good thing in any event and that she would go ahead with the change even if there were not a court backlog. What caused her to change her mind? Perhaps it was the change of Prime Minister. The Minister is a skilled orator. I am quite sure that she will manage to persuade the Lord Chancellor that she meant something completely different and always supported his position, and her rise through the ranks of Government will continue. We on the Conservative Benches wish her well. The Crown court backlog is a serious challenge, and both victims and defendants deserve timely justice. Throughout the debate, Ministers have struggled to demonstrate that curtailing jury trials would meaningfully solve the problem. I still have concerns about clauses 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which serve to add restrictions to jury trials and transfer more power to magistrates courts. That is why I support new clause 25, tabled by the shadow Justice Secretary, which seeks to put a sunset clause in the Bill. That would see the remaining restrictions on jury trials proposed by the Government end when the backlog is reduced to its pre-covid level. I urge the Government to be cautious about the expansion of the powers of magistrates. The evidence is not clear that that will result in a reduction of the backlog. Where is the assurance that increased jurisdiction will not simply create new delays in different courts? Thousands of additional magistrates will be required in the coming years, yet previous recruitment efforts have failed. What will be different this time? The Justice Committee described the targets as “unrealistic”. Perhaps the Minister should consult her new Solicitor General and ask what his views are on the subject. The Government still intend to remove the right to a jury trial for those charged with an either-way offence. I oppose that and support amendment 1, tabled by the shadow Justice Secretary. This matter poses a particularly grave threat to those who would face professional ruin if they were convicted of an offence of dishonesty. Solicitors, barristers and Members of Parliament, for example, would all have their careers destroyed were they convicted of theft, which is an either-way offence. That is why I support the sentiments in amendment 47 <span id="280" class="column-number" data-column-number="280"></span>tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and amendment 69 tabled by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson). I appreciate that we will not vote on those amendments tonight, but I hope that Members of the House of Lords will look at the issue again when they consider the Bill.

    Hansard source
32. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Sir Andrew Mitchell

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I want to draw the House’s attention to new clause 22, which I have tabled with the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), my parliamentary neighbour, whose absence from the Government Front Bench is a matter of regret to all of us on the Conservative Benches. I thank both the Lord Chancellor and the shadow Lord Chancellor for engaging with us on these issues. The new clause would restrict immunity from civil suits for police officers in relation to certain conduct in preparation for criminal court proceedings. I want to draw the House’s attention to a deeply troubling development in our law. Last year the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment that, in my view, risks placing police forces beyond proper accountability for serious wrongdoing committed during the preparation of criminal cases. If left unaddressed, this new legal principle could make it far harder for victims of police misconduct to obtain justice, even where the harm that they have suffered is severe and life-changing. The doctrine has been described as a form of police misconduct immunity. We all know that the rule of law depends on a simple principle: no one is above the law—not politicians, not public officials and not the police. New clause 22, which I have tabled with the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley, would restore accountability and make it clear that there cannot be one rule for the police and another for everyone else. The issue arises directly from the 2025 Court of Appeal case of the chief constable of Sussex police and the CPS<em> v.</em> XGY. I know that the hon. Lady will refer to the case of XGY if she catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. The victim of the abuse had given her confidential refuge address to the Sussex police, and that address was later disclosed in court, exposing her location to the abuser and forcing her to flee. The Court of Appeal answered the question by extending what is known as core immunity. Historically, this immunity was narrow but existed to protect witnesses and advocates for what they say and do in court, allowing them to give evidence freely without fear of being sued, but the Court’s judgment went much further. It expanded that protection beyond the courtroom and into the wider process of criminal investigation and prosecution preparation. In practical terms, it means that certain police actions connected to a future prosecution may now be shielded from legal challenge, even where those actions caused significant harm. The Court’s ruling therefore raises serious concerns about whether victims will be able to seek redress when police misconduct, negligence, human rights breaches or serious errors occur. That is why the case of XGY matters far beyond the individual victim involved. I want to illustrate the practical consequences of the new doctrine, and the human cost, through another case with which I have been closely involved for some years: the case of Ali Kololo. Mr Kololo is a Kenyan forest dweller and woodcutter who was wrongfully convicted in 2013 in connection with the murder of a British tourist and the kidnapping of that tourist’s spouse, Judith Tebbutt. These were grave crimes. At the time, I was the Secretary of State for International Development and was engaged in the Government’s response to the kidnapping through COBRA, but we now know that Ali Kololo was innocent. A Kenyan court has since <span id="272" class="column-number" data-column-number="272"></span>overturned his conviction, with the evidence showing that he had become a scapegoat in a deeply flawed investigation. What makes this case particularly troubling is that the Metropolitan police played a significant role in supporting the investigation. The Independent Office for Police Conduct found that a senior Metropolitan police officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct. The investigation concluded that the evidence provided by the officer had the potential to mislead the court, because important forensic information had been omitted. The consequences for Mr Kololo were catastrophic. He spent 11 years in prison, he faced a death sentence, and he endured abuse, illness and separation from his family. He lost years of his life that can never be returned, and although his conviction was eventually quashed and he was released, he has yet to receive redress for the harm he suffered. Let me be clear: the original principle of witness immunity serves an important purpose—witnesses should be able to give evidence without fear of personal litigation, and our justice system depends on that protection—but extending immunity far beyond the courtroom and into the wider conduct of criminal investigations risks creating an accountability gap.

    Hansard source
33. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Simon Hoare

    Prisoner Early Release Scheme

    I have Guys Marsh prison in my constituency. It provides valued jobs, and I pay tribute to the prison officers who work there. The Minister will know that all of these policies flow from the pressure on spaces in our prison estate. Not that long ago, the Government had Crown prerogative powers to bring forward new prisons or to extend prisons without going through a lengthy planning process. That would solve the problem at a stroke. Why will the Minister not investigate that in order to speed up an expansion in prison spaces?

    Hansard source
34. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    Clause 17 would repeal the presumption of parental involvement contained in section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989. That presumption currently provides that unless the contrary is shown, the involvement of each parent in the life of the child will further the child’s welfare. Amendment 67, tabled in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) and for <span id="281" class="column-number" data-column-number="281"></span>Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), would keep the presumption that parental involvement is beneficial for the welfare of the child. It is my belief that our legal system should reflect the fact that in most cases, a child benefits from having both parents involved in their life. Clause 17 would do the opposite. It sends a serious social signal that the active involvement of both parents is no longer our expected starting point when considering a child’s welfare.

    Hansard source
35. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and for her powerful speech earlier. Ultimately, the impact assessment for this Bill says that there would be no impact, but I believe that the impact on families more broadly is not worth the change.

    Hansard source
36. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    Exactly. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. My concern is that, in some cases, clause 17 will increase the state’s power to erase one parent from a child’s life, and we know that that is often their father. It will rebalance the relationship between parents and the state.

    Hansard source
37. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    No, I have already given way twice. I will not get any more time. I am very sorry. We must avoid a situation in which the law views children as the state’s ultimate responsibility while parents must justify their involvement on a case-by-case basis. We must also avoid anything that presumes that the state makes a better parent than the actual parents themselves. Of course, the state should intervene when a child is at risk, but our default position should be that, wherever it is safe and appropriate, children benefit from the love and guidance of both their parents. The state should step in only when there is clear evidence that it should do so, and we do not reject that point. If we remove this principle from the law, we take another step towards a system in which parental involvement becomes discretionary and the state’s role becomes paramount. That is not a healthy direction for family justice. I recognise, of course, that this is a sensitive issue for survivors of domestic abuse. To be clear, there is no absolute right to contact under existing law. Courts already have the power to restrict unsafe contact. The <span id="282" class="column-number" data-column-number="282"></span>presumption of parental involvement is already qualified by risk of harm to the child, so why do we need this clause at all? Surely we in this House should be ensuring that current safeguards work properly instead. As I said in a recent debate on fathers and male role models, “There is a widespread perception that family courts make it difficult for fathers to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children.”<span id="vol790_col450WH" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="450WH" data-volume-number="790" data-external-id="6E87A435-EBE3-4917-A72C-F8EDAAE8419B">—[<em>Official Report, </em>10 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 450WH.]</span> One possible solution is a child-centred parental relationship test. The test would direct courts to consider the quality and sustainability of the child’s relationship with each parent. It would help courts to distinguish between safe and harmful contact. As things stand, there is a real risk that clause 17 will weaken, not strengthen, children’s relationships with safe parents without addressing the current failures that leave children exposed to their unsafe ones. Fundamentally, parental involvement is a relationship recognised by the state, not a privilege granted by the state. Both parents matter, and we should not be afraid to say so.

    Hansard source
38. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Falkland Islands

    I declare an interest: I visited the Falklands a number of months ago as a trustee of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I welcome the Minister to her position, and I entirely endorse the sentiment of her statement, which maintains that the Falklands must remain British. I welcome the Chair of the Legislative Assembly to the Gallery today. We must match diplomacy with military deterrence. When I visited the islands, I was most concerned that permanent refuelling capability for our military assets there was based elsewhere. I do not expect the Minister to give a detailed answer—although I see that the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry is next to her—but can she ensure that permanent refuelling capability for the Typhoons is put back on the islands if it has not been already?

    Hansard source
39. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Patrick Spencer

    Climate Change Resilience

    The proposers of the Easton-Letheringham solar farm application in my constituency have finally been forced to get an environmental impact assessment. Considering the vast size of the proposed development, which would cover over 200 acres of fertile farmland, it was a complete waste of time to think it would ever get through planning without one. Will the Minister consider requiring an environmental impact assessment for all solar developments on rural land?

    Hansard source
40. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Prisoner Early Release Scheme

    <em>(Urgent Question):</em> To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the early release scheme.

    Hansard source