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

1. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Helen Whately

   Pensions Triple Lock

   Thirty years ago, nearly one in three pensioners in our country lived in poverty. Today, that figure has halved, thanks in no small part to the decisions made by our party, when in government, to stand by pensioners—people who have done the right thing, worked all their lives and paid into the system. That is the fair and right thing to do. Yet we are faced with a Government that do not seem concerned about what is fair and right. Can the Secretary of State explain why his party has chosen to go after pensioners instead of tackling the fastest growing part of the benefits bill: working-age welfare? Working-age benefits are costing us £140 billion a year, and rising fast. That includes the cost of benefits to 6 million working-age people who are not working. Many could and should be, but instead they are spending decades of their lives on benefits; it is unaffordable and morally wrong. However, the Secretary of State has <span id="200" class="column-number" data-column-number="200"></span>done nothing of substance about it, and now his party’s refusal to bring down the welfare bill is putting the state pension in jeopardy. The Prime Minister is desperate for cash to pay for his new national care service—that is why he is ditching the triple lock. Let’s not beat around the bush and say that it is some kind of adjustment—it is ditching the triple lock. To look at the numbers, the savings that the Secretary of State is hoping for will hardly touch the sides. Come the mid-2030s, a national care service is forecast to cost over £18 billion, versus potentially £4 billion a year in savings from the triple lock. Those numbers are extremely uncertain; the care service could well cost more—demand tends to grow for something that is free—but scrapping the triple lock could save less. At the very least, Labour’s policy creates a £15 billion black hole in the public finances. And what a way to announce it: a couple of lines in a conference speech—no proper explanation or detail, just millions of pensioners left wondering what it means for their retirement. Labour Back Benchers should remember how these things go. Their last Prime Minister came after pensioners’ winter fuel payments. That was not a plan that stood the test of time; it was the Government’s first U-turn. How many Labour Members in the Chamber today defended that ill-conceived policy, only to see it abandoned in the face of pressure? Listening to the Secretary of State’s statement, it is clear that he is branding this plan as the Pensions Minister’s idea. It is not his first rodeo. I suspect he can see that this is a U-turn in waiting. How long has it got? And all this before the Government’s own Pensions Commission has even reported. Did the Secretary of State forget that he had one? The Government asked it to look at whether people will have enough to live on in retirement. Why bother asking for independent advice if he has already made up his mind on the biggest question? The Secretary of State will know that more women rely on the state pension than men. Had he even thought about them before rushing to this change? What happens if the savings from scrapping the triple lock are lower than he expects? Will the Government scale back its social care plan or push taxes up even higher? The Conservatives introduced the triple lock to give pensioners dignity in retirement after the humiliation of Labour’s pension rise of 75p a week, and we have backed the triple lock ever since. Unlike working-age adults, most pensioners live on fixed incomes and most are unable to work. If the Prime Minister wants to make savings, he should start with working-age welfare; that is what a Conservative Government would do. We have a plan to save £36 billion from the benefits bill and get Britain working again. But the reality is that with the Budget looming, the Prime Minister has no plan for fixing the country’s finances, and this announcement is simply a distraction from the tax rises that are coming. This is Labour doing what Labour does best—dodging the tough choices, ducking a fight with its welfare-loving Back Benchers, leaving a black hole in its fiscal plans and hammering those who have worked and paid into the system to give more handouts to “Benefits Street”. I am appalled, but frankly I am not surprised. All we have seen on welfare is a Government missing in action without the backbone to do what is right. <span id="201" class="column-number" data-column-number="201"></span>They are clearly not on the side of pensioners or hard-working taxpayers. The question is: whose side are they on?

   Hansard source
2. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

   Rosebank Oil and Gas Field

   We are in a global energy supply crisis, as oil shipments remain stuck; a fifth of global liquefied natural gas supplies have been disrupted by the war in Iran; and across Europe, gas reserves are at record lows as we head into winter. But there is good news: Jackdaw and Rosebank could be producing oil and gas this winter. The bad news is that we have a Government who are either too scared of their green lobby, or too naive about the supply risks that we face, to act. Now that the Holborn and St Pancras by-election is over, and before we get too close to COP, when will the Government finally take our energy security seriously and permit Jackdaw and Rosebank?

   Hansard source
3. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

   Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for securing this debate and for the courage and dignity with which she, and indeed all hon. Members, have spoken. We know that record numbers of young people in England are asking for help, and too many of them are waiting months, if not years, to receive it. In March, nearly a million under-18s had an active referral. We need to do better. Like so many hon. Members, I pay tribute to the families who have turned their grief into action. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) mentioned 3 Dads Walking and the £1.5 million they raised after losing their daughters. I also think of organisations such as Samaritans and YoungMinds, and many other national and local charities. I pay tribute to bereaved families in my constituency, some of whom I have worked closely with. That brings me to Papyrus. Last month, it entered into administration, its HopeLine 24/7 went silent and 120 jobs were lost. A young person in crisis tonight cannot call the line that was built for them. The administrators cited rising demand, higher costs and falling reliable funding, and the Samaritans and Shout have warned of further pressure on charities working in an “extremely challenging financial environment”. The suicide prevention grant fund, which was launched under the previous Government, gave £10 million to 79 organisations between 2023 and 2025. Papyrus was shortlisted for £625,000 from that, and in the previous round it received over £150,000 for HopeLine 24/7. The Government chose not to renew that fund, and said they had no plans for another—I know of no replacement of comparable scale. I suspect that the Minister may point to money for suicide prevention pathfinders in the men’s health strategy, but that is much less than the fund provided, and it is not a helpline. Then there are the costs: since April 2025, charities have faced additional burdens, including increases through employer national insurance contributions. The Government cannot withdraw funds and raise costs, and then express surprise when charities struggle. Colleagues from across the House have previously asked whether the Government would consider if their own evaluation of the fund found that it had worked. I ask the Minister: did that evaluation take place, and what was its outcome? The previous Conservative Government had a record to be proud of: the first Suicide Prevention Minister, the first cross-Government plan in 2019, the five-year strategy, the national suicide surveillance system in 2023 and the Online Safety Act 2023, which requires companies to remove illegal content that encourages suicide and made encouraging self-harm a criminal offence. On 8 September, Ministers reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to a strategy. The call for evidence on the wider mental health strategy closed in July, but we are waiting for an outcome from the Government.<span id="126WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="126WH"></span> Given the time, I will close closer to home. Following the death of a man in Farnham in 2022, my constituent, Mr Clarke Senior, who served in Bosnia, Northern Ireland, the Gulf and Kosovo and lives with disabilities sustained in the line of duty, got involved with the veterans’ charity Legend on the Bench. In December, I will be attending the unveiling of three suicide prevention benches across Farnham, sponsored by the University for the Creative Arts and the Waverley borough and Farnham town councils, with more to follow in Bordon and Haslemere. I say to the Minister that the good will of a community and a bench cannot replace a trained and manned help line, so I have four questions for her. First, will the Government restore a dedicated, 24-hour youth suicide helpline? Secondly, will they review their decision to close the suicide prevention grant fund, publish their evaluation and move from 12-month to multi-year funding? Thirdly, what assessment has been made of the impact of higher national insurance contributions on the sustainability of youth suicide prevention charities? Fourthly, what progress have the Government made on the suicide prevention strategy, will they renew it when it expires in 2028, and will the Minister give firm dates for the mental health strategy? I know that many people watching this debate will be affected by this, and if anyone needs more help, the Samaritans are still available on 116 123. A young person in crisis tonight needs a line to call, and that is what Papyrus gave them. We on this side of the House will continue to support any efforts to improve support and to challenge policies where they fall short.

   Hansard source
4. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Draft Railways (Interoperability in Northern Ireland) (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and also to be across the Floor from the Minister for the second time today. This morning we discussed the coach industry in Westminster Hall, while this afternoon we are discussing an issue that goes to the very nub of our constitutional settlement as a union of nations. As the Government reference in the documents published alongside these regulations, the operation of the railways in Northern Ireland has always been slightly different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. For example, the 1843 compromise with the Board of Trade on a 5 feet 3 inches gauge and the subsequent Railway Regulation (Gauge) Act 1846 set the railways of Northern Ireland on a different technical path. However, despite acknowledging that long history, I wholly recognise the concerns that have been raised, and that I expect will equally be raised today, specifically those relating to how the new regime alters the 2011 regulations that cover the whole of the United Kingdom. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim has already set out in detail, as I am sure he will again later, his concerns about the impact that this could have on Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to divergence within the United Kingdom. In their impact assessment of the proposals, the Government comment that, outside of the Windsor framework, the main advantage of these proposals is that they will “provide more certainty to businesses as to which technical standards and processes apply to rail projects being undertaken in Northern Ireland.” However, what is not clear is why clarity could not be offered under the regulations set out in 2011, even if that must be under a slightly altered regime. Merely because clarity is offered, it does not necessarily mean that the situation is better. I recognise that in response to concerns about the impact, it has been said that the Department for Transport and the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland have agreed a common framework establishing mechanisms for officials to monitor and avoid regulatory divergence impacting the UK internal market. Even though this is the only risk noted, it is not an insubstantial one. Divergence between the two markets could easily put parts of Northern Ireland’s supply chain at risk. While there is a role for European elements, the requirement for UK goods to have an EU declaration of conformity is a further burden which should not be necessary. There is also the broader point that, moving forward, we need to ensure that technology and progress in the rail sector in Northern Ireland is able to work within the framework of its relationships with the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom more widely. I fear that removing so much power without even consulting those affected could begin to create significant discrepancies that will have a significant impact. I appreciate the status of these measures within the framework, but ultimately, we need to ensure that our legislation serves all the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am afraid that these measures simply will not achieve that.

   Hansard source
5. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   UK Coach Industry

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as always, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) on securing the debate, and I agree with her that coaches are unique and vital. The debate has shown that not much divides the House on this topic. The challenge, as ever, is what the Government do with the asks from Members on both sides of the Chamber and how they support the UK coach sector and secure its future. As we have heard, coaches play a critical role in getting people to school, supporting tourism and helping businesses transport people around the country and internationally. The sector has said that just one additional coach every day can deliver £1 million in economic value annually to a destination. On the face of it, that may sound like a rather surprising amount, but when we consider the capacity of a coach and the number of people it can transport, it immediately becomes less surprising. Although the precise number is unclear, we know that there are about 2,500 coach operators in the United Kingdom. It is estimated that 88% are family owned or individually owned, and they employ tens of thousands of people across the country. To give just one example of their contribution, they transport 600,000 children—including one of my own—to school every day. On that note, with the indulgence of the House, I want to briefly thank a wonderful man called Rob, who drove coaches on multiple home-to-school transport routes in Buckinghamshire until the end of last academic year, when he moved on to a local taxi firm. His bright outlook gave real joy to the children he transported each and every day. He would hand-write each of them a Christmas card, and he became famous for the songs that he put on between the bus stops, the pick-up points and school. The children very much miss him as their home-to-school coach driver. We thank him for what he did, and hopefully one day he might return to those routes in Buckinghamshire. As with much of the transport sector, we would be foolish not to recognise the challenges facing the industry, particularly for operators that have not received Government support. With diesel hitting all-time highs, the challenges facing the coach industry are more pronounced than ever. A recent survey by the newly established Coach UK warned that 41% of operators would withdraw from home-to-school contracts and 18% would consider closing down altogether if high prices persist beyond December. Although hope may be a suitable remedy for the Labour party, it does not help with the financial reality faced by businesses across the county. Given the particular challenges for the industry, there is a need to take steps <span id="65WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="65WH"></span>to reduce costs for business, but what message would operators have taken from what the Government said at Labour party conference? The Transport Secretary did not mention the word “fuel” once in her speech, but operators face an increase in fuel duty scheduled to take effect at the start of next year, and another hike in March. The deadline is fast approaching, which is why the Conservatives have called for the Government to provide clarity immediately and freeze fuel duty further. Although Labour Members may think that everything is going right simply because they have a new leader, the reality for coach drivers and operators is different. Given these circumstances, I recognise the coach industry’s call for targeted financial relief this year. I can clearly understand why operators are asking for it, and it should serve as a reminder that the Government’s focus should not be on extracting ever-greater revenues to fund its profligate spending. I recognise the challenge in committing to specific financial support, but ultimately we need to ensure that fuel prices remain affordable and that businesses can continue to operate sustainably. That involves ensuring that fuel duty does not increase and doing what we can as a country to increase the supply of fuel—fossil fuel, advanced sustainable fuels and, in the future, synthetic fuels. Additionally, we must acknowledge the broader energy-related issues that are relevant to this discussion. The consultation outcome on ending the sale of new non-zero emission buses and on the decarbonisation of coaches and minibuses showed that respondents emphasised that coaches have significantly different operating cycles from those of buses used in regular services. For example, coaches may not return to their depots as often as service buses. They may also need to find refuelling locations wherever they operate, and the vehicles may need a range of hundreds of miles. If such measures were introduced, they would place obvious strains on efforts to procure vehicles that meet the standards the Government will ultimately require. The practicalities of operating the vehicles underline the importance of technological neutrality, allowing businesses to buy the vehicles that will enable them to provide the services they know how to deliver effectively. Returning to the example of transporting children to school, we have heard from a variety of operators about the increasing costs resulting from the Government’s increase in national insurance contributions, originally estimated at £800 per driver per year. Those costs create challenges for the provision of transport for disabled people, who may require more bespoke arrangements. Overall, when considering the financial pressures facing the sector, it appears to be another example of treating those on the roads as a means of simply extracting revenue. Although costs such as fuel remain an important consideration, we must also consider the regulations in place. One issue raised by operators in the coach sector, as well as the wider transport industry, is the difficulty of recruiting and training staff, which has come through in this debate. Such skill shortages can rapidly affect the industry if left unchecked, as in the HGV sector a few years ago. That means that we need to ensure that the regulations in place enable people—particularly young people entering the workforce—to develop the skills they need.<span id="66WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="66WH"></span> Providing young people with opportunities to learn and develop at an earlier age would be advantageous. For example, one element that Conservatives have sought to address in our recently released skills package is the removal of the 50-kilometre restriction for fully qualified bus and coach drivers aged 18 to 20. Finding ways to make regulations work better for business while creating opportunities for young people is essential. Furthermore, Conservative plans for a reduction in national insurance contributions for employers of 21 to 24-year-olds could provide opportunities for SMEs to invest in skills and encourage more young people to join the sector at the start of their careers. We do not mind if the Government pick up and run with those proposals. I appreciate that that alone would not be sufficient to solve all the issues facing the industry, but it should inform the approach. The Government have said they acknowledge the role of the coach industry and are committed to supporting it. They could go further, however, by adopting the right approach and asking a simple question: what can Government do to enable those small businesses to operate and grow? Ultimately, the coach industry needs to be able to operate despite the significant costs it faces. It is an industry that typically receives no public funding, relying heavily on small operators working exceptionally hard to run their businesses. We must not forget the people behind those businesses. Any steps that can be taken to make it easier for them to run their businesses should be welcomed. Ideas have been put from all sides of the House this morning. The challenge I put to the Minister is to take them back to the Department and make them a reality.

   Hansard source
6. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   UK Coach Industry

   I want to raise an issue that I appreciate sits more with the Treasury than with the Department for Transport. Since fuel costs increased earlier this year, the Government have taken in over £1 billion in extra unexpected income to the Treasury from VAT on those higher fuel prices. The money is there to support the coach sector, the logistics sector and other sectors that so desperately need it, is it not?

   Hansard source
7. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

   Courts and Tribunals Bill

   I draw the House’s attention to the fact that I am a member of the Bar of England and Wales, and my wife is an employment judge. Notwithstanding some noble and commendable elements, particularly in clauses 12 to 17, in totality, I am afraid that this is a bad Bill. It was a bad Bill when it came before the House on Second Reading; it was a bad Bill when it left Committee; and without significant refinement, it will be a bad piece of law, should it come on to the statute books. This is not the Lord Chancellor’s legislation; he inherited it from his predecessor. It is right to welcome his efforts on the amendment that recognises that clause 3 is unsustainable; it would be churlish not to. He has listened to the legal profession, to this House, and most importantly, to the public, who have raised serious and significant concerns. But I am afraid that the measures do not go far enough. If this Bill is the answer, then the exam question is fundamentally wrong. Nowhere can that be seen more clearly than in clause 6. That is why I am very supportive of amendment 7 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), which seeks to remove clause 6. The clause, as we have heard, merely moves the problem from one part of the system to another. It pushes, on a conservative basis, some 25,000 cases into <span id="276" class="column-number" data-column-number="276"></span>the magistrates court. About 5,500 of those are likely to be trials—and not necessarily straightforward trials; they may take more than a day or two to be heard. We are asking an under-resourced and ill equipped magistrates court to deal with them. That is not the way to deal with the magistrates court backlog, which, in the last year, increased by more than 9.5%.

   Hansard source
8. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

   Courts and Tribunals Bill

   The hon. Gentleman, as always, has his finger on the pulse on these issues. The Government’s proposals would narrow the pool of magistrates able to deal with these cases, by virtue of the time commitments that would be foisted on them. I want to spend a little bit of time on clause 4, which deals with complex and lengthy cases. In essence, through new schedule 3ZA to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the clause confines complex and lengthy cases to fraud or fraud-aligned cases. However, importantly, there is a provision that the Secretary of State can increase the number of offences captured in this provision. The danger is that there will be a slow accretion of such offences. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that misconduct in public office could be added to that list. The provision fails to recognise the very important work done by Jonathan Fisher KC in his independent review. He pointed out that these cases are not held up because of a jury; under the Bill, they would be delayed, because a judge would have to weigh up the evidence, and reach and write up a judgment. The provision also fundamentally undermines the point that facts of dishonesty—the offences in the schedule are offences around dishonesty—are matters for judgment by the ordinary citizen. Removing the jury element risks the erosion of civic ownership of these cases by the criminal justice system, and the criminal justice system’s engagement with them. The provision would also have a chilling effect, in that the powerful narrative can be developed that these cases are being heard behind closed doors. This stems from a single case from 2005, the Jubilee line case. When the case was reviewed, the very sensible conclusion was reached that the issue came down to poor strategy by the CPS in processing the case; the issue was not jury trials themselves. Amendment 4 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle is therefore eminently sensible. If the House is not with me on that, there is an alternative. Amendment 52 by the shadow Justice Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), seeks to limit the scope of this provision to trials where all the offences that a defendant is charged with are captured by new schedule 3ZA. That seems eminently sensible in the circumstances. I want to mention the rule of law. If the rule of law is to be taken into account, we must have an impartial system of adjudication. That means having a fair hearing, which in turn means having the ability to challenge. Therefore, amendment 54 must be right. It must be <span id="277" class="column-number" data-column-number="277"></span>right that in complex or lengthy cases, a defendant has an opportunity to challenge the decision that the case will be heard by a judge sitting alone. I want to spend a few moments on new clause 25. When this Bill was brought before the House, the narrative that we heard from Government repeatedly was that it was being introduced so that we could deal with a backlog in the Crown court. It appears from the Minister’s remarks—she knows that I have enormous respect for her—that it is more of an ideological argument. The question today is whether hon. Members want to do this to deal with a backlog—a specific problem—in which case a sunset clause would be eminently sensible, or whether they are making an ideological argument, which I think is much more chilling on our society.

   Hansard source
9. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

   Youth Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Support

   It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) on securing this debate, and I thank her for all the hard work she does to highlight this crucial area. I have been privileged to work with her on the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention. I could not make this speech without paying tribute to Andy Airey, Mike Palmer and Tim Owen, better known to all of us as 3 Dads Walking. It has been a humbling privilege to work alongside Andy, Mike and Tim, who tragically lost their precious daughters, Sophie, Beth and Emily, to suicide. United by shared grief, they did something so simple yet so powerful: they walked, they talked and, together, they changed the national conversation on suicide prevention, all while raising over £1.5 million for Papyrus. It was therefore devastating that, in the very week of World Suicide Prevention Day, we heard that Papyrus had gone into administration. Papyrus provided a vital lifeline to young people. There are three excellent charities providing support in this area: Samaritans; Shout, with its crisis text service; and Chasing the Stigma, which provides the Hub of Hope mental health support directory. But with the loss of Papyrus, we have a huge gap. The three dads showed us that prevention and signposting are a critical layer that helps us to address mental health and suicide. I remind the Minister that there is so much work to do across society, and prevention and signposting have to be at the forefront alongside treatment and intervention when crisis occurs. That will help save lives. I urge the Government to act.

   Hansard source
10. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Warm Homes Plan: Implementation

    In January this year, the former Energy Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box and with great fanfare announced £15 billion for the warm homes plan, so I have a very simple question: can the Minister provide a guarantee today that every penny of that commitment remains intact? Yes or no?

    Hansard source
11. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Falkland Islands

    The Minister was asked specifically about what the Foreign Secretary had signed off, so will she confirm who granted consent under the Offshore Minerals Ordinance 1994? What does she say to the people of Aberdeen who have been told that they cannot drill in order to protect against global climate change, while 8,000 miles away we can drill? That is incongruent and does not make sense.

    Hansard source
12. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Iran: Threats to British Interests

    When the Iranians risked the lives of armed forces personnel by attacking RAF Akrotiri earlier this year, Labour Members took great pleasure in mocking the Leader of Opposition for suggesting that a direct attack required a direct response. Does this latest episode not prove that when we do not respond with force, our enemies are encouraged to come at us yet again?

    Hansard source
13. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    It is a pleasure to take part in the further consideration of the Courts and Tribunals Bill as we reach Report stage. Not for the first time with this ministerial team, this Justice Secretary and this Prime Minister, what we were told was necessary has turned out to be unnecessary, what we were told was impossible is now possible, and what we were told was unavoidable was avoidable after all. This Minister told us again and again on Second Reading and throughout the Committee that each and every one of the measures in this Bill—each and every part of their proposals—was the only way to get on top of the court backlogs. But apparently not, because only days ago the Justice Secretary appeared on national television to announce a significant U-turn: the Government are dropping clause 3. We were told that their new division of judge-only trials was the only way the Crown court backlog could be brought down—that it could not be brought down without it. Yet now Ministers inform us that removing this very provision will actually allow the work to proceed faster. The Opposition welcome this decision. I welcome the fact that the Justice Secretary put his name to our amendment removing clause 3, but how we got here matters. It is not the first time that this ministerial team and this Justice Secretary have let their Back Benchers defend the indefensible and then drop them in it. This same ministerial team and this same Justice Secretary told us that the release of various serious sexual and violent offenders was an absolute necessity, that they had no choice other than to put victims through the distress and upset over the summer. And then they did have a choice. Why does this matter? Most of the time in politics in this place we are debating choices—which choice we should make as MPs and as different parties, weighing up the pros and cons of the options—but sometimes Ministers attempt to cut through that to secure the support of MPs by saying that they have no choice. When MPs resist and tell them their concerns over what the Government are proposing, Ministers have a fundamental duty to this House and to their own Back-Bench colleagues in particular. That duty is to test to destruction the proposition that there is no choice. Only the Ministers have the army of civil servants, the data, the costings and the honest advice. When a Minister tells their own MPs that they have no choice, surely it must mean exactly that. That is how they secure the support of their Back-Bench colleagues. These Ministers have failed in that duty and have failed their colleagues. Ministerial credibility is a precious resource <span id="253" class="column-number" data-column-number="253"></span>and this Minister has exhausted hers. If clause 3 was never truly required to tackle court delays, we must ask: what other assertions made by this Front-Bench team are equally unfounded? How can they expect their propositions of “no choice” to be accepted in future, and not just in future but on this very Bill before us today? We must also be clear that, despite the headlines surrounding this partial retreat, the core damaging framework of the Bill remains almost entirely intact. The Government continue to press ahead with clause 1, which completely strips adult defendants charged with triable either way offences of their historic right to elect for a jury trial. At the same time, clause 6 doubles magistrates’ maximum sentencing powers up to 24 months. That means complex, high-stake cases—including sexual assault, actual bodily harm and burglary—will be retained in summary courts, exposing defendants to two-year prison sentences without ever having access to a jury. Clause 7 and schedule 2 dismantle the automatic right of appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown court. Instead of a full rehearing before a judge and lay magistrates, wrongly convicted individuals will face a restrictive permission barrier on written papers alone. It should be clear that, taken together, we are still facing a fundamental attack on the existing rights to a jury trial. The provisions still represent a sweeping contraction of access to jury trial and summary justice safeguards. The opposition from legal professions, victims groups and civil liberties organisations remains as firm today as it was on Second Reading.

    Hansard source
14. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    What we are talking about is where we draw the ledger. I do not think the hon. Member is suggesting that we should have everything done by magistrates. Why not have everything done by magistrates? If it is fundamentally unfair to allow people to have a jury trial, why not let everything be done by magistrates? Then the victims do not have a say on whether it is a jury trial. The point we are clear about is that this is an unprecedented erosion of that right. It was not in the Government’s manifesto, it was until recently largely opposed by very large numbers of their own MPs, and it is based on a premise of necessity that I am afraid is paper thin. Ministers turned around and said that these were things that they had to do to get the backlog down. It turns out that they did not have to do that.

    Hansard source
15. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I listened closely to the words that the hon. Member used: she talked about “perpetrators”. We heard the word again and again from Labour Members in Committee. May I remind her that defendants are not guilty until found guilty, and that this erosion of rights affects innocent people, too? Labour Members repeatedly forget that. Being accused does not make you a perpetrator. I ask the hon. Member to think about that carefully.

    Hansard source
16. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    The hon. Gentleman is right. As I pointed out at the start, and as Labour Members have highlighted, it is not just people concerned about defendants who have raised concerns about the proposals; victims have as well. Victims groups wrote an extensive letter to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, asking them to think twice about the erosion of jury trials. Any criticism that Members make of me will, I am afraid, also have to be levelled at the victims who do not agree with them. Victims are not all of one voice on this issue, and we should respect that, instead of assuming that every victim agrees with Labour Members, which they do not. The erosions under the proposals are significant. This Government, in which trust is so low, also seek for themselves an extraordinary power to do what they set out to do in clause 3 through the back door, via clause 4, in which they are not only introducing judge-only trials in the Crown court for what they describe as lengthy and complex cases, but giving themselves the power to add to the list of eligible cases through order alone, bypassing the fullest scrutiny of Parliament. That is quite extraordinary from a Government who, when in opposition, concerned themselves greatly with the proper use of delegated legislation. The Opposition remain as concerned as everybody else about the Crown court backlog. We know that victims and innocent defendants are suffering as a result of it, but so much of the Bill will not help, and may make matters worse. That is the reality. I notice that the Minister was happy to repeatedly say in Committee that opposing the measures does not suggest not having concern for victims; I hope that she sticks to that line during the rest of the debate, and I would encourage all of her colleagues to listen to the words that she said. Being concerned about the erosion of jury trial rights does not in any way mean that we do not care about victims, and I hope that the Minister repeats that later. I was able to visit the Supreme Court yesterday, and I encourage any Members mulling this over to head to the exhibition space and take a look at the replica of Magna Carta. They should read for themselves the words illuminated on the wall: at its heart, the highest and best form of justice is justice delivered by your peers. That brings me to the position of Labour Members. Prior to this partial U-turn, dozens of Labour Back <span id="255" class="column-number" data-column-number="255"></span>Benchers, including 37 MPs who signed a public letter, expressed deep opposition to the Bill’s proposals to curtail jury trials. They rightly described the stripping of jury rights as “madness” that “will cause more problems than it solves”. Labour Members spoke forcefully about the unique value of the jury, yet today, following the removal of just one clause—just one element of this damaging Bill—the Government expect those same Members to walk through the Lobby in support of it. I ask those Members: what has actually changed? Clause 1 still abolishes the right of an ordinary citizen to elect for jury trial. Clause 6 still pushes serious cases into summary courts, where backlogs are already surging, and clause 7 still cuts off automatic appeals. If removing the right to elect a jury trial in either-way cases was wrong before, it remains wrong today. Dropping one element of a bad package does not make the remaining elements good law. In Committee, Opposition Members and Labour Back Benchers put forward a series of modest, constructive amendments designed to insert basic safeguards into the Bill, and the Government rejected every single one. We tabled amendments to preserve a natural justice exception, ensuring that where a defendant could demonstrate that a summary-only trial would result in a clear breach of natural justice, a jury trial would remain available. The Ministers defeated those amendments. We pressed the Government on the severe misalignment in legal aid—a defendant in a Crown court benefits from higher legal aid eligibility thresholds—but the Government rejected those amendments. Everything we sought to do to protect natural justice and lessen the impact of the Bill was blocked.

    Hansard source
17. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    The hon. Lady asked what we did to preserve the right to trial by jury. We brought the backlog in the Crown court down from the level we inherited from the previous Labour Government. Prior to the pandemic, our record on the Crown court backlog was better than the previous Labour Government’s, which is something that Labour Members all conveniently seem to forget.

    Hansard source
18. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    My right hon. Friend is right on both points. As he was speaking, the Justice Secretary said from a sedentary position that he removed that clause. Perhaps he does not understand his own Bill. You are retaining judge-only trials for complex and lengthy cases, and retaining the power to use delegated legislation to allow judges alone to sit on those cases. Exactly the sort of scenario that my right hon. Friend was describing would be produced. Magistrates have a degree of confidence and community support that is in proportion to the use of their powers. If we significantly increase the use of their powers, the pressure on magistrates, and scrutiny of them, is also likely to increase. Picking up on that point, I want to make sure—

    Hansard source
19. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    Lucky you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take that point. The schedule 1 powers that I have talked about are a significant Henry VIII power. Under proposed statutory instrument powers, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State will have the authority to add further categories of offences to schedule 1 by secondary legislation. I am not aware of any time before in this place when the Secretary of State could use secondary legislation to erode and remove the right to a jury trial from a particular defendant. That is completely unprecedented and indefensible. The Conservatives do not merely criticise this bad package of legislation; we have repeatedly sought to put forward practical, evidence-based alternatives that tackle the delays without taking a sledgehammer to our constitutional rights. The Government must fix the operational failures that currently waste thousands of court hours every year. Last year, between 23% and 26% of Crown court trials were ineffective. Rather than stripping citizens of jury trial rights, the Minister should be focused instead on failures in prisoner transport, which result in hundreds of trials being derailed, simply because defendants are late to the dock. The Government must keep all existing courtrooms open and fully funded, and must use new artificial intelligence tools for disclosure and listing, and they must expand live-link video participation. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Ministers on the Front Bench chunter that they are already doing that. If that is the case, why is the Crown court backlog going up? They are clearly not succeeding with the measures that they are bringing forward, and a number of things are getting worse. We must improve case management and incentivise earlier case resolution, instead of forcing complex cases into the overburdened summary courts, where there are backlogs too. Extraordinarily, the Minister claimed that there was no backlog in the magistrates courts. I do not know how she decides what is or is not a backlog. Cases going up by 10% in one year is a backlog by any <span id="257" class="column-number" data-column-number="257"></span>measure. I visited Liverpool Crown court, where the wait for trial is roughly half the length of the wait for trial in other parts of the country. The Government should replicate the proactive case management model successfully pioneered in courts like Liverpool, Preston and Cardiff, where active Crown Prosecution Service case ownership and early trial-readiness reviews have driven down backlogs. Our sunset clause draws attention to the true motivations of this Government. If the Government sincerely feel that these measures are a necessity to bring the backlog down, as they have argued repeatedly to their Back Benchers, our clause is quite clear that when the backlog is down to the pre-covid average for a period of four quarters, these damaging, rights-eroding measures should be withdrawn. I do not expect that the Government will support that proposal today, because fundamentally they do not have the same faith that we do in the importance and value of a jury trial. The Government’s partial U-turn demonstrates that sustained scrutiny can force a rethink, but a partial U-turn is not enough. The central flaws of the Bill remain: the abolition of the right to elect trial by jury, the risky expansion of summary jurisdiction, the restriction of appeal rights and the creation of secondary powers to expand juryless trials. We should not erode centuries of procedural safeguards to achieve marginal administrative speed gains. I urge hon. Members across the House, and especially those who have previously spoken out against these measures, to stand by their previous words, to stand by their principles, and to reject these remaining clauses tonight.

    Hansard source
20. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    As I said in my opening speech, a number of women’s victims rights groups were the leading critics of getting rid of jury trials. We cannot make out that victims have a singular view on this and that they are happy with it. There are different opinions among victims groups, and many of them agree with the hon. Gentleman.

    Hansard source
21. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    As my hon. Friend points out, the impact assessment says that this particular measure, on its own, will not make any difference to the harm done to children, but we absolutely recognise that the checklist as a whole, and the way that it works, does need to be reformed. We think a more wholesale reform of the checklist is more appropriate than just attracting interest in one particular element of it.

    Hansard source
22. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Iran: Threats to British Interests

    The regime is using every opportunity to reach deep into our communities and society. Even charities in this country are at risk. The Charity Commission has embarked on an investigation into the extent to which the regime, particularly the IRGC, is percolating into the sector. What assessment has the Minister made of whether Iran has got itself involved in British charities? If he believes that it has, how will he expunge that particular malignancy?

    Hansard source
23. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Pensions Triple Lock

    When the triple lock was introduced by the coalition Government, many of us were surprised that the British basic state pension was bumping along the bottom of the European average. The aim was that it would improve over time, so that it would be at the top—as befits a country like the UK. Is it the Secretary of State’s judgment that by April 2030 we will have reached that point or not?

    Hansard source
24. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Falkland Islands

    Is it any surprise that President Milei cited the United Nations convention on the law of the sea annex VII in defence of his claim in relation to the sea lion field, when this Government are using article 298 to defend their position in relation to the Chagos islands? On the subject of UNCLOS, will the Minister use its strictures regarding freedom of navigation to ensure any thoughts that Argentina might have of frustrating the upcoming sea route between Punta Arenas and Stanley are given short shrift?

    Hansard source
25. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

    May I say how much I appreciated the joint letter that the Secretary of State and the Defence Secretary sent to colleagues, which I think has pacified a lot of our concerns? However, what he is describing is a wholesale filleting of the legislation. Will he comment on why the legislation was initially drafted in this way and apologise to those servicemen, many of whom are now in their 70s, who have been deeply troubled by the fear that they will be a victim of the 3 o’clock knock?

    Hansard source
26. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Douglas Lumsden

    Rosebank Oil and Gas Field

    Producing our own oil and gas means that we will import less dirtier hydrocarbons, so it is common sense to use our own resources, but while Labour dithers on approving Rosebank and Jackdaw, thousands of my constituents in Aberdeen South are losing their jobs. Will the Minister set out a timetable for deciding whether Rosebank and Jackdaw can proceed?

    Hansard source
27. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Douglas Lumsden

    Falkland Islands

    This question has been asked already, but I am still unclear about the process of consenting new drilling at the Falklands. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government have a role in consenting new drilling in the Falklands—yes or no?

    Hansard source
28. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Bone and Joint Health

    It is a real pleasure to lead this evening’s debate during Bone and Joint Week, raising awareness of an issue that affects millions of people, but receives nowhere near the attention it deserves. I start by thanking Arthritis UK and the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance, known as ARMA, for their work raising awareness of these conditions, for the information they have provided ahead of this debate and for the parliamentary event they put on today. Musculoskeletal conditions or MSK conditions affect our bones and joints and the muscles and tissues that hold them together. They include arthritis, osteoporosis, chronic back pain and joint injuries. For some, these conditions are manageable. For others, they are utterly debilitating, leaving people struggling to walk, to work or to carry out basic everyday tasks. More than 20 million people in the UK live with an MSK condition. Some 10 million have arthritis, including an estimated 15,000 people in my constituency. Such conditions are the single biggest cause of pain and disability in this country, accounting for around one in seven GP consultations, yet I fear that we underestimate their seriousness, perhaps because they are rarely immediately life-threatening. While they may not kill people, however, they can slowly rob them of their mobility, independence, ability to work and quality of life. I want to explain why this issue matters to me personally. Six years ago this month, my life changed significantly, although I did not know it at the time. It is something that I have avoided talking about publicly, and if I am honest, I have struggled to accept it. However, I believe we should draw on personal experience in this place, particularly when it might help improve our country. In October 2020, I was an extremely fit and physically robust former regular Royal Marine with multiple operational tours behind me. I was also competing at the highest level of wingsuit skydiving as a member of the Team GB squad. I can see Members thinking that those activities and MSK injuries are natural bedfellows, and they are probably right, but nothing prepared me for the debilitating consequences of what happened that October. On a grey and windy day in Devon, I decided to go parachuting, which was a near weekly occurrence. As a reservist member of the Royal Navy parachute display team, I needed to keep current for the following season. I had completed around 700 jumps, and I was not frightened—this was like any other day—but I had something far more dangerous: complacency. The winds were strong and the parachute centre had restricted jumping to experienced parachutists only. I was practising precision landings and convinced myself that it would be good training. I also chose to wear trainers, rather than my usual military boots that provided ankle support. The plane took off and we climbed to 15,000 feet. The green light came on and I jumped. Everything went to plan until the landing. Rather than landing in the middle of a muddy field away from obstacles, I decided to land closer to where I would be <span id="342" class="column-number" data-column-number="342"></span>picked up. It was a lazy decision, and it was a stupid one. As I approached the ground, gusting winds caught my parachute, lifted me and slammed me into the side of an aircraft hangar. My left foot took the initial impact, before the rest of my body smashed into the building. My parachute went over the roof, leaving me dangling from the hangar. Fortunately, I remained conscious, managed to release my harness and fell the remaining 5 feet or so to the ground. I remember lying there in shock, checking everything was still attached. Then came the searing pain in my left ankle. My wife came and picked me up and drove me straight to accident and emergency. After examinations and scans, I was told that I had suffered a severe sprain. I was advised to get the ankle moving and seek physiotherapy, because timely NHS support was unlikely to be available. Having had little experience of the NHS, I trusted that advice. Over the following months I worked hard at rehabilitation. Gradually, I regained strength, but I remained in considerable pain. I took the classic Royal Marine approach: crack on and hope it gets better. Having served alongside men who lost limbs in Afghanistan, I considered myself lucky, and I certainly was not going to complain about a sore ankle, but six months later, something was clearly wrong. My physiotherapist recommended an MRI scan, which I paid for privately—again, I was advised that the NHS process would take too long—and, when the results came back, I had to catch my breath: my ankle had been broken the entire time. The fracture had been missed at A&amp;E and I had spent six months rehabilitating an injury that had never been properly diagnosed. I was advised to see a private consultant—again, because of the time it would take to access specialist help through the NHS. This is where I was incredibly fortunate. By complete chance, the consultant whom I went to see happened to be ex-forces himself. Having discussed my injury and background, he suggested that I see him through his NHS practice, where he could continue to oversee my treatment, and I am enormously grateful to him for doing so. After months of uncertainty, pain and frustration, I finally felt that someone understood the problem and could help me to work out what came next. I want to make an important point here: my experience has left me deeply frustrated with parts of the NHS and particularly with the difficulties in accessing timely diagnosis and treatment, but it has also shown me that there are some outstanding people working within it who go above and beyond for their patients.

    Hansard source
29. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Bone and Joint Health

    I will come on to the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but he is completely right. We must look at these problems in the round, because this is an issue of not just physical but mental health. People who were once fit lose that fitness, both physically and mentally, and then they become a bigger burden on the state. Let me return to the subject of the surgeon who helped me out. I have been fortunate to benefit from that care, but I recognise that I was lucky. At the time, I had the means to access private treatment, and through that process happened to find a consultant who could help me back into the NHS system. That should not be a matter of luck, and it certainly should not depend on someone’s ability to pay. Six years on, despite the excellent care that I now receive, I am left with osteoarthritis that can, at times, be severely debilitating. I can no longer run. I avoid activities that cause my arthritis to flare up, and I face the prospect of eventually having the bones in my ankle surgically fused. For the first few years I held on to the hope that I would recover and return to the active life that I once had, but I have now accepted that it is likely that I will not. That is difficult when physical fitness and independence have been such an important part of one’s life. At times, it has been an incredibly lonely journey. My current NHS consultant gives me hope that advances in medical technology may offer better options, but because I limp, other bones and joints are now beginning to suffer. I know that I am likely to place increasing demands on the NHS in the decades ahead. My experience has shown me a health service that can be brilliant at dealing with life-threatening emergencies, but pretty poor when it comes to conditions considered less serious, even when they fundamentally change someone’s life. I was fortunate enough to be able to afford private care, but millions of people cannot. They are left waiting, living with pain and sometimes watching manageable conditions develop into lifelong disabilities. That brings me to the wider purpose of this debate. People living with musculoskeletal conditions are about one and a half times more likely to experience mental health problems, and I understand why. When pain becomes part of everyday life and you can no longer do the things that you enjoy, it takes a toll. However, there is another dimension that we must urgently address in the House: the economic cost of doing nothing. In 2024 alone, 26.5 million working days were lost to musculoskeletal conditions. Arthritis UK estimates that working days lost to osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis cost £2.58 billion in 2017, with the figure projected to reach £3.43 billion by 2030. About 646,000 working-age people claiming sickness or disability benefits cite a musculoskeletal condition as their primary reason. I am not suggesting that they can all return to work, or that every disability is preventable, but I do believe that too many people deteriorate when early intervention might have kept them healthy, independent and economically active.<span id="344" class="column-number" data-column-number="344"></span> Let us consider someone working in construction, hospitality or healthcare. They develop a back problem or knee injury but cannot access timely treatment, so they carry on through the pain. Eventually, they cannot carry on. They fall out of work, their health deteriorates and they become increasingly dependent on public services. The taxpayer potentially picks up the bill several times over through NHS treatment, welfare payments and lost tax revenue, and the individual pays an even greater price. We focus too much on the immediate cost of treatment, without considering the potentially much greater cost of failing to treat someone early. Surely that is economically illiterate. If timely physiotherapy, imaging or specialist intervention can prevent lifelong disability or someone losing their job, we should see it as an investment, not simply another NHS cost. However, it is not all doom and gloom, and there is reason for optimism. In my constituency, the Royal Devon University healthcare NHS foundation trust held its first MSK community appointment day in Exmouth. More than 100 people attended, accessing clinical assessments, rehabilitation advice and community support together. Patients particularly valued being listened to, and early results suggested fewer unnecessary follow-ups. One pilot does not provide all the answers, but it does show what can happen when services are organised differently and patients receive joined-up support. That brings me to my questions for the Minister. First, where is the national leadership on MSK health? The previous Government recognised MSK as one of six major conditions in their major conditions strategy, yet we have not received a firm commitment that the current Government will develop a dedicated modern service framework. Will the Minister commit to establishing such a framework, with clear accountability and measurable outcomes? Will the Minister also commit to a national approach, with clear responsibility and measurable outcomes, and meet the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance to discuss it? I thank the shadow Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), for tabling an amendment to the recent Health Bill that calls for just such a framework. Secondly, what more can be done to improve early diagnosis and timely access to rehabilitation to prevent avoidable deterioration while patients wait? Thirdly, will the Government work across the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Treasury to properly assess the economic case for early intervention? Lastly, as a veteran, I want to raise veteran issues. MSK injuries are a major reason for medical discharge from the armed forces, and their consequences can follow people long after they leave service. Will the Minister work with Defence colleagues to improve access to rehabilitation for veterans, and examine whether the armed forces covenant properly addresses their long-term MSK needs? It cannot make sense for any one part of Government to save money by delaying treatment, only for another part to spend considerably more in dealing with the consequences. I will finish where I began. Six years ago, I was able to soldier. I could run for miles, jump out of aircraft and represent my country in sports. Today, I have to think about every physical activity and the associated cost in pain. I do not share that to seek sympathy; I share it <span id="345" class="column-number" data-column-number="345"></span>because I understand how profoundly an MSK condition can alter someone’s life. Millions of people across this country are living with far worse circumstances than mine.

    Hansard source
30. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Mundell

    Topical Questions

    Can the Secretary of State assure me that those people who are off-grid—they are prevalent in my constituency—are at the heart of the Government’s thinking with regard to energy support? While I welcome regulation on heating oil, which has spiralled in price, it is not clear that regulation alone will bring down prices. Therefore, if the Chancellor is to give energy support, can off-grid be part of that?

    Hansard source
31. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

    With the Prime Minister sitting next to him, I hope that it will not influence the future of the Secretary of State when I tell the House that he and I are very long-standing friends and even occasional allies. He has obviously done all he can to mitigate what is a morally flawed Bill. A year after the Government introduced this Bill, the central question remains unanswered: how will it deliver justice without subjecting soldiers who served lawfully and honourably to endless punitive investigation? My judgment has not changed since October’s debate, nor April’s. The Bill was sold as a defence of human rights and the rule of law. I yield to no one in this House on human rights and defence of the rule of law, but this is not that. Instead, it is morally bankrupt and makes a mockery of both. If this Bill was really about human rights and justice, the first coroner’s inquest would not be about whether the killings at Loughgall were unlawful; it would instead be about one of the 1,800 murders carried out by the IRA, every single one of which was unlawful. The Government, unfortunately, have prioritised their relationship with Dublin over their duties to their own veteran soldiers. Ireland will undoubtedly come to regret its own role in this Bill. Scrutiny of its actions during the troubles will show that it was never the impartial party it tries to present itself as now, but instead a partisan and a criminal insurgency. The Irish Government provided active sanctuary for IRA terrorists, and justice cannot mean relentless scrutiny for British soldiers but selective scrutiny for the Irish Government. They must accept the scrutiny of themselves that they demand of others, and we might start with an independent review of their role in the Omagh bombing, which we have heard something of today.<span id="334" class="column-number" data-column-number="334"></span> I am afraid that this is a nation much of whose politics is hostile to Britain—we should not avoid that fact. Britain must not sacrifice its soldiers for an illusory diplomatic advantage. This vexatious use of lawfare is designed with one intent: to re-present the behaviour of IRA killers—vicious, psychopathic murderers—as somehow liberators and heroes, by destroying the reputations of our own soldiers. The Government must not pursue this course. The Government must drop this evil Bill and start again.

    Hansard source
32. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the rush to fit my speech into three minutes, I omitted to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, some of which has direct relevance to Northern Ireland legislation. I do so now.

    Hansard source
33. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Dame Karen Bradley

    Topical Questions

    There is a great deal of concern in Staffordshire Moorlands about the Peak Cluster proposal, which would take carbon from four cement plants in the Peak district and pipe it into Morecambe bay. While I am not opposed to carbon capture, many residents are extraordinarily concerned about the impact this will have on them. Will the Secretary of State look carefully at this project and see whether there are alternatives, to ensure that we can keep our cement industry in the United Kingdom without perhaps destroying our environment in the Peak district?

    Hansard source
34. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Prisoner Early Release Scheme

    I must take umbrage at the idea that the last Government were too slow to react. HMP Millsike, in my constituency, was given planning approval in September 2019, but it took six years to build, and according to the latest figures it still has 344 empty cells. Should the Minister not be moving heaven and earth to ensure that we fill every available cell, rather than releasing dangerous criminals back on to our streets?

    Hansard source
35. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
36. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    Order. That is the third time that I have heard the shadow Minister say “you”. It is not my legislation.

    Hansard source
37. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    Order. Can I just emphasise to Members that votes will come at 6 o’clock, which leaves us very little time, and inevitably not all Members will get in? I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
38. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    Order. We must refer to other Members by their constituencies. Oh, he is not a Member any more—apologies!

    Hansard source
39. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

    Hansard source
40. 13 Oct 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Courts and Tribunals Bill

    Order. I will be introducing a five-minute time limit after the next speaker.

    Hansard source