Alex McIntyre MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have some experience in this, having changed my practice when I was a solicitor from being a banking lawyer to being an employment lawyer. It takes time to build up a level of expertise, and if I were to return from this place to being a solicitor, it would take me some time to re-educate myself and get up to speed with developments in the law to be able to practise again. I accept the shadow Minister’s point that there are some barristers who change their specialty as often as MPs change their parliamentary constituencies—

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This morning, we heard a passionate and important contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington about monitoring the proposals’ impact on minority communities. She has tabled an amendment so that we can discuss that question, and I look forward to debating it. Although I understand what the Minister is saying about jury equity, can she assure the Committee that the Government are committed to reviewing it in the light of my hon. Friend’s argument?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As a former solicitor, I appreciate the hon. Member’s commitment to being paid at an hourly rate, given the speed of his contribution his afternoon. One of the points the Secretary of State made in support of this measure at the Dispatch Box was that the changing nature of our criminal justice system and the added demand that will flow through the system in the future, added to the increasing complexity of cases, mean that jury trials are taking longer through the very nature of the additional evidence that is being gathered. That means that even if the immediate backlog is brought under control, there will still be a need for system reform in the long term, because otherwise we will not be able to keep it under control in perpetuity. Why does the hon. Member disagree with that?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to correct the record. This morning, I understood the Conservative party position to be that we are not allowed to call them victims at that point.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is giving a rather elongated speech this afternoon, which we are all enjoying. On the subject of the Criminal Bar Association, I seem to recall it rallying against the removal of the ancient right of double jeopardy, which it said would deny people a fair trial and ruin our criminal justice system. I am pretty sure his party was in favour of that removal back in the noughties. Those predictions have not transpired; it actually led to justice, for example, for Stephen Lawrence. Does he agree that the CBA may be wrong in some of its views?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  And parties, which seems to be happening at an increasing rate on the Opposition Benches. Does the shadow Minister not agree that, at the very least, it will take time for those barristers to reskill, retrain and update their knowledge to be able to take on those cases, and that therefore the premise that the Minister is putting forward is the right one?

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  For too long, parents and carers in Gloucester have had to fight a broken system that was not delivering the best chance in life for their children. This Government inherited a SEND system that did not include parents and carers in the conversation, did not value their children and had led to a complete breakdown of trust between families and the system that was meant to support them. I am pleased that this Government have made fixing that system a top priority. As Gloucester’s MP, I have always believed that every child in my city deserves the best start in life, and I hope that these reforms will restore trust in the system and ensure that every child with SEND gets the support they deserve. When I talk to constituents about SEND, I often hear the same reflection: the previous Government never listened to them, did not include them in those discussions and did not take them seriously. I know that Ministers have been clear that these reforms had to be done with parents and carers and families, and I am really pleased to see that they have made good on that promise and continue to do so; I hope that they will continue that approach through the latest consultation. In my city of Gloucester, I have been listening to parents and carers too. I have met dozens of parents in my surgeries, I ran a community consultation so that families could say what they wanted to see in the White Paper, and I hosted a brilliant parents and carers roundtable in the city centre. From that, I was pleased to produce my “SEND in Gloucester” report, which I presented to the Minister earlier this year. Residents made several recommendations in that report, and an important one was for there to be more support early on. Parents and carers felt that they often spotted the signs of additional need early, but it took years for any formal support to be introduced. Often the support would only come at a crisis point, when early intervention could have prevented the crisis in the first place. I also visited Dingley’s Promise early years centre in Coney Hill, which shows the benefits of early intervention and the importance of targeted support at the early years level. I am pleased that the Government have listened to the recommendations of Gloucester residents on early intervention by putting more money into early years as part of these reforms. Another key takeaway from the report was a lack of funding and capacity for school special educational needs co-ordinators. Parents and carers repeatedly highlighted that many SENCOs are working tirelessly but are fighting the broken system. They felt that making SENCOs full time, providing high levels of specialist training and giving them a more senior role in schools could have a big impact. If I could make one ask of the Minister today, it would be to consider extending the Government’s commitment to providing the best possible school experience for children with SEND by providing for a full-time, fully qualified SENCO in every Gloucester school. Finally, I have spoken to many residents since these reforms were announced. While the reaction has been mostly positive, I know that concerns remain in communities across my city, particularly among those families whose children are receiving an EOTAS package. I understand that, and I will continue to raise their voices with Ministers. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some reassurance today. I want to again underline the importance of this moment. We must give our schools and teachers the resources they need to deliver for our children, we must rebuild trust with families who have been so badly let down in the past, and we must get these reforms right so that every child with SEND can have the best chance in life.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you, Chair. I have had the privilege of listening to all of you speak before; thank you very much for being here. I think you were all here when Sir Brian Leveson was giving evidence earlier. He said that the only way to tackle delays was to do all three: reform, investment and modernisation. As victim-survivors, how would you feel if the Government adopted the Opposition’s proposal, which is to only do two of those three things and leave one on the table that might speed up the delays in the criminal justice system? Do you think the Government would be going far enough if they left options on the table?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you for the amazing work you do for victims—it is a shame that respect is not being afforded across this room today. Victims are at the centre of this, and we should try to remember that in the debate. To bring it back to victims—you referred to this, Claire—the Bill makes changes to the bad character evidence. Can you go into a bit more detail on what that is like from a victim’s perspective to have to go through a line of questioning about bad character evidence? Why is it so important that we are changing it? Claire Waxman: These are important safeguards that need come in to better protect victims during the cross-examination process. I have to say that most victims I speak to who have gone through the cross-examination process—and this is not just rape victims—describe it as “brutal”. That is their word, not mine. They feel that it is often an experience to try to undermine their credibility at every point. We have seen the use of past sexual behaviour or past sexual allegations to somehow undermine credibility. We have also seen it with compensation: as I said, it is a right under the victims code to be told about compensation, yet victims trying to access compensation is being weaponised and used as a way to undermine credibility. Many victims feel like they are the ones on trial, and they are being scrutinised. Putting in these important safeguards will help to improve that experience, so that they do not feel like they are under attack. As I say, you are going to hear from victims shortly, one of whom has gone through that very experience, and I urge you all to listen to them. That is really important, because they are the ones with lived experience—they are living and breathing this delayed criminal justice system. Delays are not the only issue for victims; it is also about the treatment that they experience throughout the criminal justice system. Both need to be dealt with to really reduce victim attrition and improve victim satisfaction.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Should we remove it at the Court of Appeal stage as well? Is that APPEAL’s position? Emma Torr: No, that is not APPEAL’s position.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q If that was the case for Andrew, why not? You are making the point that this would create unfairness, but you have just said that there is unfairness at the Court of Appeal stage, so why is it not your position to remove it at that stage as well? Emma Torr: We are dealing with two different sets of processes. You are talking about the magistrates court, where there is more risk of miscarriages of justice happening by the very nature of the system—by who is hearing and who is presenting the case, as I said before. But perhaps the most important thing in magistrates court is unrepresented defendants. Around 50% of people in magistrates court do not have access to legal advice, either for their trial or to help them with their appeal, so it is important that you have the automatic right to appeal.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Just as a general ballpark figure— Riel Karmy-Jones: It is less, yes.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q In a case where somebody makes that appeal and says, “I was not advised and there was evidence that was not considered. I think there was a miscarriage of justice here,” are you saying that you have no faith that our Crown court judges would deal with that? We are not saying that a person cannot appeal, but there would be a check on that, for cases where they have no legitimate grounds—I am sure that you see such cases. We are introducing a transcript of the magistrates court as well, so that people can understand the decisions. Would that not lead to an informed process? Do you have no faith in the Crown court judges to make that decision? Emma Torr: It is not about faith in the Crown court judges. APPEAL receives hundreds of letters from people asking for our assistance. In the majority of those cases, they cannot necessarily articulate, in their letter or communications to us, what has gone wrong. They might be concerned about things that have happened during the trial process, but they cannot articulate what could amount to grounds of appeal. It takes a lot of care by us to look at the case, understand what has gone wrong and analyse it before we can decide whether we can draw out grounds of appeal. You would be asking judges to do exactly that; not just to read the application and dismiss it because they have not been able to identify compelling grounds of appeal. Will the judge look at the digital case system, will they review evidence of witnesses or will they simply look at a short transcript? A lot of care needs to go into that analysis to formulate what could be compelling grounds, and giving that job to Crown court judges will increase the workload.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I will come on to my substantive question then, because I have not got much time. You said that we should not remove the right to elect, as juries act as a safeguard against prejudice, but 90% of cases are already heard without a jury. I suggest that those cases have no safeguards against prejudice. Building on that, we know that a number of the more serious cases in the magistrates courts are dealt with by a district judge sitting alone. Is the position of the Criminal Bar Association that those should be replaced by full jury trials? Riel Karmy-Jones: We are not suggesting replacing district judges with full jury trials. What we are saying is: do not lose jury trials for those more important, more serious cases in the Crown court.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I will ask a quick question for clarification before I ask my substantive question. Ms Karmy-Jones, thank you, but I am a simple employment solicitor, so apologies, but for full transparency, will you confirm something? According to the Institute for Government, barristers may be reluctant to replace Crown court cases with magistrates court cases because they pay less. Will you confirm to the Committee that your members would get less in fees for magistrate cases than in a Crown court case? Riel Karmy-Jones: It depends what we are talking about—

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q We only have 30 seconds. Where would you draw the line? If someone says, “I’ve stolen a bottle of whisky to protest against Tesco,” would they be included in the cases you are talking about? Tim Crosland: If they argued that they acted in the public interest, then potentially, yes, but drawing that line—

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q A quick question: building on the Minister’s questions, where would you draw the line on this? You mentioned the criminal damage cases, and I can understand your argument there, but theft is an either-way offence. Let us say that somebody nicks a bottle of whisky from Tesco and says, “Actually, I’m protesting against the excessive profits of the supermarket giants.” Does that fall into the narrow set of cases you were talking about? Do they not expand out?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Emma and Fiona, my questions are directed at you, and I will bring them together, even though they are on slightly different subjects. Emma, I am glad you raised the case of Andrew Malkinson, which was obviously a shocking miscarriage of justice. It is important to note that he had a jury trial at the Crown court, and there was a right to appeal. There is a process that needs to be followed to go to the Court of Appeal, where somebody considers the grounds and whether a person has that right. I assume that it is not APPEAL’s position to removal of that process. Earlier, we heard evidence from victims who supported the change to the right to appeal against a magistrates court decision to include a review from a judge, on the basis that a number of victims drop out of the process because they fear being retraumatised by a system that is not designed to support them. How do you balance that with your position that there needs to be checks and balances? Do you not agree that, by having a judge look at it, we are not refusing a right of appeal but merely qualifying it first? Fiona, JUSTICE has said that the magistrates are ill-equipped to enable the reforms, and you have made that point again today, but the Magistrates’ Association, which is not here to give evidence today, has said that magistrates are ready and willing to play their part. Why does your assessment differ from that of the magistrates themselves? Fiona Rutherford: We already know that the numbers are not where they need to be, given the number of magistrates required to do the huge amount of work that would be placed into their hands. Equally, we have not heard yet —maybe there are plans on this—how magistrates will be better trained to be able to cope with the greater complexity of cases that they will necessarily hear. I have talked about the disproportionality of magistrates in terms of socioeconomic grouping; that is absolutely critical when it comes to public trust. There is a final point, but it has escaped me, so I will let Emma come in on this and I might come back to you. Emma Torr: That was a good question, on which I would like to make two points. The case of Andrew Malkinson is a good example to consider when talking about these changes. Of course, there was a victim in that case, who was certain that the right person had gone to prison, but we know that Andrew Malkinson spent 17 years in prison for something that he did not do. When he appealed at the time, a judge looked at his appeal at the Court of Appeal; twice he went to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and twice his case was turned down. That is an example of where a judge has looked at the appeal, but would not give him—

• 18 Mar 2026 · Student Loans · Hansard source

  More

  Labour Members have asked Conservative Members repeatedly if they can name a course or an institution that they would cut. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) had to make up a course in David Beckham studies—as far as I understand, that never existed—to make the point. Does the hon. Gentleman have a real course in mind, or are his made up as well?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Student Loans · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about how, when the Opposition say they are going to cut funding for certain courses, they really mean that those courses will be available for wealthier students who can afford to pay for them without a Government subsidy. Does he agree that that will lead to a decrease in students from working-class backgrounds being able to access arts degrees?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Student Loans · Hansard source

  More

  Gloucester has a number of grammar schools and they are doing very well for the students there. I went to a grammar school—[Hon. Members: “Oh!] I went to a state school, and my parents worked really hard to get me there. If Members want to talk about my background, where I came from and how I got to this place, I am very happy to do that. It was quite different from the background of a lot of people on the Conservative Benches. I am proud to stand here, as the son of a train conductor, talking about opportunities for young people in my constituency who have been left behind for generations, written off and, quite frankly, talked down to by the Conservatives, who talk about making sure that the arts are only for the wealthiest who can afford to go to university and not be spread out, as if education is not actually a benefit to everyone in society and should only be in the purview of those who can afford to pay for it. It is disgraceful, it is taking us back generations and, quite frankly, I am sick to death of hearing about it. Politics is the language of priorities. As I have said, there are undoubtedly challenges with this system, but the Conservatives left behind so many messes after 14 failed years in government that we cannot fix them all in the first five years of a Labour Government. We are going to need at least a decade. We said that in the manifesto. We talked about a decade of national renewal, and we are committed to that because we cannot afford to fix all the messes that you left behind straight away because you left the economy in a mess as well— [ Interruption. ] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. They left the economy in a mess—you had nothing to do with it. I would say to the Minister, as a parent and as someone who is on plan 2 and has spoken to lots of my residents, that if there is money available and if there is an opportunity, we need to look at the expansion of free childcare. We are talking about priorities and how we can support young people at the moment, and the 30 hours of funded childcare is very welcome, but it does not cover the cost of childcare for people who are working full time throughout the year, not just in term time. That is preventing young people from starting their families and getting on, and this could be a really good opportunity if there was money available. This is about priorities and about how we can support young people. I welcome what the Government are doing, but if I were to give them a gentle nudge in any direction, I would encourage them to look again at what we can do to expand the offering of free childcare. I am not going to take lectures from the Conservatives on young people. They had no plan for young people during their 14 years. They did not care about young people like me when they were in government. Quite frankly, they wrote me off and I had to fight my way to get here today— [ Interruption. ] Yes, I did go to a grammar school and I am proud of that. I did quite well for myself, but my parents sacrificed a lot for me to get here, so I am not going to take lectures from the Conservatives on that. This Government are fixing the mess that they left behind. Of course there are challenges in the system, but I welcome the measures that the Government have taken so far, and long may that continue.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Student Loans · Hansard source

  More

  It was not in the manifesto.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Student Loans · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as I am a former student with a plan 2 loan. I became a student during the first year that plan 2 loans were introduced. I remind hon. Members that I had a very tough Saturday job when I was growing up, in case anyone is shocked that I am indeed young enough to be a plan 2 student. Frankly, I am shocked at the brass neck of Conservative Members. When I was at school, I remember having conversations with other working-class kids like me who were thinking about going to university—I was the first in my family—who were being put off because the Conservatives had put up the fees from £3,000 to £9,000. There was no consideration then for what young people were going through. There was no plan for young people, and certainly not for young people like me, who grew up in communities like the ones that I grew up in, with parents who never had the opportunities that all the Conservative Members at that time had got for free.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Student Loans · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman will be pleased that I am coming to exactly that point later in my speech. Of course there are challenges with this system. There were challenges with it back when it was introduced in 2012. We pointed out the fact that there are huge generational inequalities: there are hon. Members present in the Chamber who did not pay tuition fees at all and had lower house prices when they graduated, so they could afford to buy a house. Those challenges continue, and part of the reason that I got into politics was to deal with those intergenerational inequalities. We all talk about broken promises, but what happened to the promise about levelling up? In my mind, levelling up was about creating more opportunities for young people in places like mine in Gloucester, but those opportunities were never delivered by the Conservatives. I want what is best for young people and for the university sector in my constituency. I am delighted to be able to take this opportunity to welcome the brand new university campus that the University of Gloucestershire has opened in the city centre, taking over the Debenhams building and creating a new campus for students, with a public library, so that young people in Gloucester can see what that opportunity looks like going forward. We need to ensure that we are creating opportunities for all young people, because despite the move towards more people going to university, only a third of people in Gloucestershire will go to university, and in the most deprived parts of my constituency, that number is fewer than one in five. That is why I am proud that the Government are introducing maintenance grants, and why I am backing the new target of two thirds of young people going to university or doing gold-standard apprenticeships, because university might not be the best route for everybody. Generations of young people in my community were left behind by the Conservatives, who had no plan in Government for young people in my constituency.