Jack Rankin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is the tension that I am trying to bring out. Who would seek to frustrate such an agenda—the Lords might, in their current form. I find it exciting—and this is a warning—that a majority in this House, gained from 33.7% of the vote on a 59.7% turnout, which is almost exactly 20% of the adults in this country, can remove their opposition from the other place. Labour Members may not agree with the hereditary principle, but who else does not get elected in the other place and cannot be removed by elections? It is the life peers. I say honestly, the lack of respect you might have for a millennia-old principle, I have for a lot of the backgrounds—

• 3 Sept 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q12. Like many, I was deeply concerned that a police force deemed it necessary to take five armed officers to arrest a comedy writer from a flight. Some may have found Mr Linehan’s comments offensive, but that is not the point. If we do not support speech that we do not like, we do not support free speech. Will the Prime Minister commit to reviewing our speech laws to ensure that legitimate free expression is protected and will he condemn the culture within the public sector that prioritises this dangerous and perverse nonsense?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is through our veterans that our collective memory of the second world war is best preserved, but as their bright flame is flickering it is important that a new generation—my generation—commits to re-telling their stories. As a schoolboy, one of the pieces of work that has stuck with me the most was the “man behind the name” project, because it is impossible to think of the 5 million British young men—25% of adult men—who fought in the first world war; that is 55 full Wembley stadiums. The “man behind the name” project was so powerful, with the general point being, “Go and pick a name on your local cenotaph.” For me, that was the one I passed on the way to Mrs Wood’s history lesson at West Hill school. We were told, “Choose a name and research that man, because when you learn about that young man—where he was born, his sweetheart, his job, his kids, not too dissimilar in age to yourself—you realise that it is not an abstract number, but 5 million young men with their own lives. It hits home.” The man behind the name for me was Benjamin Ford, my great-great-grandfather. He died in Mesopotamia fighting the Ottomans. What struck me particularly was that I heard a lot about the western front but little to nothing about this other front where men like Benjamin died for King and country. It rather strikes me that the Pacific front in the second world war is often similarly overlooked. Today’s debate is important for highlighting those men who fought and died in the far east, particularly those fighting after VE Day had passed. Just this weekend I was speaking to Theresa Haggart, a former local headmistress and stalwart of Windsor civic society, about her father, the late Charles Snelling; I want to take this opportunity to highlight the man behind that name. He passed in August 2016, aged 92. He came from a family with a proud tradition of national service. In the first world war, he was a regimental sergeant-major as part of the Canadian imperial forces, and in the second world war he was a radar engineer and operator. He spent time hopping from ship to ship, making repairs to essential equipment, and, like 365,000 other British troops, found himself thousands of miles away in the Pacific. Unable to share his precise location with his family, he sketched drawings of the local culture and the people he met on blank postcards, which he sent to his parents, letting them know he was okay. Charles did not discuss his service, although he did feel that while VE Day commemorations continued to draw national attention, VJ Day came and went almost as an afterthought. I gently say to Ministers that this sometimes feels to be the case on the 80th anniversary—and that is regrettable. Victory over Japan marked the true end of the conflict, and no less was the sacrifice of those who gave their lives there, so let us all in this House play our part so that these stories, as they come down from generation to generation—

• 11 Jul 2025 · Colne Valley Regional Park: Protection · Hansard source

  More

  The proposals for a third runway at Heathrow would take 900 acres of the regional park directly, not to mention the indirect consequences, including Colnbrook and Horton in my constituency, which would be irreparable. Does my hon. Friend condemn the Chancellor pressing the panic button and inflicting this irreversible damage on the Colne Valley park?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. We all know that there is a difference between welfare cuts and welfare reforms. These cuts were the maths of Treasury mandarins. It is the same thinking that saw winter fuel payments taken from pensioners. Now that the Government have U-turned on both of those, when will they finally back British farming and U-turn on the family farm tax?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Glastonbury Festival: BBC Coverage · Hansard source

  More

  Had those chants called for the deaths of people of any other nationality or ethnicity, there is no question in my mind that the live feed would have been pulled straightaway. I welcome the Secretary of State’s robust statement, but does she agree that this problem is systemic, and that there has been a decades-long, deep-rooted bias against Israel at the corporation, which seems unwilling to deal with it, or incapable of doing so?

• 24 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We welcome the provisions in clause 11, which relate to extending the time period in which the unduly lenient sentence scheme may be applied for. However, as the official Opposition, we still have concerns that the window of opportunity for victims to raise an appeal remains the same. The scheme can only be referred to for some of the most serious crimes—crimes that are likely to leave victims and their families with a degree of trauma or grief. How can we possibly expect that, within just a month of a sentence being issued, gathering together a clear, strong case for a sentence’s being unduly lenient would be on the minds of victims? We also know that many victims do not know about the scheme, or the opportunity to appeal. Baroness Newlove said that victims “really do not know” about it. She said: “Once they leave the courtroom, it can take a long time, but the clock is ticking.” — [ Official Report, Victims and Courts Public Bill Committee, 17 June 2025; c. 8, Q15.] During the oral evidence session, many notable sources raised issues with the current timeframe. Dame Nicole Jacobs, Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales, described the current system as “disorienting” and said that “we need to do so much more to put in place solid advice and support for victims. Those 28 days seem to fly in the face of that.” –– [ Official Report, Victims and Courts Public Bill Committee, 17 June 2025; c. 9, Q15.] Extending the window of opportunity will also surely allow a greater base of evidence from previous cases to be compiled, to bolster a referral under the scheme. It is only right that we allow victims, and the organisations supporting them, the time and space to make their case as strong as possible, ensuring that everything is laid on the table for the Attorney General to consider. Let us place victims and families at the heart of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, where they should be.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Just to pick up on this point, as well as tabling the extension to 56 days, the Opposition have also taken up the point that the witnesses mentioned about awareness. With amendment 12, we are trying to create an obligation for the Crown Prosecution Service to write to victims within 10 working days. Will that assuage your concerns that the main concern is awareness, rather than the timeframe?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q As the official Opposition, we have tabled an amendment to increase the force with which the justice system can compel the convicted to come to their sentencing hearings. We are particularly keen to make sure there is a duty to consult the victim or their family, where the victim is deceased. Is that something you would support? Mark Brooks: Yes, in principle. I come back to my point about the importance of making sure victims feel that justice is being done, as well as seeing it being done.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Am I out of time, Dr Murrison?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q To pick up on this theme, Assistant Chief Constable, the police show all the time that it is possible to move and restrain people legally, do they not? Genna Telfer: Yes.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q So how is this different? Genna Telfer: It is not; it is exactly the same, but we do not move them easily. If someone does not want to be moved, there is a risk to the people moving them, as well as a risk to the individual. Obviously, we train and we do a lot of work to make sure that that injury is limited, but people do get injured when we try to move someone forcefully, on both sides.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q A quick question: would you support the publication of sentencing remarks to support transparency, and to enable victims to reflect on what was said in court? Sarah Hammond: Ultimately, that is a matter for the Government. There is clearly an argument for victims to be able to see that justice has been done. It will also potentially help with appeals for unduly lenient sentences if victims are able to access the sentencing remarks, so they can see the basis upon which the sentence has been passed.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I was just going to offer the panel the opportunity to say whether there is anything not in the Bill that they would like to see included.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Yes—sorry. That is why in the amendment we have suggested that victims need to be consulted about what would happen. Obviously that would be a risk, but that should be the victim’s choice. That should not be for the establishment—the criminal justice system or politicians. We should actively say, “This is the potential risk of this. Do you want that to happen?” They should be the people at the heart of our conversation, should they not? Genna Telfer: I think they should be at the heart of the conversation, but I do not think they should be the decision maker. If you have someone who is so violent that it presents a risk, effectively making other people victims—prison officers or whoever—there should be a decision either by the Prison Service or by the judge that, “This is too risky to do, and it is going to cause more problems than it is going to solve.” I accept that we would want to consult the victim and put them at the heart of it, but I do not think they should be the decision maker in that case. Clare Moody: I absolutely echo the point that Genna has made. It is one thing saying that this might be the outcome, and that it depends how the outcome is displayed in terms of what that could look like in a courtroom, but there could be the danger of retraumatising victims if this becomes all about the disruption in the courtroom at the point of sentencing. I think there are real problems with that. Genna Telfer: I do not disagree with the principle of it. I just think it would be very difficult to do.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q The focus of what we are trying to do in this amendment is to put the victims at the heart of it. The police and crime commissioner talked about this potentially turning into—I do not think you used the word “farce”, so I do not want to put that— Clare Moody: I did not, no. I talked about making a spectacle of it.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a question for Baroness Newlove, in the first instance. I understand that there are new measures in the Bill that allow you to look into individual cases for the first time. Is that something you broadly welcome, and how do you envisage that working? Baroness Newlove: I broadly welcome it, with a bit of a caveat, as I am the victims’ champion. Currently, I have to explain to every victim who writes in that I cannot get involved in individual cases under the statute. That is not to say that I do not pass on the information to Ministers and ask them to help and support. I am very concerned about how we may class victims under two tiers, and that is what we have to look at—it will not be me, but the future Victims’ Commissioner. I receive hundreds of letters, even in the House of Lords, and I am trying to separate them using three criteria. First, does the correspondence highlight a gap in the policy? That is about a victim’s right to a review, and if it is not right, I raise it with the Minister or the Attorney General. Secondly, does the correspondence highlight a failure to deliver in line with policy? I see cases that seemingly meet the ASB case review threshold, but the local authority has added further obstacles, which does not help. Thirdly, and finally, does the correspondence highlight policy that perverts outcomes for victims? By that, I mean that the court orders compensation, which is deducted from criminal injuries compensation—that is another debate that I will not go into. In some cases—or in the majority of cases, if we are perfectly honest—the victim waits years, because it is a drip feed. If we are looking at funding, there is over £1 billion outstanding in unpaid fines and compensation. I would like the courts to act and get the money off the offender so that it goes to victims, who have to wait too long. Those are the criteria I am looking at. It will take a while, but it is paramount that the Victims’ Commissioner sets guidelines. I hear that line, “Does not look at individual cases”, but my correspondents think I can, and it really hurts me when I have to say that I cannot as Victims’ Commissioner—it is all the jargon and waffle that we do. I ensure that victims truly understand that I will signpost their correspondence to the people in charge. I will show them, and they will get transparency in that way.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Antisemitism on University Campuses · Hansard source

  More

  What StandWithUs UK sets out in its report into antisemitism and support for terrorism at British universities is a source of national shame. It is high time that we heeded the stipulation in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition that so-called anti-Zionism is nothing less that anti-Jewish racism. I urge the Secretary of State to reiterate that crucial point and ask whether she will commit to enacting the report’s important recommendations, including introducing a framework of escalating financial penalties for universities that fail to safeguard their Jewish students from such hateful intolerance and extremism.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Antisemitism on University Campuses · Hansard source

  More

  1. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of StandWithUs UK’s “Voice of Students 2024/25” report on antisemitism on university campuses.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Nuclear Power · Hansard source

  More

  Wales has incredible potential for the next generation of nuclear, but Labour’s announcement yesterday is a fraction of what is needed. Green baseload power that stabilises our grid enhances power generation, as it has done before in Anglesey. Will the Minister give a clearer answer today to confirm that Wales will be a key part of new nuclear, building on Conservative work supporting Welsh nuclear, or will this be another failure to deliver for these communities under Labour?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Nuclear Power · Hansard source

  More

  7. What discussions she has had with the Welsh Government on the future of nuclear power in Wales.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. Research from Centrica, which is headquartered on my patch, shows that Hive has saved domestic customers half a billion pounds on their energy bills since its inception. Does the Secretary of State agree that smart data, which gives consumers the ability to control their energy use without the need for top-down bans, taxes and mandates, should be a key plank of the warm homes plan?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I broadly support unitarisation on a strategic scale, but I am concerned about how historic debts will be treated in Surrey, especially those of Woking and Spelthorne councils. How will those debts be handled as our councils come together, and will the Minister assure my constituents in Virginia Water and Englefield Green, in the well-run borough of Runnymede, that they will not foot the bill for this as part of the reorganisation?

• 14 May 2025 · Gaza: UK Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his clarity that genocide is a legal test of whether a crime has been committed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”. That is exactly what the Hamas terrorist group state in their foundational charter: the intent to destroy Israel and Jews worldwide, as they actively sought to do on 7 October. If they wanted to end the war, Hamas would release the 58 hostages they continue to hold. How is the Minister supporting our friend and ally, the democracy Israel, in its fight against this genocidal terrorist group?

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I start by paying a small tribute to the Government because just last week they passed secondary legislation, albeit made possible by the Conservatives’ groundbreaking Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, that will mean more resilient crops, further food choices and enhanced food security. Although it might pain some of them, Labour Members have to admit they are making some use of the hard-won Brexit freedoms secured by the Conservatives. Why would we give them away? The example I have used might seem somewhat niche, but this is exactly what a modern industrial strategy focused on technology, productivity and the future looks like, and in doing this, we have a head start on the continent, which is now fumbling to produce regulation of its own in this area. We should be going further still. Gene editing has the power to reduce the impact of animal disease and stop pandemics in their tracks. Researchers at Imperial College London and the Roslin Institute, Edinburgh, are now close to making breakthroughs on bird flu-resistant poultry using gene editing. The Government must introduce secondary legislation for farmed animals, as they have done for plants. I visited Imperial’s Silwood campus in my constituency. The students there are doing incredible things. When they make breakthroughs, our regulatory framework should allow us to nimbly make use of them, but there is a very real risk that with next week’s reset the Government could kill the progress with the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement they are negotiating. Companies at the forefront of the agricultural industry have raised concerns about this reset, and I know that my colleagues, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the all-party group on science and technology in agriculture have done the same. This is a rare—and much needed as those on the Government Benches hammer our farmers—competitive unique selling point for British agriculture. Reports suggest that this Government will make concessions on SPS to give them more bartering power on other issues, setting a precedent for the wider agricultural relationship with the EU, bending over backwards for an establishment that the British people voted to reject. We would also be signing up to rules we have no power to influence. There were good reasons to leave the EU and good reasons to stay in the EU, and reasonable people could and did disagree, but there is no good reason to leave and opt into rules over which we have no say. That is the worst of both worlds. Under Switzerland’s agreement with the EU, it must align with almost all the EU’s food safety demands and replicate any further regulatory changes made in the future. That agreement may well be in the best interests of the Swiss but it would not work for Britain. Every time we want to diverge in a way that could benefit the British people, we would have to supplicate to those in Brussels once again. Carve-outs are possible, but we all know what tends to happen when the Prime Minister negotiates. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. A reset deal with a deep SPS agreement would be short-sighted, perhaps offering a quick boost in the near term but taking the wind from the sails of longer term, game-changing investment that is starting to flow in. We need to maintain a competitive advantage to supercharge investment in areas like the Thames valley, where we have a world-leading life sciences sector. So I warn the Government not to chain Britain to the economic anchor of the EU and the dead hand of its precautionary principle regulators, especially when last week’s secondary legislation on precision breeding is such a clear example of what regulatory autonomy for an innovative UK could do for us.