Jeremy Wright MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 May 2025 · Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. We will need to move to Front-Bench speeches at just before 10.30 am, so if colleagues can keep their speeches to around three minutes, we might get everybody in.

• 13 May 2025 · Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his brevity, as I am sure is Brian Mathew.

• 13 May 2025 · Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds, I observe that interventions are getting progressively longer. If those who want to speak are going to be able to speak, we will have to have shorter interventions.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “different personal characteristics of an offender” and insert “an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort.”

• 30 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I take on board the Minister’s warning, and I am not sure whether this will make it any better. I think he is saying that the term demographic cohort is a subset of personal characteristics, but personal characteristics are not the same as personal circumstances. Is that right?

• 30 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is worthwhile at the outset of all debates on this Bill to restate that it is about pre-sentence reports that give information to sentencers that may be used in sentencing decisions, not about the passing of sentences themselves. Specifically, the Bill is about the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council to sentencers about the circumstances in which a pre-sentence report should normally be asked for, and about the sort of information about an offender which such a report may provide and which may be appropriate to consider and take into account before deciding on an appropriate sentence in that offender’s case. There has been broad agreement—I see the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), in her place, so I will not say unanimity—that an offender’s ethnicity, race, culture or faith are on their own not that sort of information and that the Sentencing Council was wrong to suggest that pre-sentence reports should be awarded on that basis. I would argue that is because, even if there may be points to make about the treatment or experience of members of the ethnic, faith or cultural group to which the offender in question happens to belong, what is relevant to the sentencing of that offender can only be the treatment or experience to which the particular offender has themselves been subject, not whether they have arisen in the cases of other members of the same group who are not before the court. That is effectively the impact of amendment 4 in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). That is why the Government are right to seek to exclude even from the process of asking for a pre-sentence report—let alone from passing sentence itself—the making of decisions based only on membership of such a group. That is after all what the Government have said this Bill is for. These groups are described in the explanatory notes to the Bill as “particular demographic cohorts”. Paragraph 8 says, “The Bill is intended to ensure that Sentencing Guidelines are drafted in such a way as to prevent differential treatment and maintain equality before the law. It does this by preventing the creation of a presumption regarding whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort, rather than the particular circumstances of that individual.” Despite that explanation in the explanatory notes, the Bill goes further than that by prohibiting the Sentencing Council from including in a sentencing guideline any “provision framed by reference to different personal characteristics of an offender.” That is what clause 1(2) says in inserting language into the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. I think that language is significantly wider in impact than reference to membership of particular demographic cohorts—undesirably so, in my view. That is why I have tabled amendment 1, which would adopt the language used in the explanatory notes. Let me explain why I think that would be preferable. My starting point is that I do not believe all personal characteristics are inappropriate to consider in a sentencing decision. There is, of course, much more to be considered in a sentencing decision than simply information about the offender, particularly the seriousness of the offence and its consequences, but relevant information about the offender is needed as part of the process. It surely cannot be right, then, to prohibit the Sentencing Council from encouraging sentencers to find out more about some of the personal characteristics that are relevant in reaching a more informed and therefore better sentencing decision—for example, a physical or learning difficulty, or a brain injury from which an offender will not recover. The relevance of that information is not just in forming a fuller picture of the offender to be sentenced, but in assisting a sentencer to know whether that offender is capable of carrying out aspects of a community order, including work in the community, which the sentencer may want to consider as a potential sentencing option. It is worth underlining of course that the ordering of a pre-sentence report—whatever it says when it is produced—does not bind the hands of a sentencer to do as it recommends, but in reality, without one a sentencer’s options are often more limited. That is why guidance on when to ask for a pre-sentence report matters.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think—in gratitude to all those who have spoken—that we have got to a place where the Minister has told the House that there is some territory, which at the moment is being described as “personal characteristics”, into which the sentencing guidelines may not trespass. That is not the same as specifically referring to someone’s personal circumstances, and is a broader area than the question of whether they are a member of a particular demographic group.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I accept that the Minister is trying to give us clarity, so for the purposes of clarity is it the Government’s view that all personal characteristics can also be described as personal circumstances?

• 30 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I think the right hon. Lady is right that that is what the sentencing guidelines were aiming at, but I am afraid that the way in which they were phrased rather missed the mark, in my view. It is perfectly true to say that it is a good thing in most sentencing cases to get as much information as possible, but the sentencing guidelines have, as she will appreciate, particular influence on sentencers, who are obliged to follow them unless doing so is not in the interests of justice. The tone that is set by the Sentencing Council in the guidelines that it drafts gives a good indication to sentencers about the sorts of things that they ought to take into account in sentencing. As she heard me say—I think this is an important point to make—we are talking about the ordering of pre-sentence reports and not about sentencing itself.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a fair point in relation to offenders who hover on the border between community sentences and custodial sentences, but he will know that, in the Crown court at least, the majority of such offenders already have a pre-sentence report. Of course, there are also offenders who come before the courts for sentencing and it is blindingly obvious either that a custodial sentence will follow, or that neither a community sentence nor a custodial sentence is realistically in prospect, so I do not think it right to say that we should have a pre-sentence report in every case, but there is already in law a presumption that pre-sentence reports should be ordered unless it is unnecessary to do so. What we are seeking to do here is respond to a very specific set of circumstances that have arisen as a result of a Sentencing Council decision. As he may have heard me say on Second Reading, I do not think that the Sentencing Council handled this well, and as a result we are having to do something that we would otherwise not have to do. Sentencing offenders is, in all circumstances, a difficult business. The fact that different offenders receive different sentences, even for the same offence, is not necessarily evidence of a defect in sentencing practice as a result of guidelines or otherwise, but is more likely a reflection of the reality that every case and every offender is different. We should not, I suggest, try to stop judges reaching the appropriate conclusion, assisted by Sentencing Council guidelines, in each case before them.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Irish Republican Alleged Incitement · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the Minister will agree that part of the service that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) has done the House today is that he has given us all the opportunity to make a point that really should not need making, namely that incitement to violence against Members of Parliament is no more acceptable than incitement to violence against any other member of our society. The Minister is entirely right to be cautious about prejudicing an investigation into whether the criminal law has been broken, but does he agree that what we can and should say today is that artistic licence is not a defence to a breach of the criminal law?

• 24 Apr 2025 · EU Trading Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for keeping to below two and a half minutes. However, not everybody has, so I am afraid we are going to have to go to sub two and a half minutes each if we are to get everybody in. I am loath to impose a formal time limit, so I ask colleagues to be as disciplined as they can.

• 24 Apr 2025 · EU Trading Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  I reassure hon. Members that the clock is not correct—the hon. Lady was not talking for seven minutes.

• 24 Apr 2025 · EU Trading Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  I call the Minister. He has until 4.55 pm if he wants it, but if he is feeling generous, he may want to leave the Member in charge a couple of minutes to wind up.

• 24 Apr 2025 · EU Trading Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but we are out of time. I thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate.

• 24 Apr 2025 · EU Trading Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all Back-Bench colleagues for their co-operation, which is very much appreciated. We move on to the Front-Bench spokesmen, beginning with the Liberal Democrats.

• 24 Apr 2025 · EU Trading Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  Order. It will not have escaped anybody’s notice that this is a popular debate, so I remind all Members to continue to stand if they want to be called. The debate can run no later than 4.55 pm, which gives you about two and a half minutes each. I ask you to exercise some discipline, and we will get in as many Members as we can.

• 24 Apr 2025 · EU Trading Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  I will call the Front Benchers at 4.25 pm, so discipline will be required if everyone is going to get in.

• 24 Apr 2025 · EU Trading Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Ideally, the hon. Gentleman would not sit there because there is no microphone and we are not picking him up. I am sure the hon. Lady heard him and can respond.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is important in this debate to be clear what we are talking about and what we are not. The part of the guideline produced by the Sentencing Council that led to this legislation relates to the circumstances in which a pre-sentence report is produced, not to the passing of a sentence itself. It is also important not to overstate the problem. As we have heard, there is already law that says there should be a pre-sentence report in almost all cases, unless it is unnecessary, and most offenders being considered for either a community or custodial sentence—in the Crown court, at least—already have one. The guidance that the Sentencing Council produces on the ordering of a pre-sentence report, though, does matter. That is because such a report is designed to give sentencers more information about the person they are sentencing. Without that information, it can be very hard to apply the full range of sentencing options. That might be about whether a rehabilitation activity requirement or a programme requirement might be appropriate, or to assess capacity for unpaid work. If a sentencer does not order a pre-sentence report for a particular offender, they may not be able to impose some of the more demanding community sentences and may find themselves more likely to impose a custodial sentence as the only available and realistic alternative. It does matter whether a sentencer is being encouraged to order such a report for an offender, and any guideline suggesting that this should be more appropriate for someone of one ethnicity, faith or culture, as opposed to another, cannot be right. I accept that the Sentencing Council was trying to do good, but in reality we do not address inequality by replacing it with a different inequality. The Sentencing Council has misjudged this issue, and the Government are entitled to come to that view too. It would have been better if legislation was not needed to resolve this issue, but the Sentencing Council, independent as we know it is, has clearly concluded that it will not do as the Lord Chancellor has asked, and that means that legislation is the only realistic alternative. However, I have concerns about the way in which the Government are going about this, particularly in the breadth of the drafting of the Bill. I mentioned in an intervention on the Lord Chancellor one specific concern, which I will not go over again in view of the time, but which we might return to in the later stages of the Bill. I think it is worth Ministers considering whether the use of the phrase “personal characteristics” is too broad. The Chair of the Justice Committee read out some of the other personal characteristics referred to in the draft guideline, which I do not think are anywhere near as controversial. We need to keep in mind that this is about a process in which a sentencer is given information about an offender in order to determine the appropriate sentence. I do not think that information about faith or ethnic origin would fall into the appropriate category, but information about health conditions or disabilities most certainly might. There is a danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater: not all personal characteristics should be left out of account in sentencing. I therefore ask Ministers to consider whether they can tighten the wording of clause 1(2) and (3) in particular. If they do so, I think that will avoid some rather arcane discussions about what can be properly described as personal circumstances and personal characteristics. However, I also think there is a danger of losing sight of the good work that the Sentencing Council does. I accept that this will not be a universally popular point of view, but I do think that the Sentencing Council adds something important to the sentencing process. It is important that we do not lose sight of that, or of the fact that the guideline that has been drafted is to replace substantially out-of-date guidance. I hope that point will also be noted by Ministers.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Lord Chancellor has just given us, very helpfully, the list of matters that might be relevantly considered in a pre-sentence report. As she has said, however, one of the items on that list is “personal circumstances”, and that is what the Bill will remove from the Sentencing Council’s discretion. May I ask her why she has not used in the Bill the language that is included in the explanatory notes? Paragraph 8 states that the Bill will “prevent differential treatment… It does this by preventing the creation of a presumption regarding whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort”. That strikes me as a much narrower exclusion, and perhaps one better targeted at the problem that the Lord Chancellor has, in my view, rightly identified.

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State is taking extremely extensive powers for the Government, and they apply to what he describes in the Bill as “specified assets”. As far as I can see, they are not limited to blast furnaces or assets required for making virgin steel. Does he accept that he is leaving two hands on the tiller, when it comes to the operation of all the steelmaking companies to which the Bill may apply? In other words, he is saying that the Government can direct a company in relation to specified assets, but that company can do other things of its own initiative. Does he recognise that he is creating considerable legal complexity in the operation of those companies going forward? Why is that the right approach?

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can accept that there is broad agreement in this place that we should take action to preserve virgin steelmaking capability in the UK, but quite frankly, it is not enough for this House just to agree that we should do something. It is our responsibility to look at the detail of what the Government are proposing and to decide whether it is properly targeted and appropriate for the task. There is not going to be a Committee stage or a Report stage in this Bill; that is what the clock tells us. This is our only opportunity to look at the detail of the Bill, and I am afraid that precious little of that has been done today. Let us have a look at what powers the Secretary of State is going to be given—by the end of today, as things will probably unfold. The Secretary of State will have powers that apply to all steel manufacturers in England and Wales, not just to the particular company over which he has specific concern. There will no doubt be shivers running down the spine at Tata Steel as well, because the Bill applies to that company too. The Secretary of State can act, according to this Bill, in order to instruct those companies to deal in specific ways with what are described as “specified assets”. As I mentioned to him earlier, that does not limit the measure to blast furnaces or to anything else that is specifically required to generate virgin steel. The Secretary of State can give directions to ask and require a company to do pretty much anything that company could otherwise do, and if the company refuses to do it, the Government have powers to take control of assets, including powers to enter premises by force if necessary, and criminal penalties that can lead to imprisonment. These are very serious powers indeed, and I am afraid that this House is simply not being given the opportunity to scrutinise them as they require. They also look suspiciously, by the way, like nationalisation—so perhaps it would be easier to call this thing what it really is. Let me address one or two specifics before I finish. I hope that the Secretary of State, for whom I have huge respect, will think about—I think he has and will—some of the problems that this legislation will throw up. First, there is highly likely to be considerable controversy over whether a company in question is complying with a Government instruction. A company is likely to argue that point. As the Secretary of State pointed out, in respect of his particular concern we are dealing with a company that he does not trust and that he believes has acted in bad faith thus far. I have no reason to think, nor does the Secretary of State, that the company might not continue to do so. Secondly, the Secretary of State is making himself responsible for claims against the company that arise from specific instructions given to it by the Government. That is what the indemnity clause means. In those circumstances, there will be a further dispute about whether the relevant problem has arisen because of what the Government have told the company to do or because of something it has control over. As I said, the Secretary of State is enabling there to be two hands on the tiller, and that will store up headaches for the Government. I urge him, despite the fact that we have not had the chance to explore the matter today, to think very carefully about how the Government will protect themselves and the taxpayer from the oncoming complexities.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Tackling Child Sexual Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the Minister will join me in paying tribute to child sexual abuse specialist prosecutors, who deploy their considerable expertise to put together cases that can be based on complex and—as we have heard—very distressing evidence. Will the Minister make sure that a fair share of resources reach those prosecutors? She will recognise that just as the public expect child sexual abuse to be detected, they also expect it to be effectively prosecuted.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome what I think the Secretary of State has announced about smaller luxury vehicle manufacturers such as Aston Martin, which is based in my constituency. I say “I think” because her statement says that “small…manufacturers will be exempt from these new measures.” I would be grateful if she clarified whether that refers to the existing mandate of measures, because she knows that that is what the smaller manufacturers in question have been lobbying to be exempted from, rather than the loosening she has announced today. If she can confirm that, and she is relying on an argument that we can treat smaller luxury manufacturers differently from everyone else, would she commend that argument to her colleague the Trade Secretary in the discussions on tariffs with the United States?