Jeremy Wright MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Jan 2026 · Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories · Hansard source

  More

  Order. As hon. Members will see, we have four speakers remaining. I want to start the Front-Bench speeches at about 2.28 pm, so that probably means that Members have about four and a half minutes each, I am afraid.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State has made reference to the interaction of whatever she may consult on with the operation of the current law. Following on from the comments of the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), will the Secretary of State confirm that even if the Government pursue a ban on social media for the under-16s, they will not seek to dilute the child safety duties under the Online Safety Act?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House would expect, the Intelligence and Security Committee has investigated the security implications of this proposal, and specifically whether the intelligence community had sufficient opportunity to feed in any security concerns, and whether Ministers had the necessary information on which to base a decision. I want to quote directly from our conclusions, which represent the Committee’s unanimous view: “On the basis of the evidence we have received, and having carefully reviewed the nuanced national security considerations, the Committee has concluded that, taken as a whole, the national security concerns that arise can be satisfactorily mitigated.” I will say, though, that we have been concerned solely with the national security perspective, not with the other arguments for or against a new embassy. It has proved more difficult than it should have been to get straightforward answers to our basic questions. The process in Government does not seem to be effectively co-ordinated, or as robust as would have been expected. In particular, there was a lack of clarity about the role that national security considerations play in planning decisions. We will take those matters up further with the Government, as I know the Minister would expect.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome what the Secretary of State has said, and the robust encouragement that the Government have given Ofcom to act on this issue. When she considers Ofcom’s capacity to act, not just its willingness to do so, will she also consider whether injunctive-style relief ought to be available, so that it can act urgently when circumstances require? May I also ask about risk assessment? Because of the centrality of risk assessment to the process of the Online Safety Act 2023, it matters hugely whether a platform has assessed a risk, leading to its safety duties to do something about that risk. Will the Secretary of State discuss with Ofcom whether X has done a proper risk assessment and kept it up to date? At the very least we now know that X is on notice that its AI tools can be used for the promulgation of illegal content on its platform.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Advanced Ceramics Industry: North Staffordshire · Hansard source

  More

  I will call Dr Allison Gardner to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members who are present that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of both the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister; subject to the discretion of the Minister and the Member in charge, they may of course make an intervention. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Terminal Illness: Mental Health Support · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the hon. Member. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered mental health support for people with terminal illnesses.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Terminal Illness: Mental Health Support · Hansard source

  More

  I do not want to compress the debate, as I appreciate it is a very sensitive subject. If the Minister can complete what he has to say in less than a minute, I will allow him to do so. If he needs longer, I will allow that after the Divisions.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Terminal Illness: Mental Health Support · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I am afraid that we will now need to suspend as the Division is active. I will suspend the sitting for 15 minutes for the first Division and for 10 minutes for any subsequent Divisions. I gather that there may be several Divisions, so I apologise to the Minister and all other Members who will have to wait.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Terminal Illness: Mental Health Support · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for opening the debate. I say this mostly for the benefit of those in the Public Gallery, but we are expecting votes in the main Chamber soon. If that happens, I will suspend the sitting and we will reconvene when the votes are complete. I call Jim Shannon.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Terminal Illness: Mental Health Support · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West may have a very brief word.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Terminal Illness: Mental Health Support · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but a Division has been called. I am very much in the Minister’s hands at this point, and I am conscious that there may be more he wishes to say. If he has only a minute or two of his speech remaining, I gather there will be several Divisions, so I do not want to force everyone to come back for just that. If he has more to say, there is of course more time for him to take, and the same applies to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West. I am in the Minister’s hands; does he wish to conclude now, or would he rather come back?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I am trying to avoid setting a formal time limit, but people will need to help me; I am afraid speeches will need to be sub-three minutes.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to all the hon. Members who spoke for their co-operation. We now come to the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  I was worried when the hon. Gentleman was not on my list.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  We have 10 speakers to come and I have to start Front-Bench speeches at about 3.30 pm, so speeches will need to be nearer three minutes, I am afraid. I call Pippa Heylings.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for opening the debate. I remind Members that they should stand if they wish to be called. Members can see the level of interest that there is in this debate. If everyone keeps their speeches to between three and four minutes, I hope we will get everybody in, but I will not impose an actual time limit yet.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Criminal Court Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The Government deserve credit for taking seriously a serious report into a serious problem, but is it the Justice Secretary’s preference that the changes he has outlined to jury trial will be permanent or that they will recede when the problem of backlogs recedes? In relation to judges alone deciding either-way cases, he knows that Sir Brian’s recommendation is that the presumption should be that there would be judge-only trials for cases where the sentence may be three years or less, but that presumption could be rebutted. Is it the Government’s intention that that should be a presumption and not a definitive rule? Finally, he knows that Sir Brian also recommended that plea hearings be pushed back to allow for advice on guilty pleas to be given more clearly and more fully, and that is likely to increase the number of guilty pleas preventing cracked trials. The Justice Secretary has talked about extra funding for the criminal Bar, but will he focus that funding so that people can be advised early and we can avoid those cracked trials?

• 18 Nov 2025 · China Espionage: Government Security Response · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome a great deal of what the Minister said in his statement. As I am sure he agrees, just as we know that China can simultaneously represent a national security threat and economic opportunity, China knows it too. That means that—even if it were not the right thing to do in and of itself, which of course it is—standing up for our national security is unlikely to prejudice any international trading relationship that we seek to pursue with China, because China respects strength. May I ask the Minister for help on one specific question in relation to the embassy? I know that he respects the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee. He knows that that Committee is relied upon by this House to provide judgment on matters in which intelligence is involved and the House cannot do so itself. The embassy is clearly one such matter. If the Government seek to make a decision on that before Christmas—he may not be able to say whether that is still the case—will he ensure that the ISC has all the material we need to make a judgment on behalf of the House? As yet, we do not have it.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially so early in his remarks. I apologise to him and to the House for not being here for his opening remarks, which he has just mentioned. In them, he talked a little about Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 31. I am grateful to him for the concession that the Government are making and for the moves they intend to make. However, can I make just two criticisms of Government amendments (a) and (b)? The first is very minor; Government amendment (a) refers to the “Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2028”. That should, of course, be 2018. I know that the Minister will be able to correct that error in due course. The more substantive criticism is about data collection. The Minister will know that is the only substantive difference left between the Government’s proposal and the one that I made on Report in this place and that Lord Borwick made in the other place. When we seek to improve access for people with disabilities to charging infrastructure, we should be able to keep track of progress. If the Minister is not minded to do that in the context of this Bill, will he consider other ways in which we can be sure that progress is being made in the direction that he and I both want to see?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise the strength of the case that the Prime Minister is making. He will understand the interest that the Intelligence and Security Committee has in clause 6 of the Bill, which provides for certain exemptions for those who work for the intelligence agencies. It then says that those people should report internally within their organisation any information that may be of use to an inquiry or investigation. Will he give some thought to how the Government might develop a concept of what then happens to that information, about which the Bill is broadly silent? He will understand that many will be concerned to ensure that when information is reported internally within the intelligence agencies, it none the less finds its way to those who should have it, in order to give reassurance about what the Government are seeking to achieve more broadly in this Bill.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement · Hansard source

  More

  I first of all thank the Minister for what he said about co-operation with the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee on this matter. I agree with him, as I often do, that the Government are entitled to clarity about what the question they are being asked is. The question for me is not whether the Government sought to intervene to persuade the DPP to take a different view. I do not think the Government did that. Neither do I think the Government went back and sought to change evidence it had already submitted. The question is, when the CPS asked for additional evidence, as it undoubtedly did, whether the Government chose to supply that evidence or not. That is not about interference; it is about responding to a request made to Government by the CPS. Given that we now know that the request was to make it clear in terms that, during the relevant period, China was a current national security threat to the UK, who in the Home Office or elsewhere decided that that could not be submitted in a further statement of evidence in very clear terms?

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  The first question was about why the deputy National Security Adviser included reference to economic opportunity in his statement when he knew that that was not the question he was being asked, nor the relevant question.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  It is now clear that the Crown Prosecution Service asked the Government more than once, over more than a year, for some additional evidence on what the CPS considered to be the crucial question of whether China constituted a national security threat during the relevant period. It seems to me, having read those statements, that at least two important questions arise. The first is the one just asked by the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg). Given that it was clear at the point when the deputy National Security Adviser made his second and third statements that the question he was being asked to comment on was whether that bar of being a national security threat was met or not, what is the possible relevance of the inclusion of information about China as an economic opportunity? Surely the Minister and the Government can see that that only weakens the substance of the question that that witness was being asked to answer. It would be useful to understand whether the DNSA came to that view on his own or had it suggested to him that that would be a useful thing to include. The second question is this. The Government have been clear—the Minister has been today, and the Prime Minister was yesterday—about how disappointed they are at the outcome of the trial and how much they wanted the prosecution to proceed. Given the length of time and the number of requests received by the CPS, surely it would be logical to assume that the Government would be straining every sinew to find extra evidence to meet the CPS’s requirement. Whether they thought the CPS was right to ask for it or not, it was clear that, with that extra evidence, the CPS would have proceeded with the case as the Government say they wanted. What evidence can the Government provide to us that every sinew was strained and that they did everything they could to find that evidence? If that evidence is in fact available and others could find it, will the Government not have some explaining to do?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Criminal Courts: Independent Review · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate. In particular, I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee for rearranging his Committee’s diaries so that its members could do so. This has, I hope, been a constructive debate, not least for the Minister to add to her considerations. I hope she will forgive the damage I do to her career prospects by saying that I am glad she is in a position to do it, and I know that she will approach it with the requisite seriousness that the process demands. The Minister is right to say that there is a degree of consensus—we all agree there is a problem. As she knows, the curse of this place is that we tend to identify a problem and ask an expert to help us find a solution, but when they do so, we do not always have the courage to implement the solutions that are put to us. I hope that we find that courage, because it may be that some of these solutions are controversial and have significant downsides, but the burning platform that Sir Brian has described is undoubtedly there. Therefore, we must act and must find a way of doing so with as much consensus as possible, and I know that is the approach that the Government will seek to take over the coming weeks. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Criminal Courts: Independent Review · Hansard source

  More

  I understand the point the hon. Lady is making, and to be fair to Sir Brian, he is not suggesting that we remove jury trial in all cases; he is very much talking about a subset of cases in which he thinks it is worth restricting that right. However, she is right that we must balance the clear advantages of jury trials, in terms of the interests of justice, with some of the structural and organisational challenge the system undoubtedly faces. To go back to the first point I made, Sir Brian is clear that the current situation cannot persist for much longer without significant change. All the changes we might consider will have downsides as well as upsides, but we must be prepared to contemplate change of some sort. The hon. Lady is also right that people have come to see jury trials as considerably advantageous in the delivery of justice, particularly for some of our fellow citizens. However, it is also right to recognise that although we cannot blame jury trial for all the mess we are in, jury trials do take longer than other trials. I am afraid that we will exacerbate the pressure on the criminal court system if we do not at least look carefully at the prospects for restricting those sorts of trials, in addition to other changes.