Jeremy Wright MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Political Donation Rules · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman will know that the situation in Northern Ireland is slightly different from that in the rest of the UK. Across the UK, the Electoral Commission’s view is that there should be transparency. That is the obligation of political parties, and it is the job of the Electoral Commission to make sure it does what it can to support that transparency across the system.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Political Donation Rules · Hansard source

  More

  Having been a member of that Committee, I do agree with its recommendations—although it did not make them when I was a member. As I have said, the Electoral Commission, for which I speak today, has made clear its views. I hope that he will make clear his views to Ministers because, in the end, this requires legislative change that only the Government can make.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Political Donation Rules · Hansard source

  More

  There are high levels of compliance with the UK’s political donation laws. The Electoral Commission currently has a range of powers to investigate and sanction suspected breaches of the law, but it has recommended making its enforcement powers more effective. It has also recommended increasing the maximum fine for breaches of the law from £20,000 to £500,000, which would ensure that the prospect of a fine acts as a more proportionate and credible deterrent.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Rail Services: East Durham Coastline · Hansard source

  More

  I will call Grahame Morris to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Relationship Education in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  We do not have enough time for the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) to wind up the debate, I am afraid, but I will put the Question. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered relationship education in schools.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Relationship Education in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I will try to call the Opposition Front Benchers, who will have five minutes each, from 5.08 pm, and then the Minister after that. I am afraid we can therefore no longer allow four minutes per speaker if everyone is to get in; speeches that last nearer to three minutes will help. I ask all colleagues to adhere to that.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Relationship Education in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Again, I apologise. I call Carla Lockhart, if she can keep herself to one minute.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Relationship Education in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but we really must move on to the Minister.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Relationship Education in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I am going to save the hon. Gentleman from himself. I remind him that we need to proceed to other speakers, so I ask him to draw his remarks to a close.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Relationship Education in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I know the hon. Lady will be swiftly coming to a conclusion so that we can get the Minister in.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Relationship Education in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  With apologies to all concerned, I am afraid that I now have to impose a two-minute time limit to get everybody in.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Relationship Education in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but we must move on.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Relationship Education in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I remind all hon. Members that they should continue to stand if they wish to contribute to the debate. Given the number of those who have indicated that they wish to contribute, I ask people to limit themselves to about four minutes, and I hope we will be able to get everybody in.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Relationship Education in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Again, I apologise for interrupting.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Royal British Legion · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the hon. Member, and to all who have contributed to this understandably popular debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the contribution of the Royal British Legion.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Royal British Legion · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I am very grateful to the hon. Member. I remind everyone to continue to stand if they wish to contribute and that, if they stick to two and half minutes, we will try to get everybody in.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Royal British Legion · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all Members for their self-discipline and co-operation, which allowed me to call everyone who wanted to contribute. We now come to the Front-Bench speeches, and we begin with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Royal British Legion · Hansard source

  More

  Before I call Dr Luke Evans to move the motion, it will be apparent to everyone that a good number of speakers want to participate. To give fair warning to all Back-Bench speakers, I am afraid we will have to limit you to about two and a half minutes. We will start doing so informally, and if everyone can keep to that, we should be able to get everyone in. If not, we will have to impose a formal time limit.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Royal British Legion · Hansard source

  More

  I call Luke Evans to wind up in less than 30 seconds.