Yasmin Qureshi MP: speeches

105 published records · newest first.

Speeches

2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source
More
We have heard this language before, with military intervention dressed up as necessity or as being done out of humanitarian concern: Libya, Iraq—the list goes on. All those interventions led to devastating consequences for the people who lived there: hundreds of thousands dead, infrastructure destroyed, countries and regions destabilised, and the creation of a refugee crisis. I hope all those who are chomping at the bit for this war will welcome the extra refugees who will be coming on to our shores as a consequence. Article 51 of the UN charter does not allow for regime change, and I am so grateful to our Prime Minister for not joining in this illegal war by the US and Israel. I ask him, please, to continue with this direction, so that we do not get involved in another illegal war in the middle east.
21 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
Q11. After 14 years of Conservative austerity, councils are finally getting the support that they need to deliver for residents. In my constituency of Bolton South and Walkden, under the leadership of Councillor Nick Peel in Bolton and Mayor Paul Dennett in Salford, increased funding has been turned into the restoration of frontline services, investment in town centres and support for families. Does the Prime Minister agree that councils needs serious leadership and long-term funding certainty to deliver, not short-term protest politics that put services at risk? Will he commit to continue that support?
20 Jan 2026 · Gaza and the West Bank: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source
More
24. What steps her Department is taking to help ensure the continued delivery of aid in Gaza and the west bank.
20 Jan 2026 · Gaza and the West Bank: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source
More
Even during the ceasefire, Israel is blocking humanitarian aid into Gaza while pushing ahead with illegal settlements in the E1 area, which the UK Government have described as a “flagrant breach of international law”. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, by these actions, Israel is essentially trying to bury the idea of a state of Palestine? Apart from good words, what concrete action are we going to take to prevent that from happening?
20 Jan 2026 · Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children · Hansard source
More
I place on record my appreciation of the Secretary of State for standing up to the richest man in the world. Whether it is standing up and acting, or the statement on online harm made weeks ago by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), this Government are taking the protection of children seriously. In Bolton South and Walkden, parents see the effect of social media on children. Will the Secretary of State stick to her intention to consult fully, especially with children under the age of 16?
14 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
Q13. I offer my condolences to the families of the four people who died in the road traffic accident that occurred over the weekend in my constituency. Families in Bolton South and Walkden are already benefiting from this Labour Government’s actions—free school meals, free breakfast clubs, 30 hours of funded childcare and the scrapping of the two-child limit—which are taking nearly half a million children out of poverty. However, in Bolton South and Walkden and across the country, there is a chronic shortage of social housing and genuinely affordable homes. Will the Prime Minister now show the same ambition on housing, and commit to a major expansion of social housing?
13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source
More
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who took part in the debate, and I thank the Minister for his response. He will be reassured to know that I was not expecting the Government to dictate car parking charges at airports. What I wanted was an assurance, which I think he has given, that he will work with the airports and explain to them the challenges we face. I want them to come forward with a better way of dealing with people who come to the airport, and with the drop-off charges, the signage, the payments and all the issues that we have discussed. I thank all my colleagues again for attending and taking part in the debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered the potential merits of regulating airport drop-off charges.
13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source
More
I absolutely agree. I want to discuss the realities in Bolton. There is a direct rail link from Bolton to Manchester airport; a typical journey time is about 36 to 45 minutes and, at off-peak times, a single ticket can be found for anywhere between £4 and £9. There is also a direct coach from Bolton interchange, which takes about 65 minutes; generally, prices range from £6 to £12. For many travellers, these options work, and we should promote and protect them, but they do not work for everyone. For a family of four with two large suitcases and a pushchair, or for people catching a very early flight or arriving back late at night, public transport is not always practical. For those who drive, the maze of choices remains problematic. The airport provides a free drop-off at JetParks with a shuttle to terminals. That works for some people, but it is further away, involves a transfer and is simply not suitable for those with mobility needs or heavy luggage. We should also reflect on governance and accountability. Manchester airport is part of the Manchester Airports Group, which has a unique ownership structure combining public and private shareholders. Manchester city council owns 35.5%, IFM Investors owns 35.5% and the nine other Greater Manchester councils, including Bolton, together own 29%. That public stake brings with it the responsibility to treat passengers fairly. What should the Government do? Many of my constituents would say that the answer is simple: scrap drop-off charges altogether, or at least introduce a short free period for pick-ups and drop-offs. I recognise that all airports differ in size and layout, and one solution may not fit all, but there is a clear and proportionate role for Government in setting expectations around fairness, transparency and consumer protection.
13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source
More
I thank my fellow Greater Manchester Member of Parliament for raising that issue. I will come on to the similar experiences that my constituents have had. I was talking about barrierless systems for drop-offs. I believe that airports should publish data on the number of drop-off penalties that are issued, how many are cancelled on appeal and the reasons why. The Government’s position is that although airport parking charges are “a matter for the airport operator as a commercial business”, the Department for Transport “expects car parking at airports to be managed appropriately and…consumers to be treated fairly”. Too many passengers feel that that expectation is not being met. I want to speak directly about the human element, because that is where my office’s casework has been the most compelling. The stories that we have been told follow a very clear pattern: people acting in good faith, anxious to get loved ones to the airport on time and unaware that payment cannot be made on site, and then being shocked to receive a penalty notice days later when they believe that they have done everything right. The stress and frustrations are real, but they are avoidable. One constituent contacted me after dropping his wife at Manchester airport and leaving after noticing that there were no barriers or pay stations. He then received a £100 fine in the post for not having paid. He was stationary in the drop-off area for just one minute and 10 seconds. If there had been a pay station, he would have paid. Instead, he went home and then received what he felt was an entirely disproportionate fine for being there for less than two minutes. Another constituent contacted me after he tried to pay online in good faith but was unable to do so because of problems with the website. He did not see the signage and was made aware only after the fact that he needed to pay. Despite trying to pay the £6.40 charge, he was unable to do so and received a £100 fine instead. That does not feel fair or reasonable. These are not isolated incidents. They reflect a system that relies too heavily on people remembering to make an online payment after their journey, rather than being clearly prompted to pay at the time. A short free window in which to park, clear exit prompts and a one-time reminder invoice would entirely prevent many of these cases. Airports are the front door to our country. That front door should be welcoming, efficient and fair. It should not depend on whether a tired or stressed driver remembers to make an online payment later that day. It should reflect the reality of places such as Bolton, where rail can be a good option but is not always practical.
13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source
More
I totally agree. Later in my speech, I will be asking for more detail about what happens with drop-off charges, as well as other information that we need from airports, such as how many people have had fixed penalty notices. Secondly, there should be national guidance on simple and consistent signage at all airports for parking charges and fees. Thirdly, the barrierless system for dropping off and parking should come with clear payment prompts at the point of exit and, where possible, a reasonable reminder rather than an immediate penalty for first-time non-payment.
13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source
More
I am so sad that my hon. Friend’s wife was not able to say “I love you” at the point of greeting him. I hope she has made up for it.
13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source
More
I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of regulating airport drop-off charges. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I want to make the case for ending airport drop-off charges altogether, or at the very least introducing a free grace period, and for clear, consistent signage at all airports so that passengers know exactly what they are being charged and how to pay. I have received significant casework on this issue, and I know that colleagues across Greater Manchester and across the country will share my concerns. The current system is unfair, confusing and punitive. It does not work for passengers, and it is time for a change. Manchester airport is our international gateway. It is the third busiest airport in the United Kingdom, and a vital engine for the north-west’s economy. It should be a source of pride, not stress, yet the regime for dropping off and picking up passengers has become overly complex and, for far too many people, deeply unfair. Let me start with the current rules. Outside each terminal, the tariff is £5 for up to five minutes, £6.40 for up to 10 minutes and £25 for up to 30 minutes, with a maximum stay of 30 minutes. Since last spring, the airport has operated a barrierless automatic number plate recognition system. If people forget, or if the process is unclear in the rush and stress of a drop-off, they are liable for a parking charge notice of £100, which is reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. I do not dispute the fact that airports face operational pressures. Forecourts are constrained spaces and congestion causes delays and emissions. The aim of a barrierless system is to keep traffic moving, but we have to be honest about the human reality. A parent unloading luggage at 5 am or a carer helping an elderly relative to the terminal door is not thinking about an online payment later that day. They should not receive a penalty notice in the post just because there is no clear or simple way to pay at the time. There is a wider issue with value for money. The RAC has shown that UK drop-off fees have increased across many airports. On a cost-per-minute basis, Manchester is among the worst, charging £1 per minute for the first five minutes. That is hard to justify and is out of step with passengers’ experiences elsewhere. A member of my staff shared his experience from a recent holiday he took via Kraków airport, for example: the drop-off and pick-up area offered eight free minutes, then a small fee of 5 złoty—about £1—per four minutes thereafter, with simple rules, clear signs and visible ways to pay.
13 Jan 2026 · Airport Drop-off Charges · Hansard source
More
I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful clarification. His serious point is one that I think a lot of people here would agree with, and I am sure the Minister has heard his appeal for a train line from his area to Manchester. The cost of a taxi plus a forecourt fee can push travel beyond what many families can afford. With modest regulation, better design and a willingness to learn from our European neighbours, we can manage traffic without turning airport forecourts into what feels like a penalty for helping someone we care about.
3 Dec 2025 · Fireworks (Noise Control etc) · Hansard source
More
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the maximum noise levels of fireworks which may be sold to the public; to require that specified information about noise levels is included on labelling and in sales information for fireworks; to require the Secretary of State to review the impact of firework noise on the welfare of veterans, neurodivergent people, people with certain medical conditions, and animals; to provide local authorities with power to regulate the use of fireworks in certain circumstances, and to enforce such regulation; and for connected purposes. Fireworks bring joy to many people and are an important part of celebrations, but every year I hear the same concerns from residents about the impact of loud, unpredictable fireworks going off late at night. They are not talking about organised displays; they mean sudden explosions in residential streets at 11 o’clock, midnight or later. These bangs startle children, frighten older people, distress pets and livestock, and overwhelm people managing health conditions or trauma. The same groups feel it most: children with sensory needs; older residents living alone; people with anxiety or heart conditions; and animals. At the moment, there is very little anyone can do about it. Councils receive complaints but have no power to act, and the police understandably focus on more urgent priorities. Fireworks are often sold without clear information on how loud they are. This Bill would close those gaps in a simple, fair and proportionate way. The public are ahead of us on this. Polling shows that 85% of people want stronger rules on fireworks, almost half want private backyard displays banned and a further third want tighter restrictions. This is not a new concern: over the years, Parliament’s petition system has received hundreds of thousands of signatures calling for action. One family told me that their autistic son becomes extremely distressed by unexpected fireworks. He screams, hides and cannot settle for hours. They want him to enjoy celebrations like any other child, but unpredictable late-night fireworks make evenings frightening, rather than joyful. Another constituent—a lady in her seventies who lives alone—said that loud fireworks at night make her feel as though she is in a war zone. She asks, quite reasonably, why something cannot be done about the loud ones. Research shows what our residents want. The problem is not organised displays that people can prepare for; the problem is unpredictable fireworks set off in neighbourhoods. The impact on veterans is also well documented. The BBC reported on Pete White, an RAF veteran with PTSD for whom sudden loud fireworks triggered panic attacks, taking him straight back to the sounds of conflict. He described it as an “uncontrollable sense of terror”. Organised displays with clear timings help him to prepare, but unexpected fireworks made life difficult for him. At one point, his anxiety became so severe that he struggled for weeks. Combat Stress reports a 25% increase in calls at this time of year. It wants a review of current rules, clearer safety information and limits on when fireworks can be sold and used. Help for Heroes and Combat Stress also found that 74% of veterans want stricter rules on fireworks, while 67% want fewer days of sale. The effect on animals is significant. Since 2010, more than a thousand incidents involving horses have been recorded during fireworks season, including tragic fatalities. Many owners receive no notice before displays and cannot protect their animals in time. Farm animals are affected, too: stress can cause ewes to abort during lambing and can separate mothers from their young. Wildlife also suffers, with studies showing sharp increases in heart rates among birds and disruption to roosting. This distress is real and avoidable. Fireworks also have a public health impact. Air pollution can rise several times higher than normal when fireworks are widely used, especially on still winter nights, and people with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other respiratory conditions are particularly affected. Health professionals have raised concerns about the pressure this places on vulnerable groups and on our NHS. The Bill proposes to do five things. First, it would introduce a maximum noise limit. Some fireworks reach 120 decibels, which is far louder than necessary for home use. Research shows that reducing the noise down to between 90 dB and 97 dB is achievable and supported by health and welfare experts. The Bill sets a reasonable maximum noise level for fireworks sold to the public, but louder fireworks would still be available for licensed displays where there is notice and supervision. Secondly, most fireworks provide little information about how loud they are. The Bill would require clear labelling so that people know what they are buying. It would also support councils and trading standards teams when responding to complaints. Thirdly, councils say the current rules are almost impossible to enforce; fireworks are a transient nuisance and are gone by the time anyone arrives. The Bill would give councils the ability to introduce targeted, time-limited rules in areas with repeated problems. It would not be a blanket ban. It would build on tools councils already use for noise and antisocial behaviour, letting councils respond directly to their communities. Fourthly, civil enforcement rules currently rely on the police, which is unrealistic and ineffective. The Bill would give councils the power to issue civil penalties similar to how they deal with littering, fly-tipping and environmental noise. It is practical, proportionate and fair. Fifthly, the Bill would also require the Secretary of State to review the impact of firework noise on veterans, neurodivergent people, people with certain medical conditions and animals, ensuring that future policy is based on proper evidence. Colleagues have brought forward important proposals before. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), one of the Deputy Speakers, has focused on noise limits, while my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) has focused on sales and licensing. This Bill is a bit different: it focuses on community impact, late-night misuse, unpredictability and, more importantly, council powers. These approaches complement each other. This Bill fills the missing part. In conclusion, I am not a party pooper. I do not want to ban fireworks; I want the celebrations to continue. We want the loudest fireworks to be used safely, predictably and with respect for neighbours. People want their families, pets and vulnerable neighbours to feel safe in their homes. They want councils to have the ability to act, and they want fireworks to be sold responsibly and clearly labelled. This Bill offers a balanced and practical way forward. I commend it to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Yasmin Qureshi, Jim McMahon, Sarah Champion, Debbie Abrahams, Liz Saville Roberts, Emma Lewell, Jamie Stone, Nadia Whittome, Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, Chris Law, Imran Hussain and Alex Sobel present the Bill. Yasmin Qureshi accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 26 January and to be printed (Bill 343).
5 Nov 2025 · Fresh and Nutritious Food: Inequality of Access · Hansard source
More
My hon. Friend is rightly talking about access to proper food. In my constituency, FareShare helps to redistribute more than 325,000 meals a year to 11 local charities. That is a lifeline for families struggling to afford fresh food. Nationally, however, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of edible food still go to waste. Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister to commit to supporting food redistribution as part of a fairer food system?
5 Nov 2025 · Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights · Hansard source
More
On a point of order, Mr Mundell. The hon. Gentleman just mentioned that—
5 Nov 2025 · Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights · Hansard source
More
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The European convention gives us the right not to be tortured, not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, to have a fair trial, to have privacy and to have freedom of expression. I ask all the people who are against it: what rights do they think the British people should not have?
3 Nov 2025 · Video Games: Consumer Law · Hansard source
More
My hon. Friend is making a great speech. On amending the law, what is required is a simple amendment to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, to ensure that when a game requires online support, developers must allow the purchaser to continue receiving that support.
3 Nov 2025 · Video Games: Consumer Law · Hansard source
More
It is simply a matter of justice that if someone has paid for a product, either physical or digital, they should be able to use it for as long as they like. The fact that a company goes bust should not make any difference to that.
3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source
More
I am proud to support this important Bill and to pay tribute to the Hillsborough families, whose courage and determination have brought us to this moment. Their decades of struggle have changed our country and created a chance to ensure that no family ever again has to fight for truth alone. The Bill is about truth, fairness and accountability. It is about ending the culture of cover-ups that has marked too many national scandals, from Hillsborough to contaminated blood, and from Post Office Horizon to Primodos, whose families I have been honoured to represent and campaign for in this House for the past 13 years. I have stood here many times to raise that issue and to lead debates, because it is not a new story. The Primodos scandal has been known about for decades. What has been missing is not information, but honesty. Primodos was a hormone pregnancy test given to 1.5 million women in Britain until the late 1970s. It was linked to miscarriages, stillbirths and babies born with life-changing disabilities, yet the families were met not with transparency, but with denial. In 1967, Dr Isabel Gal published research in Nature showing a possible link between hormone pregnancy tests and birth defects. Rather than being supported, she was dismissed and discredited. Both the manufacturer, Schering, and the Committee on Safety of Medicines knew of the risks. The committee issued a notice in 1975 warning of a possible link, and another in 1977 confirming that the link had been established, yet Primodos was not withdrawn until 1978 and the women who had already taken it were never told the truth. That was not candour. It was concealment. Decades later, the pattern repeated. In 2017 the Government’s own Commission on Human Medicines established an expert working group, which concluded that there was “no causal association” between Primodos and harm—wording that was added later after pressure from senior officials. Families were shut out, evidence was excluded and regulators defended themselves instead of admitting failure. Then, in 2023, the same families were forced into court against Bayer and the Government. Despite the independent Cumberlege review, which occurred after the 2017 expert working group, confirming that avoidable harm had occurred, their case still collapsed before trial when the families were threatened with £11 million in legal costs if they refused to withdraw. It was a David versus Goliath battle, with ordinary families facing the full legal force of the state and a global corporation. This Bill could hope to change that. It establishes a duty of candour, a duty to assist investigation and the principle of parity of arms, which seeks to ensure that families are not denied justice because they lack resources. However, the duty of candour must apply fully to all investigations, including independent panels, and not just statutory inquiries. Command responsibility must rest personally with those in charge and not with the institutions. The offence of misleading the public must not be weakened by the need to prove individual harm. The Bill is really important. I hope it is not diluted. I hope that people like those who suffered because of Primodos will get due justice.
3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source
More
The Prime Minister is being very generous in taking all our questions. I congratulate him on introducing this Bill, but can the duty of candour be applied fully to all investigations, including independent panels, and not just statutory inquiries? Does he agree that the command responsibility must rest personally with those in charge, not simply with the institution?
15 Oct 2025 · Healthcare: Bolton · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) for securing this important debate. As she said, our other hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) has a prior commitment, so he is not able to attend this debate. I mention that because the three of us work well together in campaigning on many issues of concern to our constituents. One of the things we do is have a regular meeting with the chief executive of our hospital, as we did only last week, to raise those issues. Healthcare in Bolton is really important for us and one of the most serious concerns raised by our constituents. When people in Bolton talk about the NHS, they are full of respect for the doctors, nurses and frontline staff. Their frustration is directed not at individuals, but at a system that leaves them waiting for months without answers or support. One constituent with a serious heart condition told me that she had waited more than a year to see her cardiologist at the Royal Bolton hospital. At one point she was informed that the waiting list had actually been closed. She paid to be seen privately, but then her appointment finally arrived, one year after she had last inquired about it. She said: “I do not expect luxury. I just do not want to be forgotten.” Ahead of this debate, I invited constituents to share their own experiences of healthcare in Bolton. What I received were not statistics, but stories of worry, delay and a sense of being left behind. Parents spoke about their children waiting for assessment. Women described living in pain while waiting for treatment. Older residents asked whether their names still even existed on any list at all. People said that it was almost impossible to get a GP appointment unless they were online at 8 am. Others described the long phone queue, with no certainty of being able to secure an appointment, and being told that they would need to call back the following day or try again. Many spoke about digital systems that shut people out, especially those who are elderly, disabled or unwell. I received accounts of hospital letters arriving late, or of appointments missed because no update had been received. Parents of children with mental health needs said that they were given information sheets instead of meaningful support. I hear their concerns, and they must be addressed. I recognise that secondary care is outside of the Minister’s direct brief, but obviously we cannot separate primary and secondary care when patients are stuck between them. When referrals disappear and no update follows, it is the GPs who are left to manage their patients’ anxiety, without any information to reassure or support them. Communication must be treated as part of care, not an afterthought. In general practice there are concerns about not only access, but continuity. Constituents tell me that they never see the same doctor twice; they repeat their story at every appointment with no sense of follow-up or a clear plan. When ongoing conditions rely on repeated re-telling rather than joined-up care, confidence in the system is lost. Primary care needs support to provide consistency, not just capacity. Mental health is another deeply worrying area. In Greater Manchester, the number of adults waiting for ADHD assessments has risen sharply; some of my constituents have been waiting eight months or more without being allocated a clinician. Parents spoke to me about their experience with child and adolescent mental health services, where children in real distress are waiting months and months for assessment and intervention. Without early support, families are being left alone to cope. Another area is women’s health, where the disparities are clear. Girls born in the north-west can expect fewer healthy years than those born in other regions. Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, which serves parts of Bolton, has the highest gynaecology waiting list in England. Women describe missing work, living in pain and caring for families while waiting for basic investigations. I therefore welcome the Government’s women’s health strategy and the development of women’s health hubs. Liverpool has hubs that bring together contraception, screening and menopause care in one place, and Bolton should receive the same opportunity to deliver accessible women’s care in community settings. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for dentistry and oral health, I know that NHS dentistry faces an existential threat. Almost 14 million people were unable to access dental care in the early part of 2025. From 2010 to 2024, expenditure on dentistry went down from 3% of the NHS budget to 1.5%. Although we welcome the 700,000 new appointments, we actually need 2.2 million of them, as the Government have accepted. Morale among NHS dentistry practitioners is at an all-time low, and many are leaving. The Health and Social Care Committee said in 2023 that the current dental contract is “not fit for purpose”. It needs reform. Another issue is that, while there are qualified dentists, the process by which they have to register to practise seems to be taking a very long time. It is an administrative process, not a process for assessing professional, clinical requirements. That needs to be addressed. Many residents tell me that they cannot get dental appointments and are living in pain, with untreated problems. I have personally had to ring dentists to get appointments for a number of constituents. I know that the Government have a 10-year plan for the NHS, but dentistry cannot wait 10 years for the situation to be resolved. Finally, we cannot discuss healthcare in Bolton without confronting inequality. One in four children in the north-west grow up in poverty. Delayed treatment, poor health and limited support are not separate issues; they are experienced by the same families. The 10-year health plan must deliver not only nationally, but locally, in towns such as Bolton where the need is greatest. My constituents are not asking for perfection; they are asking not to be forgotten. They want to know that if they seek help, the system will acknowledge them, guide them and not let them fall between services. If we are to restore confidence, we must ensure that patients are not lost between primary and secondary care, and that dignity and fairness remain at the heart of healthcare delivery. With focus, co-ordination and commitment, we can deliver the timely, compassionate care that the people of Bolton deserve.
14 Oct 2025 · Criminal Courts: Independent Review · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate. It is right that this House examines Sir Brian Leveson’s review with care before any legislation is brought forward. I spent many years at the Bar, as a prosecutor as well as a criminal defence lawyer, before becoming an MP. While an MP, I have served on the Justice Committee and for a number of years was shadow Minister for justice, prisons, probation and courts. During that time, I challenged Ministers at the Dispatch Box many times about the record delays to cases in the Crown court. When the Joseph Rowntree Foundation recently asked the public which rights should be protected in a Bill of Rights, two things topped the list: the right to NHS care and the right to trial by jury—a constitutional safeguard rooted in public trust. Sir Brian’s report exposes the scale of the crisis: record delays, cases listed years into the future and justice slipping beyond reach. Yet in Bolton South and Walkden, as a result of the current Government’s expansion of court sitting days, we have been able to reduce some of the backlog. Capacity is not just about buildings, however—it is about people. Not only juniors, but senior barristers are leaving criminal practice because the fee structure cannot sustain a career. Judicial shortages mean that we lack the judges, recorders and district judges we need to run additional courts. That has not happened by accident. It is the result of 14 years of Conservative Government political decisions on court closures, cuts to sitting days and erosion of legal aid. Before contemplating such constitutional changes as limiting jury trials, we should act on the most basic recommendations in the review—for example, increasing sitting days now and using courts to their full capacity. If we want earlier guilty pleas, the defendant must have access to timely legal advice, which also means that the fee structure for payment must be re-examined. There are many sensible proposals in the review, including support for criminal pupillages and improved case preparation, but they honestly cannot justify removing the right to a jury trial or curtailing the right to appeal, particularly when more than 40% of appeals from magistrates courts to the Crown court currently succeed. We cannot resolve delay by reducing scrutiny or by getting rid of jury trial, one of the foundations of our civilised society. I know that some changes have already been made, but jury trial is fundamental to our system. We need reform, but it must be to strengthen trust, not to weaken it. When justice fails, not only do individuals suffer, but confidence in our entire system is lost.
15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source
More
Sorry. I am sure that many hon. Members have been to their local schools and been told that, since covid, the number of children with SEND has gone up, so the White Paper and the consultation are really important, and I know the Government will listen to everything we have been saying.
15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source
More
That point was made by the parents, and I was going to come to it in my speech. Children are being placed in classrooms that do not meet their needs, and some of them are being forced out of school—others attend for just a few hours. Often, teaching assistants are given just one afternoon of generic training; they are not even experienced in these matters. Quite often, they have not even seen the plan, so implementation is inconsistent or absent. Schools, particularly academies, are very difficult to hold accountable. And one of the big frustrations that parents talked about is that there are no systems in place to deal with complaints, and that they often had to navigate the system and work very hard to try to get provision for their children. I know that, since last year, the Labour Government have invested £1 billion in high-needs budgets and supporting children with complex needs, and that £740 million has been committed to adapt school rooms and build specialist facilities, even in mainstream schools. Great progress is being made, but I am sure that many of you find, when you go to your local junior schools, that headteachers are saying that since covid—

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →