UK PARLIAMENT · SITTING

Sir Jeremy Wright

MP for Kenilworth and Southam · Conservative · United Kingdom

IN THEIR OWN WORDS

“It is fair to point out that when the scheme was developed, nobody ever claimed that it was designed to be the only compensation available, but, as I know the Minister appreciates, the reality is that it is extremely difficult to obtain compensation by any other route, including through the courts.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

“Quite remarkably in my judgment, many of those who were injured or lost loved ones in the mass vaccination process during the covid pandemic support the idea of mass vaccination, but they take the view, which we should all support, that it is only right that those who were doing what their Government asked them to do are properly compensa…”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

“Their confidence in a mass vaccination programme will depend on whether they think people who have been injured in that process have been fairly treated.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

“It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, not least because, in generously taking over from me, you allowed me to participate in the debate. I pay tribute to my hon.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

“For example, with regard to the 60% threshold, Baroness Hallett said: “This part of the scheme should be reformed as a matter of urgency”. Let us compare and contrast that with the wording of the Government’s response.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

“On the Minister’s point about whether graded payments might be available under the scheme, will she be clear that she is considering linking that to the disablement requirement? Of course, an outcome we would not want is a simple reduction of the £120,000 for those who are 60% disabled or more.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

The complete record

3,645 held · 3,643 searchable for Sir Jeremy Wright. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 10.

This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.

“I have asked the Minister this question before, but if he will forgive me for saying so, his answer could have benefited from additional clarity, so, with your permission, Mr Speaker, I am going to ask it again. The Minister has made it very clear, as have his fellow Ministers, that the urgency and necessity of action in this instance is based on the imminence of an adverse court judgment against the UK. He knows that the International Court of Justice is not the court that we must be thinking of here, because the United Kingdom is not subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ when it concerns disputes involving members or former members of the Commonwealth, so it cannot be an ICJ judgment that the Minister is worried about, can it? If it is not that, what is it?”
House of Commons5 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This Act gives us powers to act against services that do not do what they should.” They are right that it is not a perfect piece of legislation, and none of us involved in its generation would claim that it was, but it does give Government and regulators the powers to act. However, that does us no good at all if, in subsequent pieces of statutory legislation, the Government choose not to use those tools or put them beyond Ofcom’s reach. That is what the regulations do. I have to say to the Minister that government is hard enough. She should not throw away the tools she needs to do the job that she has promised everyone that she will do. This is a mistake, and I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will find a way to avoid making it.”
House of Commons4 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Ofcom will not have all the tools it could have to deal with smaller services where greater harm may be concentrated, despite what the Act allows. I have to say that tying one hand behind Ofcom’s back is not sensible, even when Ofcom is itself asking us to do so. That is especially true when the Government place such heavy reliance on the Online Safety Act—as they are entitled to—to deal with the multiple online harms that arise. I have lost count, as I suspect others in this Committee have, of the number of times that Ministers have referred to the Online Safety Act when challenged about harmful materials or behaviours online and said, “This is the answer.”
House of Commons4 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There are multiple organisations with whom we and then the Labour party worked closely to get this Act passed for the protection of those about whom the Labour party is charged with worrying. Those include organisations such as the Samaritans, Mind, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, the Antisemitism Policy Trust and the Molly Rose Foundation, all of which care deeply about the effectiveness of this legislation, as I am sure we all do. It is true, and the Minister may make this point, that Ofcom’s advice suggested the course of action the Government are now taking. However, “advice” is the key word. The Government were not obliged to take it, and in this instance I think they would have been wiser to resist it.”
House of Commons4 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is a fundamental misunderstanding —at least, I hope that is what it is—in the ministerial statement, which suggests that that is the only criterion to be considered. It is not, and I think it is a mistake to ignore the others, which, again, have already been drawn out in the debate. To be clear, these draft regulations mean that no smaller platform—under the level of 7 million monthly users—can ever be considered as a category 1 platform, unless or until the Government and Ofcom change their approach to the categorisation process. I repeat the point, and I make no apologies for doing so, that that is specifically contrary to what Parliament had intended in the passage of the Act. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North and I are not the only ones making this observation.”
House of Commons4 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not expect her to have all this before her—I know her officials will take careful note—but the Act states at paragraph 1(5) of schedule 11: “In making regulations under sub-paragraph (1)”— the draft regulations we are discussing— “the Secretary of State must take into account the likely impact of the number of users of the user-to-user part of the service, and its functionalities, on”— and this is the part the Secretary of State drew out in his statement— “how easily, quickly and widely regulated user-generated content is disseminated by means of the service.” Without doubt, therefore, the Secretary of State has to take the number of users into account, but it is not the only criterion.”
House of Commons4 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“12WS.] In other words, I think the Secretary of State was arguing that he has no option but to limit to a scale criterion-only designation for category 1, because that is how the Act has changed. That is fundamentally mistaken, if I may say so to the Minister.”
House of Commons4 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We should think about the Government’s rationale for what they are doing. In December, the Secretary of State made a written statement to set out the reasoning for the measures that the Government have put before the Committee: “In making these Regulations, I have considered factors as required by the Act. Amendments made during the passage of the Act, changed the consideration for Category 1 from the ‘level of risk of harm to adults from priority content that is harmful to adults disseminated by means of the service’ to ‘how easily, quickly and widely regulated user-generated content is disseminated by means of the service.’ This was a significant change”. —[ Official Report , 16 December 2024; Vol. 759, c.”
House of Commons4 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Newton Abbot quoted one example of something that the shadow spokesman at the time, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who now has Government responsibilities elsewhere, said during the passage of the Bill. I will quote another example to the Committee. She said: “Categorisation of services based on size rather than risk of harm will mean that the Bill will fail to address some of the most extreme harms on the internet.” –– [ Official Report, Online Safety Public Bill Committee, 12 July 2022; c. 168.] I think she was absolutely right then, and still is now. The draft regulations, I am afraid, do exactly what she said the Act should not do: they limit the criterion for the designation of category 1, and these additional powers, to size only.”
House of Commons4 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Again, as has been explained, what or who we include in that category 1 designation really matters, because of the additional powers and constraints that Ofcom will have available to it in relation to category 1 services. Those powers include the only powers available under this Act to protect adults from anything that is not illegal content—including vulnerable adults, by the way. There will come a time when the Government, I suspect, will wish they had more to deal with problems of that nature. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North explained, the Act gives those powers, so it is bizarre in the extreme that the Government should choose voluntarily not to use them. It is bizarre, also, because the Labour party in opposition was clear in its support for the change. The hon.”
House of Commons4 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is good reason, therefore, to think that having smaller services potentially included in category 1 designation is a tool that Ofcom, and indeed the Government, will want to have available. Those platforms, such as ones that specialise in suicide or self-harm, might well be the kind of platforms that we find ourselves increasingly concerned about and that the Government will increasingly be asked to do something about. I have to say to the Minister that it is not sensible to remove from the regulator’s hand the tools that it might want to use to do what the Government will undoubtedly ask it to do—the Government themselves will come under pressure to do something about that.”
House of Commons4 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is worth noting that, in Ofcom’s assessment, something like 12 to 16 services only would qualify for category 1 status if, as is currently the case, size was the only criterion and we set the limit—as these regulations seek to do—at 7 million monthly users. As the hon. Lady explained, over a considerable period of time, with a considerable amount of energy expended, Parliament decided that it was appropriate to include in the category 1 designation not just the largest services, but those services where a great deal of harm may be concentrated but the services are, in themselves, much smaller. Those services being smaller might happen organically, or it might, of course, happen because that harmful content seeks refuge from the regulation applied to the larger services by migrating to smaller ones.”
House of Commons4 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a great and unexpected pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I want to take this opportunity to say something about why I think these regulations are a mistake. I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) has just said—I will seek not to repeat it—but it is probably worth noting at the outset that, as the Minister has rightly explained, these regulations are not the only means by which we will hold online services to account under this legislation. A category 1 designation allows Ofcom—the regulator —to impose additional constraints on a platform. I think that is an entirely fair point to make, but as the hon. Lady observed, something like 100,000 online services are likely to be in scope of this Act overall.”
House of Commons4 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The worry of those of us who have spoken in the debate is that the Government are about to remove one of the tools that Ofcom would have had to deal with smaller, high-harm platforms when the harm in question remains in ambit of the Bill—not that which was taken out during its passage. Would the Minister accept that?”
House of Commons4 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I have sympathy with her position, especially in relation to legal advice, having both received it and given it. I suggest that the Minister is talking about two different things, and they need to be separated. The first is the question of whether legal but harmful content was removed from the Bill, which it undoubtedly was. Measures in relation to content that is neither unlawful nor harmful to children were largely removed from the Bill—the Minister is right to say that. What we are discussing, however, are the tools available to Ofcom to deal with those platforms that it is still concerned about in relation to the remaining content within the ambit of the Bill.”
House of Commons4 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Lady think of the amendment that Baroness Morgan made in the other place to paragraph 1(4), which says that when the regulations we are considering specify “the way or ways in which the relevant conditions are met”, for category 1 threshold conditions “at least one specified condition about number of users or functionality must be met”? The crucial word that was added is “or”. If the number of users were required to establish what the hon. Lady has described, the word “or” would be inappropriate.”
House of Commons4 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would not be right for either of us to ask the Minister to disclose legal advice—that clearly would not be appropriate—but I am grateful for the Minister’s offer to share a slightly more expansive description of why the Government have come to the conclusion that they have. On the hon. Lady’s point about what the Act actually says, we have both quoted paragraph 1(5) of schedule 11, which deals with whether the language that has found its way into the ministerial statement is the be-all and end-all of the Minister’s conclusions. We both think it is not. If it is the case, as I think the Minister is arguing, that the ability to disseminate “easily, quickly and widely” is essentially a synonym for the scale of the service and the number of its users, what does the hon.”
House of Commons4 February 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Order. It will be obvious to everyone that there is considerable interest in this debate. May I ask all Members to bob if you wish to speak, and to continue to do that so that we can see you still wish to speak? I hope that if everyone can restrict themselves to about four minutes, we will get everybody in. I want to start calling the Front Benchers at 10.30 am.”
House of Commons29 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Order. I gently remind all Members that we must get to four minutes each voluntarily or I will have to impose something less voluntary. I call Jon Trickett.”
House of Commons29 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank all hon. Members who have spoken for their restraint. It has allowed me to get one more hon. Member in, but I ask her to please bring her remarks to a close at 10.30 am.”
House of Commons29 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will now call the Minister to respond. If there is any time left before 11 o’clock, I will invite Andy McDonald to wind up, if he wishes to.”
House of Commons29 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for her debut performance in Westminster Hall. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered outsourcing by Government departments.”
House of Commons29 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I ask all Members not staying for this debate to leave as quietly as they can. This is a 30-minute debate, so there will be no opportunity for the Member leading it to wind up at the end.”
House of Commons29 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Prime Minister may know that, this time last week, representatives of those who have been injured seriously by covid vaccines were giving evidence to the covid inquiry, including my constituent, Kate Scott. I hope he also knows that the compensation available to those people is not adequate and is not adequately accessible. I am grateful to the Health and Social Care Secretary for the thought that I know he is giving to how that position may be remedied, but may I ask the Prime Minister to give his personal support to that objective, not just because it is the right thing to do for the people affected, but because it will support the objective that we should all share, which is to maintain public confidence in vaccination?”
House of Commons29 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When establishing the political finance regime, Parliament’s explicit intention was to ban foreign donations. However, limitations of the current law mean that it is possible for money from foreign sources to enter the UK electoral system through donations from UK companies. For that reason, the Electoral Commission has called for the laws around company donations to be strengthened, to ensure that parties cannot accept money from companies that have not made enough in the UK to fund their donation or loan, to impose a duty to carry out enhanced “know your donor” checks, and to improve transparency over donations made through unincorporated associations.”
House of Commons16 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the hon. Member will understand, proposals to change the law must come from the Government—with whom, I gently suggest, he has more influence that I do—but he is right that transparency is crucial. It is important that we understand the source of the donations, so that the political parties that accept them can be properly held to account.”
House of Commons16 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I mentioned, there is a consensus in this House that foreign donations should not play a part in British politics, but there are gaps in the law. As I mentioned, the Electoral Commission believes that those gaps can be properly closed through further legislation. It is speaking to the Government about that, and I know that it would be happy discuss the matter further with the right hon. Gentleman, if he so wishes.”
House of Commons16 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I remind all Members that if they want to contribute to the debate, they should bob or stand briefly, even if they have already notified the Chair that they want to speak.”
House of Commons9 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I know the Minister will want to give the House the greatest possible clarity on what has brought us to this point. The Foreign Secretary has been clear that one of the central considerations for the Government was the likelihood, if not the inevitability, of a binding legal judgment against the UK in this matter. The Minister will know that the judgments of the International Court of Justice are not binding on the United Kingdom when disputes are between the UK and another state which is or was a member of the Commonwealth. That would include Mauritius. I do not expect the Minister to disclose the legal advice that the Government have received, but will he please give the House some more clarity about the nature of the legal jeopardy that the Government perceive here?”
House of Commons18 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. On behalf of those who have served on the Committee and, in my case, who hope to carry on serving subject to the will of the House, I just say that this moment should not pass without our simply saying thank you to my right hon. Friend for his service. This is an important Committee, as he knows better than anyone. It does a considerable service to the House, and he has done a considerable service to the House himself in serving on it or chairing it with the skill with which he has over nearly a decade.”
House of Commons11 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We need to act urgently to ensure that the codes of practice say what we want them to say. At the moment my concern is that Ofcom may simply talk about current good practice and not urge advancements in good practice to be maintained by the platforms. Those are the two areas that I hope the Minister will think about in relation to the draft codes and the need for an ongoing relationship between us in Parliament and Government and Ofcom to ensure that the Act continues to deliver as we want it to.”
House of Commons26 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I read the Act, section 11 says that, yes, we must risk-assess for individual harmful pieces of content, but under section 11(6)(f) we also must risk-assess for the different ways that the service is used, including functionalities or other features of the service that affect how much children use the service—which goes back to a point made earlier. Those are the sorts of things it is important to underline that we expect Ofcom to attend to. I am grateful for the Government’s statement of strategic priorities, but the point made about this being a fast-moving landscape is fundamental. Again in the Act, the codes of practice are vital, because they set out the things that platforms ought to do to keep children safe. If the platforms do the things set out in the codes, they are broadly invulnerable from further regulatory intervention.”
House of Commons26 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not think it is. We have heard this afternoon that many aspects of risk and harm to children online have nothing to do with the specific nature of an individual piece of content. The Act is important, and I believe it does support Ofcom’s ability to act in relation to harms beyond specific matters of content. For the Minister’s benefit, I have in mind section 11 of the Act on risk assessment—as she will know, because she knows it off by heart. For everybody else here, section 11 deals with risk assessment, and on that a great deal hangs. If we do a risk assessment, the obligation is to do something about risks, and that hangs on what risks are identified in the assessment. So the risk assessment matters.”
House of Commons26 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think, frankly, it is harder to find Conservative Ministers who did not have responsibility for it at some point or another, but what we all tried to do was make sure that the structure of the Act would support the objectives that, again, we all share. I will mention two specific things, which I should be grateful if the Minister would consider. I do not expect her to respond to them this afternoon, but if she would consider them and write to me, I should be very grateful. It seems to me that we need to make sure that as responsibility for implementing the Act moves from us as legislators to Ofcom as the regulator, Government and Parliament and the regulator are on the same page. There are two areas where I am concerned that that might not be the case. The first is the question whether harm to children is all about content.”
House of Commons26 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) not just on securing this debate but on the way in which she made her case. I want to focus on a couple of the more technical aspects of the Online Safety Act, which are important in fulfilling the objectives that we all share this afternoon, which, as she rightly said, are to make sure that the vehicle that we now have in the OSA delivers the right outcomes for the safety of children online. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage); she is right that I had ministerial responsibility for the Act.”
House of Commons26 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government have justified their inheritance tax changes for farmers on the basis that they are concerned about people gaining short-term tax advantage by buying agricultural land. May I therefore ask whether, instead of the sweeping changes that they made, the Government considered an approach that would limit the IHT exemption to those who could demonstrate that the family farm had been in family ownership for a certain number of years? If that approach was explored, why was it not pursued? If it was not explored, why not?”
House of Commons14 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the shadow Solicitor General to her post—it is good to see her back—and I thank the Solicitor General for her kind words. I equally warmly welcome the advent of a “failure to prevent” offence in relation to certain kinds of economic crime. The Solicitor General will agree that the purpose of that exercise is not to engender further prosecutions but to change behaviour. Will she therefore reassure the House that she will work with colleagues across Government to ensure that businesses receive all the advice they need about how to put in place the reasonable anti-fraud measures that will give them a defence under that new offence?”
House of Commons14 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), is sitting beside her—monitoring sentencing more proactively, in particular for newly created offences, so that we can all have confidence that, particularly in relation to those offences, sentences are being passed within anticipated ranges?”
House of Commons12 September 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not know for how long the Solicitor General and I will have these exchanges over the Dispatch Boxes, but I am glad to be able to start on a note of consensus. I agree with her that it would not be appropriate to extend the unduly lenient sentence scheme to cover unduly severe sentences, for which, as she says, appeal is already available, but she will agree that the scheme is always capable of improvement. It is currently wholly reactive, responding to requests from others for sentences to be reviewed. May I ask the Solicitor General to consider the merits of her Department, and indeed the Ministry of Justice—I see that the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the hon.”
House of Commons12 September 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“May I first warmly welcome the Solicitor General to her place, and the Attorney General to his place in the other place, in what the Solicitor General will already know is one of the most interesting and challenging parts of government? While I am at it, I should of course also welcome the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) as the new Chair of the Justice Committee. May I also take the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), the shadow Solicitor General, on the responsibilities he will shortly take up on behalf of the whole House, which he will do brilliantly after an all-too-short career on the Opposition Front Bench?”
House of Commons12 September 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Like others, I welcome what the Government have already done to extend the permitted development rights for rooftop solar and car park canopies, but may I encourage my hon. Friend to tell others in Government who have responsibility for planning that there are considerable benefits to car park canopies, particularly in hotter summers?”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I welcome what my right hon. Friend has set out, particularly the efforts that he and his predecessors have made to remove friction from the process of getting the victims of this unforgivable episode the compensation they clearly deserve. But he will recognise that as the system beds down and begins to operate, there is always the risk of that friction creeping back in. Can he make sure that he and his ministerial colleagues keep their eyes on the process and work with Sir Robert Francis to make sure it continues to be without friction, so that people continue to be able to easily access the compensation they need?”
House of Commons21 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend knows that after decades of closure, Kenilworth station has been reopened by a Conservative Government and a Conservative county council. However, the reliability, indeed the variety of services through that station, would be significantly improved by double tracking the line between Leamington and Coventry. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the time he has already given me on this issue, but will my hon. Friend do all he can to bring about that improvement, which will benefit not just my constituents, but also provide connectivity options that the northern leg of High Speed 2 no longer will?”
House of Commons16 May 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is clearly important that we understand what “proportionate” means in this context. Is the Government’s position that proportionality implies that there is more for the CMA to think about than just how effectively the imposition of a conduct requirement would fulfil the CMA’s requirements? If so, what can the Government do to make that clear, so that courts and tribunals that consider such cases do not fill in the gaps themselves? The words “appropriate” and “proportionate” could be interpreted quite widely if the Government are not clear about what they mean by them.”
House of Commons30 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is, as ever, making a good case. As he knows, I agree with him about the need for the Government to be clear about what these terms really mean. One thing that we are not talking about today but which is linked to the question of definitions is what we mean by “consumer benefit”. Does he agree that there may be a difference between benefit to the current consumer and a benefit to the future consumer and that we should be clear in the Bill, should we not, that “consumer benefit” includes future consumers as well as current ones?”
House of Commons30 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on bringing forward this Bill. As she says, football goes all the way down the football pyramid—not just in terms of its quality, but in terms of the entertainment it offers. Does she agree that a classic example of that is the fantastic entertainment that Coventry City provided in the FA cup semi-final on Sunday? Despite the club temporarily not being part of the premier league, it is none the less clear not just to the Coventry City supporters in my constituency but to everyone that the financial health of clubs that are further down the football pyramid matters for the entertainment they can provide. Does she agree?”
House of Commons23 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Before my right hon. and learned Friend moves away from the treaty, could he help with some clarity on the relationship, as the Government see it, between the Rwanda treaty and this Bill? Specifically, is an assessment of Rwanda’s safety for the purposes of this Bill the same thing as compliance with the Rwanda treaty on the part of the state of Rwanda? If not, what is the difference? Does the concept of safety extend beyond compliance with the treaty, or is it solely limited to the question of compliance with the treaty?”
House of Commons22 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I still think that for the Bill to have inherent logical consistency, it should be for Parliament to decide whether Rwanda remains safe in changed circumstances—not the monitoring committee or a Minister—but how much latitude Parliament would have in deciding whether Rwanda remains safe in changed circumstances rather depends on the point I raised in an intervention on the Minister.”
House of Commons22 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My quarrel with the noble Lord Hope’s amendments has been that, whereas the theme of this Bill is parliamentary authority, the earlier forms of his amendments give effective authority on the safety of Rwanda to the monitoring committee, because its conclusion on treaty compliance will be determinative of the question of safety. The later versions of Lord Hope’s amendments, however, would transfer authority to Ministers to determine —presumably on the advice of the monitoring committee —that Rwanda is no longer safe, and to make a statement to that effect. I do not think that is perfect either.”
House of Commons22 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In view of the time, I wish to focus what I say on the second part of amendment 3G(8). It is clear that Lord Hope has drawn attention to a flaw in the Bill’s logic. We all understand that it is about parliamentary sovereignty, but if declaring Rwanda safe in the first instance is a matter for Parliament then why is determining whether it remains safe not also a matter for Parliament? Yet the Bill covers only the first determination of safety and provides no mechanism for Parliament to change its mind if circumstances change, save for primary legislation, which we need Government to introduce.”
House of Commons22 April 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

← Back to the terminal Search YouSaid for Wright →