Mike Wood
MP for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Just like his predecessor, the Chancellor promises to bring borrowing down right at the end of the period covered by his fiscal rules, in this case with the hidden promise of 2.6% annual spending cuts, which includes those 2% a year cuts from mainstream schools every year, after the next general election.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, we are coming to the end of the debate. Those pubs, bars and restaurants are the No.1 place where young people get their first foot on the jobs ladder.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would have helped our British breweries, helped save community pubs and protected hospitality jobs for young people. Again, the Chancellor knows that: in opposition, he called for cuts in beer duty, but in the Treasury he is hiking the main beer duty rate.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He knew the Government were playing Treasury accounting tricks—tucking MI5, pensions, the Chagos Islands bills and even £200 million for doing up Barrow-in-Furness high street under the badge of “defence spending” to pad out a press release—but when we strip out those tricks, our armed forces are facing a real-terms cut in their day-to-da…”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He speaks of fiscal discipline, but this is fiscal policy on the never-never. Nowhere is the reason for that fiscal timidity clearer than on welfare. All hon.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The disappointment of today’s Budget is that, having put on his running shoes for the media earlier this week, the Chancellor spent his statement running away from the big challenges facing the country and ducking each difficult decision.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
2,120 lines on record for Mike Wood, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 10 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.
“(2) The revised guidance issued under subsection (1) must stipulate that when making a victim personal statement, a victim shall be able to say anything they wish about the defendant, provided it is not contrary to any statutory limitations on free speech, makes allegations of untried criminal conduct or is disorderly language. (3) The court must disregard any prejudicial comments made during a victim personal statement.” —(Mike Wood.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how to make victim personal statements less restrictive and clarify what can be included. Brought up, and read the First time .”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We support the work that Sir Brian is doing, but do not feel that the new clause would contradict or otherwise impede that work. We also do not think that we ought to wait for the conclusions of Sir Brian’s work before acting. For now, we will leave the new clause as a probing amendment, but we may return to it at a future stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 8 Victim personal statements “(1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue revised guidance on the content of victim personal statements.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Victim personal statements are not appropriate platforms for gratuitous abuse, but the focus needs to be on allowing the voice of victims, rather than worrying too much about the hurt feelings of the convicted offender. The new clause would ensure that victims can speak freely with the most minimal restrictions possible. We can fairly ask the judge to consider what can and cannot be taken into account for sentencing rather than removing or censoring everything in advance. It is time that we uphold the voices of victims and provide them with the platform and the dignity that they deserve.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause addresses the rules on victim personal statements, about which we heard much in the evidence sessions. There is clearly a desperate need for reform to allow victims to properly and accurately communicate the impact that crimes have had on them. Our new clause introduces a right to be heard for those victims and for families making victim personal statements. We heard appalling stories of traumatised family members, such as Becky and Glenn Youens and Jeremy and Susan Everard, who were told that, no, they could not say what they wanted—they could not say anything derogatory about the guilty offender.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New Clause 10 Sentencing guidelines on court fines “Within 18 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Sentencing Council must revise relevant sentencing guidelines so that the court must award compensation to a victim to the value of items stolen when imposing compensation for the offence of theft, burglary, fraud, or any other crime that has resulted in a financial loss to the victim.”— (Mike Wood.) This new clause would require the Sentencing Council to revise sentencing guidelines so that a court must impose compensation commensurate to the value of stolen items when issuing fines. Brought up, and read the First time.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for her response. This is an extremely important matter that needs to be dealt with in this legislation. I think she said that she wishes to proceed with something that broadly achieves our aims, but which addresses her concerns about the drafting. If she will undertake to work with the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, before Report to find a form of drafting that satisfies the new clause’s objectives without what she clearly sees as defects in its proposed wording, we would obviously be happy to work with her and not press the new clause for now. Hopefully, we will have something that we can agree to on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn .”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is about restoring faith in the idea that when someone suffers a loss through crime, the justice system stands behind them—not just symbolically but materially by seeking, as far as possible, to provide restitution. The new clause proposes the straightforward but meaningful step of revising the sentencing guidelines so that, where there is a proven loss, it must be reflected in compensation. That is not just fair; it is the very least that victims should be able to expect. I urge the Committee to support the new clause.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Offenders walk away with a light financial consequence, while victims are left out of pocket and out of luck due to the crimes committed by others. The new clause would shift that balance, not punitively but justly. It would make it a duty, not a possibility, for sentencing to account for what was actually taken or lost. This is not an unfamiliar concept. Courts already have the power to impose compensation orders, but the inconsistency and infrequency with which they do so undermines public confidence in the system. Let us be clear: all the ordinary processes remain in place for pursuing outstanding payments, but why should we not recognise what is actually owed? If someone has a change of circumstance, it may well be that they could quite readily pay what they owe. Most importantly, this is about victims.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause seeks to correct a long-standing imbalance in the way in which financial justice is delivered to victims of theft, fraud, burglary and similar offences. It does so by requiring the Sentencing Council to revise its guidelines within 18 months of Royal Assent so that courts must impose compensation that reflects the actual financial loss suffered by the victim. Right now, victims of crime are far too often left bearing the financial burden of the offence, while the offender, even when convicted, is handed a compensation order that does not even begin to redress the damage that has been done, either directly or indirectly. The result is an insult added to injury.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for her comments, but there is an imbalance in the system. Whereas convicted offenders may appeal against a sentence, victims do not have a similar ability to appeal against a failure to award full compensation. The new clause ought to be the presumptive starting point for compensation. Full compensation should usually be awarded, so we will press this matter to a vote. Question put , That the clause be read a Second time.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For victims and communities, the payment of court-ordered fines is about not only financial restitution, but accountability and the credibility of our criminal justice system. The Victims’ Commissioner, Baroness Newlove, has long identified this as an opportunity to secure funding, and we all know the tight constraints on expenditure.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This new clause seeks to close a loophole in the recovery of unpaid court fines. At present, the Limitation Act 1980 imposes a six-year time limit on recovering debts, including fines handed down by the Crown court. Criminal fines are not ordinary civil debts. They are the product of judicial sanction, often imposed in response to serious offences, and reflect the principle that individuals must be held accountable for their actions through the justice system. The new clause would ensure that Crown court fines do not simply expire with time. It would give the Secretary of State the power to pursue unpaid fines without restriction, sending a clear message that justice delayed must not become justice denied.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(2) HMCTS must collect and collate the information on the basis set out in subsection (1) on sentences passed in the courts. (3) Once every three months, the Secretary of State must publish statistics based on the information collected by HMCTS under subsection (2).”— (Mike Wood.) Brought up, and read the First time.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given the Minister’s comments, we are content not to press the new clause to a Division at this time. Again, we may return to it at a future stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 15 Duty to collect and publish data upon sentencing “(1) At the time of passing a sentence by a judge or magistrate the relevant court must provide to HM Courts and Tribunals Service (‘HMCTS’) the following information regarding the sentence passed— (a) offence type, (b) sentence length, (c) such information about the sentenced individual as the Secretary of State sees fit, which must include— (i) nationality, (ii) method of entry to the United Kingdom, (iii) visa route, (iv) visa status, (v) asylum status, and (vi) country of birth.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“By requiring His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to gather and publish that data quarterly, we would enable policymakers to detect patterns, assess outcomes and develop evidence-based responses. Crucially, it would also strengthen the ability of immigration enforcement to make fair, informed decisions on removals, deportations or protections—decisions that must balance public safety with legal and humanitarian obligations. Ultimately, the public have a right to this level of transparency. For too long, assumptions have filled the void left by incomplete data. The new clause would replace speculation with facts, and in doing so it would promote more informed policy, more effective enforcement and greater public confidence. I commend it to the Committee.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause was tabled in the name of the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). It would introduce a new statutory duty for courts to provide structured data on sentencing outcomes, including key information about individuals’ immigration status. Transparency on crime is critical not only for building public trust in our justice system but for ensuring that we have the right tools in place to understand and respond to the realities of criminal offending. The new clause would create a clear, accountable framework for collecting and publishing sentencing data that sits at the intersection of the criminal justice and immigration systems.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given the Minister’s disappointing response, we will wish to have a fuller debate on Report. I do not intend to press the new clause to a vote now, but we will almost certainly do so at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 13 Power to make consequential provision Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On behalf of the Opposition, I thank all the Clerks, officials, Doorkeepers and Hansard Reporters. I also thank you, Dr Murrison, and Mr Stringer for your work on this Committee. There is much that is very positive in this Bill, which is why His Majesty’s official Opposition are pleased to support it. Obviously, there are various points on which we think the Government could and should go further, and we will seek to make the Bill even better on Report. For now, I thank all members of the Committee for their contributions over the past week. I look forward to returning to this debate on Report. Question put and agreed to. Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Mr Deputy Speaker, you will remember that Willie Whitelaw famously offered his resignation after an intruder made his way into Buckingham Palace. Has the Minister considered his own position?”
House of Commons23 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“But if there is one thing that frightens me more than that—that terrifies me—it is the idea that someone I love might choose to accelerate their death imagining it to be one last act of kindness for those of us who care so deeply for them, and take away the opportunity for one last birthday together, one last Christmas shared, or even for something as simple as a picnic.”
House of Commons20 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak for the first time on this Bill; I did not vote on Second Reading in November. In her opening speech this morning, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) said that we could choose to vote with our heads or with our hearts, and I have been grappling with that tension and conflict over the past few months. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), that the Bill is stronger now than it was on Second Reading. My sympathy for the principle of assisted dying is as strong as it ever was. The idea of facing a painful death or, worse, watching a loved one in pain at the end of their life frightens me.”
House of Commons20 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am afraid that as the father of a 17-year-old daughter, I can identify with that question a bit too directly—although I should add that she does not suffer with anorexia. Of course, it would terrify any parent that that could ever happen.”
House of Commons20 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“But one does not need to believe in an omniscient and omnipresent God to hold the view that life is precious and that we should take measures to shorten it only very carefully. As I said at the start, I do not believe that the Bill has got better. There are serious concerns about it. I genuinely do not know whether it is possible to put in adequate safeguards to ensure that assisted dying can be available for the cases where we would like to see it, but that would safeguard those difficult cases—the ones that the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), spoke so powerfully about in her very impressive and meaningful speech. What I do know is that if there is a way, this Bill does not do it. That is why I will be voting against it.”
House of Commons20 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When I regained consciousness, there was nothing that the doctors suggested to me that I argued over, whether it was a test, an angiogram or any other procedure. In my circumstances, if I had been in a position where assisted dying was a possibility, and the doctor had raised it entirely neutrally, I do not know how I would have interpreted it. Some Members have spoken of placing a high value on life as if it is some preoccupation of the religiously obsessed. I am a Christian; I am a very middle-of-the-road Anglican. Although I do not take my faith lightly, my Church has never told me how to vote on an issue, and it will certainly not tell me how to vote on this one. I do appreciate, particularly with my own experience, that life is precious.”
House of Commons20 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, I must continue—the hon. Lady has intervened multiple times. The promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Spen Valley, has done well with some of the safeguards around coercion, but the arguments around coercion as we normally understand them from a legal point of view miss the point. We are talking not about where someone with improper aims and motives sets out to cause someone to take a course of action that they would not otherwise take but something much more subliminal. It may be the wish to avoid being a burden, or reading too much into the doctor’s suggestion when they raised assisted death as something to consider. A few years ago I was seriously ill; at my most ill, the doctors said that I had a 90% chance of dying within weeks.”
House of Commons20 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does my hon. Friend agree that people wishing for further clarification of the phrase “grossly disproportionate force” might be advised to consider the guidance on the matter issued by the Crown Prosecution Service?”
House of Commons19 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am struggling to understand either the legal or the ethical distinction that says that someone who is acquitted at trial should be in a fundamentally different position from someone who is acquitted following an appeal and has their conviction overturned. Surely the practical results should be the same. In every other part of the criminal justice process that I have encountered, they are.”
House of Commons19 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the Minister will be aware, where the Court of Appeal overturns a criminal conviction for a serious offence such as this, it will generally be because there was a serious flaw in the original trial that has left it invalid. Even in those circumstances, the Court of Appeal may grant a retrial rather than overturning the conviction. I understand the point the Minister is making about the trauma to the family and child, but would that not apply equally to someone who is acquitted at the original trial, in which case should the court not also be considering it in the event of a not guilty verdict? I really am struggling to understand why a conviction being overturned on appeal is substantively different from a not guilty verdict.”
House of Commons19 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not know how much longer the love-in will last. [Hon. Members: “Aw.”] I will start off nicely. The Minister has been commendably clear that the youth mobility scheme must be capped, and has made comparisons with agreements reached by the previous Government with countries such as Australia, Canada and Uruguay. He will know that last year 9,750 youth mobility visas were issued to Australian nationals, 3,060 to Canadians and just 140 to Uruguayans. Will he be equally clear in setting out what he thinks would be a reasonable level for that cap, or is it just a matter of whatever Brussels tells him he has to accept?”
House of Commons5 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As we see an increase in these sites, we know from basic statistics that there will be more fires on top of those we have already had this year in Tilbury, Cirencester and Aberdeenshire. We therefore need to ensure that our systems are properly adapted and modernised to reflect those risks. The risk of a fire is not only about the potential danger to human life—for both those who may be nearby and the firefighters who are sent to bring those fires under control over what may be 24 or 48 hours —but about our local natural environments.”
House of Commons5 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is why airlines tell us we cannot charge our mobile phone battery while we are on a flight, and it is why Parliament has decided that electric vehicles cannot be charged in the underground car park. It is not because the risk is high; it is because the consequences of things going wrong can be catastrophic. Whereas a mobile phone may have a capacity of 15 to 18 watt hours and an electric vehicle battery perhaps 80 to 100 kW hours, the site in Tilbury—the site of the fire earlier this year, which I think the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) referred to—when completed will have a capacity of about 600 MW hours. To put it another way, that site will be the equivalent of 33 million iPhone batteries.”
House of Commons5 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The same is happening in villages across South Staffordshire. As I have been sitting in the Chamber for this debate, I have received another email from the planning authority inviting me to speak on one these applications, which are coming through at such a rate. That reflects the position across the country. There are 121 operational battery energy storage systems in the United Kingdom, but over 1,500 more are in the pipeline, so we really are at a tipping point, but the planning and regulatory systems have not yet caught up. That is why we need action. As has been said, such batteries have a low failure rate, but sometimes they go wrong, just as they do in mobile phones and electric vehicles.”
House of Commons5 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“People in my constituency are worried. They are worried by the constant stream of applications for new battery energy storage systems in and around the villages across the constituency—from Kinver to Swindon, Hinksford, Wombourne, Lower Penn and the edge of Kingswinford. Their worries were not exactly alleviated by the response the Prime Minister gave to my question last month. He did not give the impression that the Government understand residents’ concerns and some of the reasons for those concerns. Lower Penn in South Staffordshire is a lovely village with a population of just under 1,000, and it felt like pretty much all of them were in the village hall for the public meeting in February. At least seven battery sites have been either approved or proposed in or close to that small village.”
House of Commons5 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Before that is done, however, we clearly need a minimum distance between battery sites and residential properties. We need the fire service to be made statutory consultees on planning applications for battery energy storage systems. Furthermore, the Government really must go back and make the changes needed to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to ensure that local authorities and communities have a real and meaningful say on where such systems are and are not installed.”
House of Commons5 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For example, in Wombourne and Lower Penn there are plans for two battery energy storage sites to be erected close to the Staffordshire and Worcestershire canal and the South Staffordshire railway walk. Not only is the canal a green corridor through our beautiful countryside—an area of outstanding local beauty—but it is close to the historical Bratch locks and Bratch pumping station. It is a popular site for canal users and anglers alike. The consequences of a major fire and the chemical run-off would be devastating for fish stock and other wildlife. The planning and regulatory systems must catch up with the realities before all the applications are approved and in use, by which time it may be too late. We need the National Fire Chiefs Council to update the guidelines, as well as their assessment of battery energy storage systems.”
House of Commons5 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend is completely right. Part of the problem is that the planning applications that come in are often very vague about exactly what lithium ion-type chemical and technology will be used, because they are often made years in advance, and therefore before the products that will be on a site have been acquired. In those circumstances, it is impossible to assess the risk properly. When these fires run for 24 or 48 hours and millions of gallons of water are used to bring them under control, the chemical run-off has to go somewhere, and sadly many of these applications—including those in my constituency—are for sites near to our rivers and our canals.”
House of Commons5 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Recommendation 26 sensibly calls for the expansion of in-school cadet forces. Will the Defence Secretary work with the Department for Education to reverse its penny-pinching cuts, and reinstate school staff instructor grants to help extend cadet forces into more state schools?”
House of Commons2 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“According to the House of Commons Library, in 2018, out of more than 5,000 requests under the Dublin III regulation, just over 200 were granted. That is not the silver bullet—and never was—that the hon. Gentleman imagines it to have been.”
House of Commons22 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is clear that the two sides have different ideas as to what is on the table, and the common understanding does absolutely nothing to clear up that ambiguity. Will the Minister fill in some of those gaps? Will participating EU nationals have to pay the NHS surcharge, or will British taxpayers be left to foot the bill? Will EU students pay the overseas rate or the home student rate for higher education tuition fees? If the latter, will the Government recompense universities for the lost income? Crucially, what does he expect the cap on those numbers to be? Does he expect the number of EU participants to be around the 10,000 mark, as for those who come to the UK under the Australian version of the scheme, or does he expect a higher number?”
House of Commons22 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There obviously could be no return to free movement, no new payments to the EU, no loss of our fishing rights, no compromise on NATO’s primacy in European defence, and no dynamic alignment with EU rules. From the details published so far, it is hard to see how the agreement can possibly meet all five of those vital tests. On the first test, there is little detail about the youth mobility scheme. We support limited youth mobility schemes with effective controls—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”]— as we agreed in government with countries such as Australia and Canada, but they have to be done right and they need controls. Without controls they could become the back door to free movement. I hope the Minister will be able to help in his summing up, because the briefings from the Government and the European Union are worrying.”
House of Commons22 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is the very antithesis of taking back control. It is no wonder the Government were so reluctant to let Parliament know what the Prime Minister was planning to concede. We support efforts to reduce unnecessary trade barriers that clearly damage both sides and to reach an agreement based on mutual recognition between partners that respect each other and their sovereignty, and that work together for mutual benefit. Instead, we are presented with a one-sided deal that sees us forgo rights that are enjoyed by virtually every other independent country in order to sign up to EU schemes on EU terms. Ahead of the summit, we set out five tests against which we would judge whether the Government’s deal actually respected the referendum result, as they promised.”
House of Commons22 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, Mr Vickers. The more that we learn about the reset, the clearer it becomes that far from being the win-win that the Prime Minister promised, it is little more than a bundle of missed opportunities wrapped in hollow rhetoric and enfeebled by untenable concessions. The Prime Minister heralds this agreement with the EU as a monumental win, but in reality it shackles us once more to the whims of Brussels and undermines the very principles underpinning the genuinely historic decision of 17.4 million voters in 2016 to take back control. Instead of taking back control, these agreements entwine us within the jurisdiction of a foreign court. They mean we are beholden to decisions made elsewhere about the quality of British food.”
House of Commons22 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is surely true that our partners will benefit at least as much from the incredible contribution that the British armed forces will make to that security so, given such mutual benefit, there should be no case for additional payments or concessions.”
House of Commons22 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“From Cornwall to Tobermory, fishermen find themselves devastated by a Government prepared to sell them short. That is not what they were promised, and certainly not what they deserve. Again, it is difficult to judge from the information published on Monday whether the security and defence partnership could undermine NATO. There is clearly a need for western Europe to take greater responsibility for the security of the region and to improve its collective capability. There is no question but that closer co-operation can bring benefits for Britain—particularly for contractors able to bid for projects funded by safe loans—but of course none of that is ensured in any of the material published so far.”
House of Commons22 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is an important question for the Minister to answer. This should not come as news. The Leader of the Opposition was quite clear on Tuesday that of course we support the principle of mobility schemes. After all, we negotiated so many of them, which the Minister did not support when he was shadow International Trade Secretary. The Government’s deal clearly also fails the tests on payments to the EU and on fishing rights. Our fishermen stand betrayed. Instead of the four-year transitional arrangement they had under the previous agreement, they have been lumbered with French, Spanish and Dutch mega-trawlers being handed long-term access to their waters. That will become the new permanent state of being, and it will have to be negotiated away from.”
House of Commons22 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the ECJ is specifically set out as the arbiter on questions of EU law, it will be able to rule on those matters, so it will become the arbiter.”
House of Commons22 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Last July, the Prime Minister promised that he would not accept any deal that meant laws being introduced without the consent of Parliament, but it is clear that he has found a way round that promise by agreeing that the UK will immediately adopt new EU laws in a range of areas, but after the pretence of a vote in which no is not a genuine option. Worse, judgments about whether Britain complies with those new EU laws will be adjudicated by the EU’s own European Court of Justice, so the key difference between this and the puffin case that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) referred to is that cases involving dynamic alignment would, by definition, be matters relating to whether the UK is complying with an EU law.”
House of Commons22 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. There are clearly barriers that it would be in both sides’ mutual interest to remove. That should not be difficult to do, but the fact is that it has been difficult. I speak as someone who spent seven very happy years working in a European institution before deciding, on the basis of that experience, that Britain could do better. Sadly, after Brexit, the European Union’s negotiating position seemed determined to treat the United Kingdom less favourably than most other third countries, with which it did not have such a strong trading relationship. That brings me to what is clearly the greatest betrayal of all in these documents, which is the effective surrender of this Parliament’s right to decide what laws apply and do not apply in this country.”
House of Commons22 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Now he says that he wants to make Brexit work, but his version of making Brexit work is about dragging Britain backwards. This deal is not about fixing Brexit; it is about reversing it and undermining it. Let us be absolutely clear: this deal resubmits the UK to foreign courts, foreign laws and foreign control. We will pay into EU budgets, follow EU rules and even have our food standards determined by Brussels. We will be paying into EU schemes with no say on how those funds are spent, and taking EU laws with no say over what they are—the worst of both worlds. No vote. No veto. No voice. Taxation without representation. The Prime Minister complains— [ Interruption. ] Sorry, is the hon. Member for Walthamstow trying to intervene?”
House of Commons22 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend is clearly right, and the national interest cannot be served by a dynamic alignment that effectively requires us to automatically take on other people’s rules. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister either could not or would not tell us what measures would be open to the EU in the event that Parliament chose not to adopt a new EU law under paragraph 27 of the common understanding. Can the Minister do better? Would remedial action be restricted to suspending parts of this agreement, or could it result in a broader trade dispute? Labour fought Brexit at every turn over the last nine years. The Prime Minister backed a second referendum; he stood on platforms calling for us to stay in the EU, and demanded we entered into a customs union that would have made the trade deals reached since Brexit impossible.”
House of Commons22 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗