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 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 previously raised in the House the concerns of victims and their families about the speed and structure of the compensation scheme. They have been repeatedly frustrated by a failure to speed up payments. Although there are signs that the pace is finally starting to increase, I know that their frustrations remain, and we share them. This scandal happened over decades, under successive Governments of different parties, but we all have a responsibility to do what we can to right the wrongs of the past as quickly as possible, and the Opposition will support the Government when they are doing the right thing in doing so. I have also raised the issue of engagement and called on the Government to further solidify ongoing consultation and communication with victims and their families.”
House of Commons21 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for advance sight of it. On behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I thank Sir Brian Langstaff for his initial work on the inquiry and for all his follow-up work. This additional report, focusing on compensation, is a significant and thorough piece of work that has been done in good time. Our thanks also go to those working at the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to get the money out to those who desperately need it. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) welcomes the valuable insight that he gained from his recent visit to the team on the ground in Tyneside. Above all, we pay tribute to the victims, the families and the campaigners who have fought relentlessly and bravely on this issue.”
House of Commons21 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We implemented draught relief, giving pubs a competitive edge and encouraging the sale of lower-strength beer on tap. Crucially, there was a series of freezes and cuts to beer duty year after year, scrapping Gordon Brown’s damaging beer duty escalator and meaning that, by the time of the last election, the duty paid on a pint of real ale in a pub was lower than it had been 12 years earlier. We embraced the freedoms afforded to us post Brexit to create a more proportionate, strength-based alcohol duty system, designed to support responsible consumption and encourage the production of lower-strength drinks, while putting pubs and licensed premises on a fairer footing compared with supermarkets and off-licences.”
House of Commons15 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have also received hospitality from CAMRA, the BBPA, UKHospitality and probably the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates. I rise to speak not only as the Member of Parliament for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, but as someone who had the honour of chairing the all-party parliamentary beer group for more than five years. During that time, I worked with colleagues across the House to ensure that our brewers, pubs and beer lovers had a Government that understood their value to communities, our economy and local culture. Under the previous Government, real progress was made on duty. We delivered reforms that simplified beer duty, recognising the unique role that pubs and small brewers play in British life.”
House of Commons15 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I pay tribute to Gordon Brown for that measure, if nothing else: small breweries relief played an important part in encouraging the emergence of a thriving small brewing community, from hobbyists through to established local brewers, in every part of the country. We are seeing the long-term benefits, both economic and cultural.”
House of Commons15 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), as Chancellor, agreed to a differential duty for draft beer. Then the Leader of the Opposition, as Exchequer Secretary, introduced it as part of the alcohol duty review. I know that the Minister harbours some ambitions; I hope that the subsequent elevation of predecessors who moved to support pubs through duty reform will offer him some inspiration. Reports of a potential review that could scale back the benefits of that draft beer duty rate are deeply concerning. Small producer relief, launched under the last Government and building on the success of Gordon Brown’s small breweries relief, was a significant step forward.”
House of Commons15 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would mean higher prices at the local, more pressure on struggling pubs and reduced confidence for independent brewers. That would be not just bad policy but economically incoherent. While costs are high across the supply chain and the Government are piling further costs on to pubs and brewers through wage costs, the Government have decided to add further instability and more tax, rather than consolidating reforms that were already delivering value. Under the last Government the draft relief was introduced to give pubs a much needed lifeline, cutting duty on beer from draft containers over 20 litres and reinforcing the social and economic value of the on trade. I campaigned hard for that. I was delighted when my right hon.”
House of Commons15 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Lady is completely right because of the margins that such brewers operate on. The concern now is that, if reports are correct and the Government are considering beer duty as a revenue raiser to fill the gap in the Chancellor’s budget, so much of the progress will be put at risk. Since the Government took office last July, almost every decision that the Chancellor has taken seems to have gone in the wrong direction when it comes to supporting pubs, hospitality and brewing. Just months into office, the Chancellor confirmed that beer duty would rise in line with the retail prices index from February this year—a sharp and sudden shift, which wiped out so many of the gains. That really needs to be a one-off because the return of automatic uprating every year would be a real betrayal of both the brewing industry and consumers.”
House of Commons15 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Neither our brewers nor our community pubs can afford to take the hit now by being seen as cash cows for the Chancellor’s need to raise revenue. Real ale deserves real support. Labour’s national insurance rises and slashing of business rate relief has hammered pubs, while its cap on business property relief is a real threat to family brewers. The least that the Government can do is offer some comfort by reducing the pressures caused by high beer duty rates. Consumers, publicans and brewers alike will be watching carefully to see whether the Minister is truly on their side.”
House of Commons15 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They go from drinking in well-regulated pubs and bars to drinking more at home, without that monitoring and oversight. Publicans tell us that the support that they once felt is now gone. Brewers, especially in rural and coastal areas, are seeing margins tighten and options shrink, and it is drinkers who are paying more for less. We are looking to the Government to reverse the automatic RPI uprating and freeze duty for the remainder of this Parliament; to expand draught relief, to ensure that packaged beer sold in pubs pays a significantly lower duty rate than that sold mainly in supermarkets; to raise the small producer threshold, allowing businesses, including family brewers, to grow without fear of penalty; and to commit to a long-term transparent policy that supports investment and sustainability in the brewing industry.”
House of Commons15 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman is right to say that 10 pubs a week were closing; a number of those, I think, had been artificially sustained through covid by support, but there has been a long-term trend, going back to the turn of the century, of far too many pubs closing. The difference was that the last Government were taking action to try to address that trend. We are waiting to see whether this Government will match that action. British beer is not just an industry but a cultural institution. The evidence of a link between price and alcohol consumption is tenuous at best, but we do know that as prices rise, habits change. When they rise sharply, consumers switch how and what they drink: they go from drinking low-strength beers and ciders to higher-strength wines and spirits.”
House of Commons15 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the Minister will be aware, under the existing framework, the UK is entitled to take unilateral measures to protect the internal market where there is a diversion of trade. The Federation of Small Businesses Northern Ireland says that a third of businesses that previously traded between Great Britain and Northern Ireland have ceased to do so. We know from his interview yesterday that the Minister does not consider three quarters of deportations being voluntary to represent a majority, but does he consider a third of businesses to be a diversion of trade? If he does not, what would be a diversion of trade?”
House of Commons10 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth on bringing forward this Bill, which replicates, in many ways, the provisions of a similar Bill that was introduced before the election and taken through the House of Commons stages by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). As the hon. Lady says, secure 16-to-19 academies are fundamentally different to other schools, so it is appropriate that different requirements apply to them. This is a sensible Bill that modifies part of the framework around academies and disapplies some requirements that are simply not relevant to secure 16-to-19 academies. Therefore, as the official Opposition, we are very happy to support the Bill and look forward to it progressing.”
House of Commons2 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Contrary to what the Secretary of State has just told the House, two weeks ago, the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland published a report suggesting that a third of small businesses that move goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland have ceased supplying customers or partners either in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland. Under the Northern Ireland protocol, if the UK experiences diversion of trade, we are entitled to take unilateral action to safeguard our internal market. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he thinks that a third of small businesses ceasing trade in that way amounts to a diversion of trade? If not, perhaps he could tell us what would.”
House of Commons2 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Of course, hospitality was particularly hard hit by the pandemic and by lockdowns. Many hospitality businesses are still carrying the burden of covid debts, with repayments that have taken them from being thriving businesses to ones that barely break even.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There are just three mentions of hospitality in the whole strategy, and one of those was because the Government had mis-spelled “hospitals”. Hospitality is a proven route to social mobility and opportunity, accessible to everyone, not just a privileged few. Yet the Government’s actions directly contradict their levelling-up agenda. They talk about growth, but strangle the sectors that deliver it. They talk about fairness, but penalise the poorest workers. They talk about opportunity, but crush the businesses that provide it. They have forgotten that enterprise is not just about spreadsheets—it is about people, purpose and pride. Even before the Budget, hospitality businesses were paying twice as much tax as financial services relative to their profits. That is an astonishing imbalance.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is not a warning sign —that is a siren. Part-time and entry-level workers have been the hardest hit; not highly paid City graduates, but bar staff, kitchen porters and hotel receptionists in every village, town and city across our country. The problem is even more damaging because it flies in the face of the Government’s own stated missions. The Government claim to want regional growth and better living standards across the UK, but the Budget has cancelled investment, reduced hours and led to closures in exactly the communities that need regeneration the most. The hospitality sector has outgrown the wider economy in recent years, yet it barely even features in the Government’s new industrial strategy.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yet the sector faces an existential threat—not from a lack of demand, but from deliberate political choices made in last autumn’s Budget and the spring statement. Those choices have hit hospitality harder than any other part of the economy. The Government’s 2024 Budget, far from being fair or progressive, has dealt a brutal blow to our high streets and local economies. The cumulative effect of increased employer national insurance contributions and cuts to business rate relief, alongside the increases in the national living wage, has added £3.4 billion to the sector’s annual cost base. Let us be clear: those numbers are not abstract. They represent shifts that businesses feel every single week and to which they are taking action in response. Early Government figures show that 100,000 jobs were lost in just one month.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for the hospitality sector. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I have also received hospitality from UKHospitality and from the British Beer and Pub Association that falls below the registrable threshold. I am pleased to open this debate on a subject of national and local importance: the future of our hospitality sector. From pubs and restaurants to hotels and leisure centres, hospitality is more than just a convenience; it is the beating heart of our communities. It provides first jobs, second chances, career ladders and gathering places. It employs 3.5 million people and contributes £140 billion in economic activity and £54 billion in tax receipts to the Exchequer each year.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Office for National Statistics confirms that since the October Budget, the hospitality sector has shed 69,000 jobs, even before the latest figures from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. That is 3.2% of all hospitality jobs. To put that in context, the overall economy lost 1.2% of jobs in the same period, so hospitality’s job losses were 266% higher than the national average.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Of course, those tax rises came in at exactly the same time as the increase in the national living wage, adding even more pressure to small business employers such as the tea room at Ashwood Nurseries, in my constituency, which already operate on tight margins. Let me be clear: no one opposes fair pay. I am proud that the previous Government introduced the national living wage, and increased it to give workers’ incomes a boost. However, if the Government want sustainable wage increases, they cannot also pile on non-wage costs at the same time—and that is before the impact of their employment rights package, which comes into force next year. The data already shows the consequences starkly.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The changes to employer national insurance contributions have meant that 774,000 workers, many of them on lower incomes or working part time, are caught in a net that punishes job creation. The cut in business rate relief from 75% to 40% has driven otherwise viable businesses into the red, hitting pubs such as the Green Man in my constituency, which has seen its business rates bills rise from about £140 a month to nearly £350 a month—before a single customer has been served or a single pint pulled. A third of hospitality businesses now operate at a loss. That is not sustainable, and it is not fair. According to UKHospitality, the Government’s measures will cost the sector at least £3.4 billion, including a £1 billion cost from the national insurance contribution increases alone.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), to help to put pubs, bars and clubs on a level playing field with supermarkets by charging lower duty on draft beer in cask and kegs than is charged on bottles and cans. They could look at ways to reschedule those covid-19 loans, to give firms some breathing space to increase the chance of them actually being able to repay those debts as successful businesses. Each of those measures would stimulate growth, protect jobs, and help every region of the UK to thrive.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In order for the sector to do that, however, the brakes must be taken off, and there are simple, targeted steps that the Government could take now. They could protect the high streets by quickly introducing a proper reform of business rates, with a maximum discount for venues under £500,000 rateable value. They could scrap the proposed additional levy on larger hospitality businesses, which are so important to many of our communities and provide so many jobs. They could create a new lower rate of national insurance contributions for those earning between £5,000 and £9,100, to reverse April’s job losses and make it easier to hire again. The Government could also extend the differential duty rate introduced by my right hon.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“These are not abstract statistics; they are real people’s lives. Overwhelmingly, young, part-time, ethnic minority and lower-income workers are disproportionately represented among those hit, despite those being the very groups that the Government claim they want to support. The Government’s policies are deeply regressive. It does not have to be this way. Hospitality is not asking for handouts, but for a level playing field. The sector is resilient. After the 2008 crash and during covid, it helped to revive communities and restore confidence and, within the right framework, it can do so again. It has the potential to grow six times faster than the wider economy, to create half a million jobs by 2030, and to breathe life into areas across the country, not just in the overheating south-east.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Gentleman is clearly correct. One of the dangers of trying to pick winners is that those that do not make the priority list are, almost by definition, left behind. Major sectors such as hospitality and food and drink employ so many people, in every constituency, right across the age groups and in every demographic possible; leaving them out sends a very unfortunate signal, at the very least, and could be very damaging, if not corrected quickly. A third of hospitality businesses report that they operate at a loss, with jobs lost, hours cut, investment cancelled and, sadly, many businesses closing. The Office for Budget Responsibility warns that 60% of the national insurance contributions burden will be passed on through lower wages, hitting workers despite the Chancellor’s promises.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Hospitality is being taxed out of existence, and that is a political choice. We need a change of course not just for the sector, but for every community that depends on it. We need policies that reflect the value that hospitality brings—economically, socially and culturally—and we need action now.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Hospitality, as I have said, is so important in every part of the United Kingdom. We need Governments in every part of the United Kingdom to recognise that and to take the appropriate action, although I hope the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if my focus is primarily on those decisions that can be taken in Westminster and by the Government at a national level. My challenge to the Minister today is simple: will he listen, if not to me, then to representatives from across the hospitality sector who are clear that the Government are getting this wrong? Will he support a sector that contributes £54 billion in tax receipts— far more than it gets back? Will he stand by his Government’s own missions of fairness, opportunity and growth, or will he continue policies that undermine them at every turn?”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members for supporting this debate, and for their continuing work to push the Government to increase their support and understanding towards this important sector. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for the hospitality sector.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For example, the Streets Ahead programme run by McCain, one of the largest employers in my constituency, supports dozens of hospitality start-ups and trains hundreds from disadvantaged backgrounds in the hospitality sector, and the charity Only A Pavement Away helps people who are facing homelessness by offering opportunities in hospitality. That is what real social mobility looks like—not a press release, but a purpose. Hospitality can do so much in return for so little, but it can do so only if it is given the right framework and a tax system that does not hit labour-intensive businesses disproportionately hard. Hospitality can drive the growth that we all want to see. It can create high-quality jobs and offer good opportunities in every one of our constituencies, but it needs and deserves our support. I thank hon.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for his response, even if there was little in it that will bring much comfort to the hospitality businesses that are struggling as a result of the Chancellor’s choices. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members from across the Chamber who have made such effective contributions, underlining the importance of hospitality in all our constituencies. This is more than an economic issue. Hospitality offers the first rung on the ladder for millions of young people, and second chances to those rebuilding their lives. It brings people together across classes, backgrounds and regions. It is the ultimate vehicle for social mobility. It gives people a chance to run their own million-pound turnover business, even if they do not have the start-up capital or the right connections.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 11, page 12, line 22, at end insert— “(aa) in that sub-paragraph omit ‘28’ and insert ‘56’”. This amendment increases the window for applying to the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme from 28 days to 56 days.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is about enforceable rights. A legal right means little if the person entitled to it does not know that it exists. Victims deserve to be told what their options are clearly and promptly. The amendment would ensure that no one missed their opportunity for justice simply because no one had bothered to tell them. Surely we do not need the Law Commission to tell us that this is the right thing to do. Finally, amendment 9 would make a straightforward but crucial change—to increase the time limit for referring a sentence under the unduly lenient sentence scheme from 28 days to 56 days. This is about achieving simple fairness by extending more broadly the Government’s measure to award more time to their own Law Officers.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government are giving the appearance of being dependent on reviews to make up their mind on quite simple principles, but particularly anything significant in the judicial sphere. Here is an opportunity to be bold, and to apply good instincts, which I know the Minister has and am confident would be similar to ours on this issue. We hope that the Government will accept the amendment. Amendment 12 addresses the equally important issue of awareness. Of course, a short time window creates a greater risk of someone never being made aware, but either way, we need a more robust mechanism of notification, so that victims know of the possibilities. The amendment would introduce a new duty on the Crown Prosecution Service to inform victims, or a deceased victim’s next of kin, within 10 working days of sentencing that they can apply to the ULS.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Ayse Hussein, also from Justice for Victims, had a similar experience, and the group is campaigning for a change in the law. I am sure the Minister will say that the Law Commission is looking into unduly lenient sentencing and that we must let it do its work, but anyone reading that review will see that it is primarily about criminal appeals from the viewpoint of offenders. The consultation document makes it clear that the Law Commission does not think there is anything wrong with the way in which the ULS operates at the moment, and it is not clear how it can possibly reach that view. Why does the Minister need the Law Commission to tell her and us that this needs to change?”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Many of us will have had victims come to our advice surgeries soon after sentencing, but outside the 28-day period in which we are able to offer any help. When we have spoken to victims, it has been clear that, first, they were not aware of that, and secondly, because of their state of mind after the trial and sentencing, they were not focusing on such things immediately. Therefore, it is reasonable to extend that period. Katie Brett started a petition to change the law, which has gathered more than 14,000 signatures. Katie is doing that in memory of her sister Sasha, who was brutally murdered; she was stabbed more than 100 times, raped, and her body was set on fire. Katie has every reason to believe that her sister’s killer should have received a whole-life order, but will never get the chance to legally test that.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As Paula and Glenn from Justice for Victims said, echoing what Katie Brett from the group had originally said, 28 days is the same amount of time people get to return something to a shop. There is an inherent unfairness, because there is an exceptional circumstances clause under which a criminal gets no time limit—none at all. The Bill will amend the unduly lenient sentence scheme, but only for the Government’s Law Officers—not in relation to victims and families. We can see no good reason why we should not act now, with legislation before us, to improve the scheme for victims and families too. Our amendment 10 would allow victims, or a deceased victim’s next of kin, to request a review up to one year after sentencing. Giving them time to act would show that we understand that this can be a deeply traumatic time for many people.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although the views of victims and their families are not the only ones we should seek, we really want them to have a fair and reasonable experience of the justice system, and to consider its outcomes to be fair and reasonable. The unduly lenient sentence scheme provides victims, their families and others with a route to redress when they feel that the outcome does not represent justice. However, it is clear from the evidence we heard last week, and from victims’ family members whom the shadow Minister and I have spoken to, that the current scheme is woefully inadequate. Witnesses who spoke for victims during our evidence sessions, as well as the Victims’ Commissioner and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, all agreed that the current time window is simply not fair.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Across the criminal justice system, we have seen considerable effort made to improve the experience of victims and their families, including through the introduction of screens, the pre-recording of evidence, the work of organisations such as Victim Support, and the many ways in which the Victims’ Commissioner has expanded the rights of victims and their families and the services available to them. However, there is cross-party agreement on the need to go further. We welcome many of the measures that the Government are introducing, including through clause 11, but victims and their families are not just interested in what the processes of the criminal justice system are like.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Before any observers start panicking that the shadow Justice Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, has really let himself go over the weekend, I should say that he sends his apologies to the Committee, although it is not clear whether that is for his absence due to illness or for lumbering Members with me this morning. I rise to speak in support of Opposition amendments 9 to 12. In the last sitting, we spent considerable time considering the role and involvement of victims and their families in the sentencing process. We spoke about measures aimed at making it as meaningful as possible by both involving them and trying to ensure that offenders are present. Disappointingly, we were unable to secure changes that we believe would strengthen the voice of victims and their families.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for her comments. Given those, we will not press amendment 10 to a Division today, but we reserve the right to return to it later in the process. However, we would like votes on amendments 9 and 12. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although we will be watching closely to ensure that the expanded powers are used proportionately and in ways that genuinely improve public protection and victim confidence in the system, we agree that the clause is a sensible provision, and we will support it. Question put and agreed to. Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause 4 Court transcripts of sentencing remarks “(1) All sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court must be published within two sitting days of being delivered. (2) All publications must be freely available to all members of the public.”— (Mike Wood.) Brought up, and read the First time.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The clause is a sensible measure updating the sentencing provision for certain offences on summary conviction. It will replace the fixed six-month maximum term with the general limit in a magistrates court. The change affects a number of serious offences, including breaches of sexual harm prevention orders, criminal behaviour orders and restraining orders. Those are not technical breaches; they often represent a continuation of harmful, coercive or threatening conduct, and it is right that magistrates should have the greatest possible flexibility to impose sentences that reflect the seriousness and risk involved. The clause brings consistency to how the offences are treated and allows magistrates to use the full extent of the sentencing powers available to them.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The public deserve to see how justice is applied in their name, and journalists deserve timely access so that the courts can be reported on accurately and fairly. This is a modest ask with significant democratic weight: two days to publish and no barriers to access. We should expect nothing less from a modern justice system that values openness, trust, and public understanding. It ties into our earlier amendments, because these remarks would help someone understand whether they should consider a referral to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. I hope the Government will support the new clause to deliver the basic right for victims, their families and the general public.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That feeds a sense of injustice and confusion, particularly when sentencing decisions are controversial or appear lenient. It also limits public confidence in our courts. People should not have to be legal professionals or pay fees just to access the reasoning behind a judge’s decision. The new clause would change that. It would require that all sentencing remarks made in the Crown court be published within two sitting days and that those publications be freely accessible to the public. That is not only a matter of open justice; it is a basic democratic civil right. Open justice is not served if court processes and explanations are inaccessible to the very people they affect most directly. Victims deserve to know how their case was resolved.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The new clause seeks to address a critical gap in transparency and accessibility in our criminal justice system: the publication of sentencing remarks from the Crown court. Sentencing remarks are the moment when justice is spoken out loud; when the judge explains not only what sentence is being passed, but why. For victims, families, journalists and the public at large, the remarks are essential for understanding the rationale behind a sentence. They provide clarity, accountability, and allow the public to see that justice is being not only done, but explained. Under the current system, however, the remarks are often buried, available only on request, behind paywalls or subject to lengthy delays, and generally at significant financial cost.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does the Minister see the irony in saying it is too onerous to produce the transcripts within 48 hours, when a verbatim transcript of the remarks she has just made will be available to the general public within a few hours?”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for her remarks, but it does seem that, particularly with the use of AI, as she has said, releasing an initial transcript need not be overly onerous. Obviously, after having got that initial release, the measure would allow for a definitive recording to be produced at a later time if an appeal was to be based on that. I do think that making these transcripts available is in the public interest, so we would like to press new clause 4 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 ↗
“We support the calls from the Lady Chief Justice for more sitting days, and regret that the Government have only gone part of the way towards meeting the capacity that the Lady Chief Justice said was available within the court system. Moving forward, it is important that we keep up the scrutiny to ensure that the court system is operating effectively and in the interests of victims. Delays in the court system are not just administrative; they retraumatise victims, reduce conviction rates and push people out of the justice process altogether. This review is urgent and overdue. If we are truly to put victims first, we must understand and act on the toll that these delays take. The Opposition believe that this review will help to focus efforts on reducing those delays to a minimum.”
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. New clause 7 calls for a review of court delays and their impact on victims to be conducted within six months of the Bill becoming law. Clearly, the impact of covid on our Crown courts in particular is still being felt within the system. Prior to covid, the Crown court backlog was actually lower than it had been under parts of the previous Labour Administration. Due to significant investment in recovery efforts to try to address the backlog since the pandemic, including a provision for Nightingale courts and uncapped sitting days, the previous Lord Chancellor was clear that our last provisionally agreed sitting days were to be seen as a floor, not a cap.”
House of Commons24 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗