Pam Cox
MP for Colchester · Labour · United Kingdom
“The university has said that it has taken the decision with great reluctance in response to the significant financial pressures facing the wider higher education sector. It has confirmed that its teaching will be consolidated in Colchester, although it also confirmed job losses at that campus.”
“At a time when higher education across the country faces major challenges, I am very pleased to see that Universities UK is continuing its “Future Universities” initiative, urgently exploring how the sector can better support jobs, innovation, communities and students.”
“It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate in memory of Sir David Amess. Sir David, as we have heard, was a tireless advocate for his Southend constituency, so I felt it was fitting to focus on an issue —the role of the University of Essex—that connects Southend with my own constituency of Colchester.”
“Endometriosis makes life a misery for many women and girls. Far too many are left waiting for diagnosis and treatment, and often they are left without clear communication on their treatment paths. Colchester hospital is the only specialist centre for endometriosis in our county, but waiting times are long.”
“Ruth Ellis was the last woman to be executed in this country. Her case serves as a haunting reminder of a time when our justice system ignored the realities of domestic abuse and coercive control. In the decades since, members of Ruth’s family and supporters have campaigned unwaveringly for her to receive a posthumous pardon.”
“It is encouraging to hear that SMEs will benefit from greater access to Government procurement routes. Can the Minister set out which kind of sectors in particular they think will benefit the most, because that will be of great interest to people in Colchester and the east of England?”
The complete record
Every one of 182 lines we hold for Pam Cox, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“Endometriosis makes life a misery for many women and girls. Far too many are left waiting for diagnosis and treatment, and often they are left without clear communication on their treatment paths. Colchester hospital is the only specialist centre for endometriosis in our county, but waiting times are long. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on improving local services for this debilitating condition?”
“I wish all our new graduates well, and I wish everybody in the House—colleagues, staff, friends and my own team —all the best for a very restful summer.”
“At a time when higher education across the country faces major challenges, I am very pleased to see that Universities UK is continuing its “Future Universities” initiative, urgently exploring how the sector can better support jobs, innovation, communities and students. The message is clear: our universities are central to the economic and social prosperity of our country. I hope that they are very high on the priority list of our new Prime Minister. In Colchester, we see that value every day. The University of Essex supports thousands of jobs, encourages investment and enriches our cultural life. It is a source of enormous local pride. We can see that very clearly right now through the many joyous graduation ceremonies that will be happening over the next fortnight.”
“The university has said that it has taken the decision with great reluctance in response to the significant financial pressures facing the wider higher education sector. It has confirmed that its teaching will be consolidated in Colchester, although it also confirmed job losses at that campus. As a former colleague to many staff there, my thoughts, and I am sure those across the House, are with those suffering right now as they face a very uncertain summer. They have been robustly supported by their trade unions, the University and College Union and Unison, over the past year. They are right to continue to raise concerns about jobs, workloads and the long-term sustainability of our universities. They have my support and that of the MPs who represent Southend—I am nodding to my hon. Friends in the Chamber behind me.”
“It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate in memory of Sir David Amess. Sir David, as we have heard, was a tireless advocate for his Southend constituency, so I felt it was fitting to focus on an issue —the role of the University of Essex—that connects Southend with my own constituency of Colchester. Like fellow Essex MPs, I have been very concerned about the impact of the decision to close the university’s Southend campus. Southend city centre has benefited enormously from having a university presence. I remember growing up there, so I understand the difference that presence would have made at that time. The loss of that presence is already being felt keenly by residents, staff and students.”
“Ruth Ellis was the last woman to be executed in this country. Her case serves as a haunting reminder of a time when our justice system ignored the realities of domestic abuse and coercive control. In the decades since, members of Ruth’s family and supporters have campaigned unwaveringly for her to receive a posthumous pardon. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that their courageous campaign and the terrible lessons of Ruth’s case must strengthen the Government’s resolve to free women from devastating cycles of abuse?”
“It is encouraging to hear that SMEs will benefit from greater access to Government procurement routes. Can the Minister set out which kind of sectors in particular they think will benefit the most, because that will be of great interest to people in Colchester and the east of England?”
“Young people in Colchester will benefit from their new youth hub, which is one of 14 set up across Essex. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the early impact of those youth hubs, and the youth guarantee that so brilliantly underpins them?”
“In my constituency, nearly 1,000 homes have been brought back into public ownership with the creation of the defence housing service. Does my hon. Friend agree that new clause 13, which addresses the question of single living accommodation, threatens to undermine the new defence housing service before it has got off the ground? Although single living accommodation needs attention, that attention should be given within the armed forces umbrella.”
“I welcome this statement and the White Paper. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that programmes such as turnaround are felt in constituencies such as mine in Colchester and beyond?”
“As this parliamentary Session draws to a close, it seems like a good moment to reflect on the legislation passed since the general election—not all of it, of course. Many of us have walked through the Lobby to pass 60 Bills that have touched almost every aspect of British life, from the care of cats, dogs and ferrets to space industry indemnities, along with a whole host of measures seeking to improve life for renters, carers, investors, football fans, NHS patients, serving personnel and more. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that this is a pretty good first Session report card? Does he also agree that the best is yet to come?”
“In recent decades, we have seen some landmark private prosecutions, such as the case brought by the parents of Stephen Lawrence, the cases brought by the RSPCA and other charities, and the cases brought by the Cyclists’ Defence Fund and others. Although we might argue that, in a properly functioning justice system, we would no longer need private prosecutions, we clearly do need them, and if we do still need them, we need to be able to exert proper control over the resources expended on them.”
“This proposal draws on a related recommendation of the Justice Committee, on which I serve. The rates would not be set by the Lord Chancellor, but would instead be consulted on and implemented through secondary legislation, so it is very important that the Government, through the Lord Chancellor, have the power to control the rates that can be claimed and paid. Lords amendment 4 seeks to leave out clause 12, thereby preventing that power from being accorded to the Lord Chancellor. In my view, the Lord Chancellor needs that power. After all, ours is a public justice system, albeit one that has long accommodated private prosecutions. The current arrangements contribute to inequity in our justice system, which this Bill seeks to address more broadly.”
“The Victims and Courts Bill is part of the Government’s wider reforms of our justice system that will, in the round, better protect victims and improve their access to justice, as well as that of defendants. I really welcome its measures to improve communications with victims, to reform non-disclosure agreements, to ensure that defendants appear at sentencing hearings and to restrict the parental rights of child sex offenders. Today, I will focus my remarks on Lords amendments 4 and 7, which are on the financing of private prosecutions. The Bill amends the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to provide a new power for the Lord Chancellor to prescribe the rates at which prosecutors acting in private prosecutions can recover expenses properly incurred by them from central funds.”
“Would the hon. Gentleman agree that due regard is a long-established legal concept that lots of public bodies already understand? It is already routinely applied in practice, and to change the definition for the purposes of the Bill would be to go down an erroneous path.”
“I cannot help noting that the poor performance of SEN services in Essex is largely down to Conservative-run Essex county council, whose arrangement the right hon. Member and I share.”
“I completely agree with everything the hon. Member says about the need for robust mental and physical health support for veterans, and I bow to his personal experience on the matter. Does he agree that, through Operation Courage, we are providing specialist NHS-based mental health support to veterans, and, through Operation Restore, we are providing additional physical health support? It is my understanding that, to date, up to 36,000 veterans have been supported by those two initiatives.”
“How will the new listing framework help to fast-track prosecutions for rape and serious sexual offences? What other measures is the Secretary of State introducing or supporting to that end, so that we can honour our manifesto commitments to bring perpetrators to swift justice?”
“Would the hon. Member agree that legal judgment by peers or equals can include legal judgment by magistrates, and that indeed there is no ancient right to jury trial? To say so is to misrepresent the case.”
“We could think of this exchange as Cox v. Cox. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentions legal history. I have more than a passing interest in that and am minded to think of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879, which moved a lot of cases from a jury system into the magistrates system. The architect of that was Disraeli, a former Conservative Prime Minister. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that many politicians across this House have acted to shape jury trials over time?”
“Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Bill preserves jury trials? It does not abolish them, and to say that it does is to misrepresent the case.”
“I very much respect what my hon. Friend is saying, but the right to elect is not an ancient right; it was introduced in 1855 and escaped reforms in the 1970s. It is therefore a relatively recent addition to the judicial armoury.”
“There is more that I could say about the other measures introduced by the Bill, and about the desperate need to do more for sexual offence victims; for example, I would love us to fast-track RASSO courts at pace. We have a once-in-a-generation chance to improve our courts, so let us take that chance today.”
“As the Magistrates Association reported to the Justice Committee, some will have done so in the hope that the resulting delay would deter victims from continuing. We know that many stopped prosecutions are caused by victims dropping out—demoralised, defeated and denied justice. This Bill turns that dreadful situation around through a whole package of measures, but in part by ending the either-way anomaly. This Bill preserves jury trials for the most serious cases. If it did not, I would not support it. It also allows those presiding over a bench trial to reallocate the case to jury trial if new evidence emerges to suggest that the defendant might receive a sentence of more than three years. That is an important point that has been overlooked so far in this debate.”
“Instead, we can think of it as an anomaly—a legal practice created in the 1850s that survived reforms in the 1970s—and court modernisers have been calling for the practice to be closed down for decades. I focus on the history, because it is important for us to be aware of how others before us have used democratic processes to enact judicial reform in the public interest. In 2001, Lord Justice Auld noted that “our system is probably unique in that, in a large range of offences…the accused, not the court, decides how and where he is to be tried.” Lord Auld recommended that this element be abolished, but that is the system that the Opposition are defending. When they defend that anomaly, they are delaying justice and undermining victims. Last year, more than 4,000 defendants opted for a jury trial.”
“The Opposition have chosen to misrepresent this Bill. That is their choice, but it does the delivery of justice in this country no favours. That misrepresentation has centred on one of the Bill’s many provisions—the proposed changes to mode of trial—but this Bill does not abolish jury trials. It moves some cases to the magistrates courts, introduces bench trials for certain other cases, and introduces reforms to either-way proceedings. If implemented, the Bill will mean that the accused in either-way cases will no longer have the ability to overrule the decision of a magistrates court about the mode of trial, namely where their trial should be held. I want to offer a different perspective on this point. The current right to elect for a jury trial is not an ancient right.”
“Colchester community champion Peter Dutch is campaigning to install bleed kits in schools to help tackle the scourge of knife crime. This week’s terrible incident at Kingsbury school underlines the absolute importance of that. Will the Leader of the House support my call for a debate about installing bleed kits in schools as part of our mission to keep our young people safe?”
“I welcome the Government’s determination to tackle violence against women and girls and to support victims. Does the Minister agree that as well as improvements to our criminal justice system, improvements to our family justice system will play an important part in that?”
“I really welcome the national cancer plan and the Minister’s clear personal determination to bring it to fruition. Does she agree that local innovations are going to play a key part? Such an innovation is the prehabilitation service in Colchester, which gets patients ready for treatment before their treatment begins. Would she and her team like to visit that and other local services to see the impact for herself?”
“As an Essex MP, I am committed to working with Essex Highways and Essex police to develop measures set out in the road safety strategy, particularly the mandating of safety technologies in new vehicles, taking tougher action against drink and drug driving and improving driver testing and learning periods, especially for young drivers.”
“I welcome today’s debate on road safety, which is a subject of deep concern in Colchester and across Essex. In our county, we have seen a year-on-year increase in deaths on our roads, rising to 58 in 2025—too many of those have been young lives. In Colchester, we are marking a terrible anniversary at present: the moment that four young people lost their lives in a single crash. In April last year, an 18-year-old was killed on the A12. In the previous September, a 13-year-old was struck and fatally injured on Mersea Road. The deaths of these young people must be a call to action. Residents regularly raise concerns about the A12 and the A120, where frequent incidents and congestion contribute to these horrors. I would like to highlight the need for better road infrastructure and traffic management on those stretches.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am sure the Minister has heard that point and will respond to it. Far too many people die on our roads—we really must act to save lives. I will close by asking the Minister what new funding will be available to help us in that key endeavour.”
“It needs to offer migrant workers and their families the kinds of protections that we seek to offer to citizens across the country through our Employment Rights Act 2025, child poverty strategy, violence against women and girls strategy, gender equality strategy and homelessness strategy. If I may, I will write to the Minister separately to set out my concerns about what I see as a poor alignment of the current proposal with those elements of our mission as a Government.”
“The Justice Committee, on which I sit, recently had a productive exchange with the Justice Secretary on the matter of exemptions. He assured us that those who have come to the UK to work as prison officers will be exempt from the proposed income thresholds. I understand that parliamentary colleagues who previously worked in the allied health professions—in physical therapy, occupational therapy, pharmacy and social work—have also made a similar case for income threshold exemptions in those vital sectors, so I encourage a very close look at that. As well as being robust and fair, our migration system needs to be in step with other aspects of Government policy.”
“Unison’s proposal for a sector-wide visa system to replace the current one in which individual employers issue individual visas is a very good one, and I am pleased to welcome Unison members from Colchester to the Public Gallery this afternoon. That change would do a great deal to safeguard the rights of all those who work in that vital sector. However, other proposed changes to settlement routes give me and others cause for concern. The extension to the settlement qualifying period and the raising of income thresholds will impact much more heavily on the vital public sector workers who we have heard about today—workers on whom we all rely—than on others. I encourage the Minister to consider extending the exemptions to the proposals, and I also add my voice to the argument that these changes should not apply retrospectively.”
“Like many colleagues, I believe we need a migration system that is robust and fair. It must be robust because, like any sovereign state, the UK needs to be able to exert control over its borders. However, it also needs to be fair, because we are a state that defends and cherishes a rights-based order. I wanted to speak in today’s debate because I have concerns about the unfairness of some of the proposed changes to the current settlement system. I do not dispute the fact that some changes are necessary. For example, I strongly agree that we need a complete overhaul of the way in which we issue visas to those coming to the UK to work in the health and social care sector, as many colleagues have already alluded to.”
“The work of our armed forces is extraordinary for another, very singular reason, which is that it requires the laying down of life. The Parachute Regiment is based in Colchester, with links to other garrisons across the country. During the Afghan conflict, 37 members of the Parachute Regiment gave their lives, and many more were injured. Their selfless sacrifice deserves the upmost respect from us in this country, and from all our allies, including the United States. I close by commending the Bill to the House, and by commending an outstanding Front Bench Defence team, who brought the Bill forward and are doing so much to lead our country in this way.”
“Like so many Members who have spoken in this debate—and I have heard every contribution—I wish to pay tribute to those who serve, to veterans, and to their family members. Those who serve do an extraordinary job, and they do so at our direction and on our behalf. It is therefore our moral duty, which we are reaffirming tonight, to ensure that we give them everything they need to do that job safely and to the best of their remarkable ability. That includes everything from equipment, to training to housing. We have heard a lot about housing in this debate, but I am going to say one more thing. I am delighted that the Government are bringing forward the biggest overhaul of military housing in a generation, and I look forward to working on that with various teams in my Colchester constituency and the garrison there.”
“I welcome the amendments that deal with IPP sentences. This is a matter of concern to many Members on both sides of the House. Can the Minister assure us that following the changes to IPP licence termination, these sentences will continue to provide for community rehabilitation, while protecting communities from harm? Will the Minister also commit to continuing to work to resolve the remaining challenges relating to such sentences?”
“I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I share his concern about the impact of the closure in Southend, which is a community that I know very well. Does he agree that the community in Colchester will also be hard hit by the situation, with a number of redundancies in and around that campus too?”
“Would my hon. Friend agree that it is a desperate situation when so many of our universities are heading into deficit? According to the Office for Students, we are talking about a very large number—about 40% to 50%. Does he agree that we really need action to put our universities back on a secure financial footing?”
“The Government are tackling patient waiting lists through NHS modernisation and reform. Does the Prime Minister agree that we need to tackle victim waiting lists by reforming our courts and criminal justice system?”
“Their remit has narrowed at different points over time as the remits of other judicial bodies have expanded and flexed. For me, the Government’s proposals for court reform are rooted in an undisputed drive to modernise our justice system. Those proposals retain jury trials—the right to jury trial is not being removed—but they also encompass a much wider range of suggested and very necessary changes to our justice system in order to uphold public access to justice.”
“If we jump forward to the early 20th century, we see some major changes to that arrangement: by then, the range of people who could be called for jury service had widened to include women and working people, but the range of offences deemed to require a jury trial had greatly narrowed—a result of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879, which was passed in this place to respond to the need for enhanced public access to justice by greatly expanding the remit of summary courts and magistrates. The magistracy is, of course, another embodiment of justice by the people, for the people. I could say more, but this very potted history shows that juries have played a vital but shifting part in our justice system and have never operated in isolation from the other moving parts of the justice ecosystem.”
“Juries went on to be used in both civil and criminal cases for centuries—until they were not; a major reform in the 19th century removed juries from the adjudication of civil cases. A key driver of that reform was the pressing need to process a vastly increased flow of civil disputes created by a more complex commercial economy. Today, our civil justice system is renowned around the world for its robustness and fairness. The composition and role of the jury in criminal cases has also undergone major changes over time. Who was called to serve on juries in the mid-19th century? Men of property, who gave verdicts in trials on a wide range of alleged offences.”
“Trial by jury is a cornerstone of our justice system. Being held to account in court by our fellow citizens is one of the embodiments of the principle of justice by the people, for the people. Like all aspects of our justice system, jury trial has a history, and has changed over time in response to changing social needs. I think a better understanding of how and why it has changed would help us to understand—if not agree with—the present-day proposals to amend it for our times, so I will focus my remarks in support of amendment (a) on that history. When juries were first introduced, one of their roles was to determine the facts of the case before them. In other words, they had an investigative function—a function that was later removed from them and given to other bodies.”
“I wonder what the hon. Member thinks about the history of jury trials, which shows that the right to trial by jury has not been an inalienable ancient right, but has been flexed over time.”
“I am always proud to be in this Chamber, but I am particularly proud to be here today as the Government bang a final nail in the coffin of Conservative austerity. I really welcome what I hope will be significant additional investment in my constituency of Colchester, because that investment will do so much to improve local services for local residents. Can the Minister give us a timeline for that funding—that is, when will we get the cash?”
“T7. Colchester is home to many serving personnel, veterans and their families. Will the Minister set out how our new veterans strategy and Valour will better support those who have served in our armed forces in my area and beyond? Also, would a member of the ministerial team love to visit Colchester in the year that we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the airborne forces being based there?”
“On European security, I give my strong support to the position taken by the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary in relation to the recent Ukraine peace proposals. Does the Minister agree that there can be no deal affecting Ukraine without Ukraine, and that any deal that rewards Putin’s aggression cannot proceed?”