Nick Timothy
MP for West Suffolk · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I was nine years old at the time of the Hillsborough tragedy, and I remember listening to the news of the terrible events on the radio, sitting behind my parents in the car.”
“I think the hon. Lady, whether it is by design or by mistake, misunderstands my point. Of course, there should be accountability and transparency, and there are many ways in which we can do that, but there are ways of doing it that do not jeopardise the operations of the most sensitive organisations in the country by revealing their sourc…”
“My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Prime Minister said this was going to be one of his first acts as Prime Minister; it turns out it is going to be his final act as Prime Minister.”
“They have known grief and suffering none of us would ever wish to experience. This is not a debate about the need for transparency. I am proud to have played a modest part in bringing that about when I worked in the Home Office. Nor is this a debate about the need for accountability.”
“I am confused by that intervention from the hon. Lady, who was the Minister in charge of this Bill. The argument I am making is consistent with the position she brought to the House in January, only to back down when it became controversial.”
“I am tempted to say that the hon. Lady should have a conversation with the Attorney General, who used to prosecute British soldiers and was still appointed to one of the highest offices in the land.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Nick Timothy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 12.
“Fourthly, even assuming compulsory purchase at existing use value with hope value removed—which I believe is not what the developers have said to local landowners—land acquisition would require around £1 billion of up-front public expenditure. Removing hope value reduces up-front costs, but capping resale prices through a so-called permanent affordability model means that there is no mechanism to pay back the capital. In other words, this is yet another black hole. Taken together, these funding gaps suggest up to £175 billion of Government funding, with no way for the state to recover the costs. When I put these problems and detailed questions to the developers in a letter sent in March, the reply I received one day later did not even seek to provide answers.”
“The developers suggest selling a limited number of commercial plots to cross-subsidise investment, but this falls far too short. Without capturing the wider increase in land value, this is another massive black hole. Thirdly, the plan implies water self-sufficiency at scale. The east of England is a water-stressed region, and a city of 1 million people would require around 170 megalitres per day of additional supply. That is equivalent to one south Lincolnshire reservoir or two fens reservoirs in deployable output terms, at a capital cost of up to £4 billion, excluding network reinforcements and financing. There is no plan and no funding for that work, and when I wrote to Anglian Water, it said that the developers had not even been in touch.”
“I think we have just had it—the people of West Suffolk will know that local Labour representatives are in favour of Forest City, which I think is shameful. As I was saying, the resale model removes residential land value and caps resale at inflation-indexed build cost, excluding land. Where homes cost £350,000, as promised by the developers, this creates a permanent capital gap of £275,000 per unit. At the scale proposed—approximately 400,000 homes—that implies up to £110 billion of housing capital subsidy paid by the Government. Secondly, the plan relies on a development corporation with powers of compulsory purchase, while denying itself increases in land value uplift. For a city of 1 million people, non-housing infrastructure will cost anywhere up to £60 billion in capital expenditure.”
“It is undoubtedly the case that we need to build more houses in this country, but schemes such as the one described by my hon. Friend must be proportionate for the areas in which they are proposed, and must come with infrastructure, services and amenities.”
“Simon Dudley, the former chairman of Homes England, called Forest City “a recipe for disaster, paid for by the taxpayer and dressed up as progress.” Simon Lovegrove, an expert in new towns and cities around the world, has said that there is “no need for such a city”, that the proposal has “major flaws”, and that—for the reasons that I have already given—it is “unaffordable”. As Mr Lovegrove says, according to the employment-population ratio and the labour force participation rate, a city of 1 million people would have a working population of nearly 400,000, but the city of Cambridge has a working population of less than 70,000. The developers talk about the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, but I wonder whether they have even looked at a map, because we are on the wrong side of Cambridge for that.”
“I completely agree, and I will come to the needs of Cambridge and the surrounding area. You will have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that none of the examples that I have just given is in a western country. That is because advanced economies do not build artificial communities from scratch in the hope that economic growth will follow. That is the logic of the autocrat and the socialist planner, and there is enough evidence from history to inform us of its chances of success. In truth, the Government know that. In the small print of the new towns programme, officials were dismissive of Forest City, saying that it had no local support, no landowner backing, no broader development interest, and no route to delivery. They said that Haverhill did not meet their economic tests, and that the area near Exning and Newmarket had too little water.”
“My concern is that this Government, who have been setting and missing ambitious house building targets, will see Forest City not for the impracticability of the plan but as a big idea that they can seize to show that they still have radicalism. The developers are already talking about their pitch to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), and some local Labour politicians—we have heard from one today—have already hinted at, or even given, their own support.”
“That is why I have never been an anti-housing campaigner, but the solution to the demand created by the innovation and enterprise of Cambridge is not Forest City. The solution is the densification of Cambridge itself, the development of land adjacent to the city, and the construction of transport connections to the towns and villages within a commutable distance. Haverhill, for example, provides Cambridge with workers, including many at Addenbrooke’s hospital. It needs a rail link and not just the often single-lane A1307. The line between Newmarket and Cambridge should be dualled, and there need to be more services through Newmarket and Brandon.”
“There is value in the rural way of life, even if the Forest City developers disparage it. Local people do not want to see their homes and communities destroyed. This is not about knee-jerk opposition to new homes, because we have had thousands of new homes built in the last five years. The new local plan proposes 5,000 new homes, on top of the 8,700 already marked for planning permission. Although Government housing targets have been cut for the cities, they have gone up by 57% for us. To put things into context, Haverhill has doubled in size in only 30 years. Given our proximity to Cambridge, this is understandable. As I said in my maiden speech, we should “embrace the opportunities, not just fear the risks”, —[ Official Report , 22 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 445.] of housing demand connected to Cambridge.”
“On different occasions, Mr Malik has claimed the support of local landowners, when only one is believed to support Forest City and the rest oppose it. He has claimed the support of the British Horseracing Authority, which has had to write to him to tell him to stop. He has also claimed the support of the Jockey Club, which has also sent him a legal letter. He threatened to sue me for revealing these things, but when I held my ground, he backed down. In truth, Forest City has attracted almost universal opposition among the people of West Suffolk—those living in villages and those in the towns; those who were born and bred in the area and those who chose to move there; those who are young and those who are old; the landowners, homeowners and renters; and the businesses and residents.”
“In the Financial Times , Mr Malik was photographed next what was called a “deserted field”, seemingly unaware that the farmland in our corner of Suffolk is the best in the country. The poor behaviour does not end there. Malik and Reeve present their plan as an act of altruism for the country and the next generation, but they want to keep 160 acres of the city for themselves. Based on Cambridge land values, that would be worth hundreds of millions of pounds. The chairman of their company, Dame Patricia Hewitt, is opening doors for them and promoting the proposition as being in the national interest. She is less open about the fact that Mr Malik will soon be her son-in-law, and her family therefore have a direct financial stake in what she promotes.”
“Their lives will be ruined, and they have been told that they will have to live amid a building site for decades, often for the remainder of their lives. They have been not only disrespected, but insulted. The Forest City developers, Shiv Malik and Joe Reeve, bussed in supporters from outside the area to a supposedly local meeting in Haverhill. They cancelled a public meeting in Thurlow because too many locals wanted to come—it was apparently a secret public meeting. Behind our backs, they and their supporters have disparaged local people as too old to have a stake in the future, too white to be interesting, and too rural to understand the obvious joys of city life.”
“I have had emails from people who have found their dream home in Suffolk, but cannot commit to buying it as long as this development remains on the table. People in the Bradleys have been told that their village will have to be flooded to make way for a reservoir. People in Great Wratting and the Thurlows have been told that village life will be gone forever. People in Exning, Newmarket and Haverhill have been told that their communities will become suburbs. People in Wickhambrook and Withersfield and Hundon and Kedington and Denston and Stradishall and Ousden and Dalham and Lidgate and Cowlinge—which, like Haverhill, the developers cannot even spell—have been told that they do not matter.”
“During a debate in the other place two weeks ago, Baroness Taylor, a Housing Minister, told my noble Friend Lord Herbert: “We are aware of the Forest City proposals and will be following how they progress through the appropriate local consultations and approvals”. —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 10 June 2026; Vol. 856, c. 1423.] But this is the point: Forest City will not go through local consultations and approvals. Its proposers are asking the Government to circumvent local democracy and create a development corporation with compulsory purchase powers. The Government could just say no, but so far they have refused. In the meantime, it is local people who are suffering. I have had emails from people who have told me that they would like to sell their house, but cannot.”
“In March, the Housing Minister said in answer to a question from me: “Officials will review this proposal in the usual way, including through a meeting with the promoters.” In April, he confirmed that the meeting had in fact been held in February. When the developers claimed to be in talks with the Treasury, I asked Ministers there, in April, whether they, their advisers or their officials had met the Forest City team, but they refused to answer. When I asked whether the advisers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government had met the Forest City team, I was directed to a publication about meetings held last year—not this year—with senior media figures, not developers. To date, everyone has been completely evasive about the whole thing.”
“I do agree, but it is not just a distraction from the need to build in the way that that is needed in the broader region around Cambridge. Only today I received an email from one of my constituents who said, “I see that you have a debate. Please will you emphasise the damage that this is doing to people’s mental health, and the anxiety that it is causing local residents?” Why, if this proposal is so flawed, has it not already been killed off? The developers behind Forest City have won fawning media coverage in The Guardian, the Financial Times and the BBC, and to date the Government have refused to say no.”
“Secondly, for all the reasons I have given, will the Government take this opportunity to rule out Forest City for good? Thirdly, in particular, will the Government rule out the establishment of a development corporation and the use of compulsory purchase powers for the construction of Forest City? Fourthly, do the Government share some or all of my concerns about the financial modelling and affordability gap in the Forest City proposal, as presented, and if so, where do they agree or disagree? Fifthly, will the Government publish details of all meetings and conversations held between all Ministers, officials and advisers in different Departments and the representatives of Forest City, including the chairman and members of its advisory board?”
“To be honest, I am at a complete loss as to how that does not express support for the scheme, and if the hon. Gentleman is saying that he does not support it after his earlier intervention, that may be a record U-turn even for this Labour party. This debate presents us with an opportunity to kill off this disastrous idea and all the anxiety and blight it is causing, so I want to ask the Minister the following questions. I gave him advance notice to ensure that we get clear answers, and on behalf of everybody in West Suffolk, I really do ask for clarity. First, do the Government recognise, despite prior ministerial statements, that the Forest City developers do not seek to go through “the appropriate local consultations and approvals”, and plan to rely instead on the legal, financial and political support of central Government?”
“I thank the Minister for his considered answers to my questions. The point is that the Forest City developers are not seeking a process where Ministers consider an application using their quasi-judicial role; it is that they are seeking a policy decision to support the creation of a development corporation with compulsory purchase powers. I think that is a different question, which I would like to press him on. Will he rule that out, or can he not?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am an honorary member of the Jockey Club Rooms, which provides accommodation and function rooms in Newmarket. It is an offshoot of the Jockey Club, and I accepted the membership to support a valued local institution. I declared this in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but did not repeat the declaration when I tabled four written parliamentary questions regarding the taxation of training yards and racecourses. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards accepted that I tabled the questions because of their relevance to the local economy, and understands that my error was inadvertent. None the less, I accept his advice that I should have declared this interest a second time when I tabled the questions, and I apologise to the House.”
“Last year, 6,397 knife criminals were sent to prison, and the average sentence was just over eight months. As the Government scrapped almost all sentences of less than a year, will the Justice Secretary say very clearly whether he expects as many knife criminals to go to jail next year as did last year?”
“What the Justice Secretary just said about the record of the last Government was factually untrue, and he should withdraw it. He does not want to admit it, but it is his policy to send fewer knife criminals to jail. That is why he just said what he did. His White Paper was announced yesterday, and buried in it, on page 46—he can read it again—is his plan to not just go soft on young criminals, but make others, “including vulnerable adults and young adults…subject to a different process”. That is wrong. Can the Justice Secretary rule out weaker sentences, and a target of reducing imprisonment rates for any adult criminals?”
“This weekend, two marches came to London: one was condemned by the Justice Secretary; about the other—yet another anti-Israel march—there was not a word. Once again we heard crowds of people demanding intifada revolution and other coded calls for attacks on British Jews. If the Crown Prosecution Service refuses to prosecute the thugs who chant “Globalise the intifada” and other calls for violence, why will the Justice Secretary not change the law so that these people get what they deserve?”
“He fudged that question, so I am asking him to answer it now. The figures show that young repeat offenders often start with theft and move on to drug offences and violence, yet the Government’s big idea is to stop punishing swathes of crimes committed by under-18s. The gangs who swarm shops to steal goods in places like Oxford Street, Ilford and Clapham do not need to be put on a course; instead, they need clear punishment, which can include prison. The results of soft-touch liberalism are visible in towns and cities up and down the country, yet the changes that the Justice Secretary is announcing today risk amounting to more of the same. This is a big call. If youth crime goes up as a result, it will be on this Government.”
“Can the Justice Secretary guarantee that those requirements will still apply to people guilty of violent crimes and to prolific offenders? The Government say they will slash custodial remand for young offenders by a quarter, but remand should be used in response to need, not arbitrary targets. What is the Justice Secretary’s alternative? Will he just send criminals home? Will he stick to that target regardless of the level of violent crime and repeat offending? The Government want more parenting orders, but this morning the Justice Secretary said that they are not used much at the moment because all judges can do to enforce them is issue a fine. He was unclear on this question. So will Ministers— [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Gentleman was asked on the radio this morning whether parents who do not comply will face custodial sentences.”
“From smoking bans to voting rights, this Government have a confused view of childhood, so what should be the age of criminal responsibility? With a wave of sexual and violent crime committed by illegal immigrants, many of whom pretend to be children, can the Justice Secretary guarantee that those people will not escape justice a second time by giving a fake age to the police? The Government say they will review the function and purpose of criminal courts for child defendants, but the purpose of a criminal court is obvious: to try criminals. Can the Justice Secretary rule out abolishing criminal trials for under-18s? The Government also say that they want to end lifelong disclosure requirements for the under-18s.”
“The Government have let 60,000 criminals out of jail early, they are abolishing short-term sentences—so that almost all shoplifters and the majority of knife criminals will no longer be sent to prison—and they are pretending that they are doing these things because they have to, but they are doing them because they want to. The Prisons Minister says that only a third of prisoners should be locked up. The Minister for Sentencing, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), says that a pretty big chunk of the overall population should not be in prison, and today’s announcement is more of the same. So I have some specific questions for the Justice Secretary. He wants to increase the age of criminal responsibility to reflect a “modern understanding of childhood, vulnerability and development”.”
“It is obvious that we are now in the legacy-hunting stage of this Government. Less a range of exhausted volcanoes, more a row of trampled molehills, Ministers are desperate to be remembered for something. This morning a word cloud was published by the pollsters at More in Common. The public were asked for the Prime Minister’s greatest achievement, and emblazoned across the page, in huge capital letters, was the sad word “Nothing.” Today’s announcement, however, is a fitting tribute to the Justice Secretary and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood). So desperate are they to find the causes of crime that they sometimes forget that their job is to prevent and punish crime itself. The truth is that Labour just does not have it in its DNA to be tough on crime.”
“From crimes committed by illegal immigrants in asylum hotels and weak sentences for paedophiles, to people dragged through the courts for breaking lockdown rules years after the pandemic and offending by convicted criminals who should have been tagged but were not, Courtsdesk helped journalists to join the dots, securing justice for victims and exposing failures in policy. I still want to know why the Justice Secretary wanted to delete that archive, and why Ministers blamed Courtsdesk for a serious data breach, when documents released since show that the Ministry of Justice considered the breach low risk and not worthy of a referral to the Information Commissioner. I will give way if the Minister wishes to explain. [ Interruption. ]”
“It is vital that we allow transparency, to make it easier for victims, journalists and the wider public to see what is going on in our courts and detect patterns. We know from too many tragedies, and too many cover-ups, that sunlight is always the best disinfectant. Let us consider the Courtsdesk scandal. When the Justice Secretary tried to shut down that vital, searchable archive of court hearings, he caused an outcry. Before Courtsdesk, official court listings matched reality just 4.2% of the time. Two thirds of courts routinely heard cases that the media never knew about.”
“She sounded like the driver of a broken-down train, who, with passengers stranded miles from the nearest station, was doing her best to assure everyone that the train was indeed moving. Of course everyone knows that there is no movement; the train that we are on is entirely stationary. This is an important lesson for the Minister and other members of the Government: the repetition of fiction does not make something fact. We can all see exactly what is and is not happening. I want to explain why this is so important. Of course, we want to see how the provisions of the Sentencing Act are implemented, but it is simply not acceptable for victims to be charged as much as £7,000 for a transcript.”
“The failure to trust the people goes not just for the unduly lenient sentence scheme, but for wider transparency in the criminal justice system, and it is on that point that I will focus the rest of my remarks. We Conservatives do trust the people, so we support Lords amendment 1, which entitles victims to free transcripts of route-to-verdict and bail decisions, and Lords amendment 3, which requires the publication of Crown court transcripts of judges’ sentencing remarks, online and for free, within 14 days of a request made by any member of the public. The Minister explained the Government’s position on those amendments, and amid the verbiage I could discern only excuses.”
“I pay tribute to Katie Brett and the rest of Justice for Victims, and to Tracey Hanson, for their campaigning on this front. They have been consistent in making clear that they want meaningful change, not half measures. Just last week, I wrote to the Attorney General about the case of Mohammed Abdulraziq, who dragged a five-year-old girl off the street so that he could sexually assault her. He was sentenced to only 11 years in prison, and in all probability, he will be out in just seven. Monsters like him need to be kept away from children. The Government’s opposition to these amendments weakens justice and reduces public protection. I heard what the Minister said about looking at legislation in future, and we will hold her to those words.”
“[ Interruption. ] Labour Members sigh and moan when I raise the rape gangs. That is exactly the mentality that the country is sick of, and it lies behind the failure to prosecute those cases. We support Lords amendment 2 on expanding the victims code for murder, manslaughter and infanticide abroad. We support Lords amendment 4 to remove clause 12 from the Bill, because that clause will deliver few savings while undermining access to justice. We support Lords amendments 5 and 6, which strengthen the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Amendment 5 introduces an exceptional circumstances clause that allows the deadline to be extended beyond 28 days, and amendment 6 requires the Justice Secretary to ensure that victims and their families are aware of their rights under the scheme. Those are welcome suggestions.”
“In a week when the Government have been reprimanded for letting foreign criminals out of prison without proper checks or safeguards, have been found to have done absolutely nothing as a firm that was due to build thousands of prison places went bust 18 months ago, and ended short-term sentences, allowing prolific shoplifters and other criminals to escape prison, it is beyond disappointing that they seek today to overturn perfectly sensible Lords amendments. The amendments would make the criminal justice system more transparent and give victims stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences. We must ask: why are this Government so afraid of the public? Why do Ministers not trust the people? Why do they want to keep injustice—from rape gangs, to serious criminals getting away with a few brief years in prison—out of the spotlight?”
“I think the Minister has been taking lessons from the Prime Minister. She may as well have been reading the phonebook in answering the question. [ Interruption. ] Well, the answer that she just gave was completely unsatisfactory. There was an attempt to delete the archive.”
“As we saw in the west midlands recently, the authorities chose not only to turn a blind eye, but to make themselves the willing tools of those they should confront. If we want to confront all these things, and if we want to save our country from corruption and ruin, we need victims of crime, journalists, campaigners and the general public to be given the information that they need to expose the truth. We need the Government not to hinder this noble cause, but to use their power to ensure that justice is done. That is why we need far more transparency in the justice system, and why today we will vote in favour of Lords amendments 1 and 3.”
“The criminals were not just the rapists but all those who colluded and were complicit in those depraved, sustained attacks: police officers, social workers, local officials and councillors. Some were guilty because they abused those poor girls themselves, some because they helped others to abuse them, and some because they had the chance to stop it but refused to do so. Some were motivated by malice, and some chose to tolerate evil because they did not want to challenge the official narrative about diversity and multiculturalism. With the rape gangs, and with other acts of corruption and criminality, we know that the politics of communalism is so often lurking. In parts of our country, clan culture is corrupting our public institutions and the rule of law itself.”
“That is a good point. The Minister has her side of the argument, but on the other side is the Justice Committee, pretty much every journalist involved in crime and court reporting, the company involved and Opposition parties of all colours. I think we know what is going on. I was relieved that, after the Conservative campaign to save Courtsdesk, the Justice Secretary bottled it and backed down. He should do the same today by backing Lords amendments 1 and 3. The lack of transparency in our criminal justice system explains some of the darkest moments in our history. The crimes of the rape gangs were despicable. They were racially and religiously aggravated, and victims were targeted because of their vulnerability.”
“The Prime Minister, we learned this weekend, once said that trials without juries mean evidence is not properly tested and can lead to wrongful convictions. Was he wrong?”
“I think the public will be disappointed by this behaviour. The Justice Secretary cannot get his story straight. Like the Prime Minister, he once said: “Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea”. Now he says they are a good idea, with his justification for this change changing by the minute. Last week, 10 Labour MPs voted against the courts Bill and 90 abstained. They are looking for a compromise—not in the House of Lords, but while the Bill is in this House. The Justice Secretary just refused to agree a sunset clause in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), so, for the sake of the 100 Labour MPs who do not trust him or his intentions, I will ask again: will he consider a sunset clause, or will he tell his own MPs no?”
“I join the Justice Secretary in sending condolences to the family of Jeff Blair. I also pay tribute to the shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), for her successful campaign for a child cruelty register, and I look forward to meeting the Hudgell family this afternoon. The Government have published their Islamophobia definition, rebranded as a definition of anti-Muslim hostility. We are told that the definition is non-statutory, but it is designed to influence official decision making, so will the Justice Secretary make it clear right now that the definition will not be adopted by the police, prosecutors or the judiciary?”
“According to the Government’s own impact assessment, reducing jury trials will cut the Crown court workload by about 3.5%, but even that number, as I will explain, is wrong. According to the Institute for Government, this Bill will reduce the Crown court workload by only 1% or 2%. In other words, rape victims, who are waiting for a year for their case to be heard at present, would have their cases heard just one week earlier. From the basics, such as getting defendants to court on time, to intensive case management, there is much more that can be done to make the courts more efficient without attacking jury trials.”
“That right—that nobody should be seized, imprisoned or deprived of his standing in any way, except by the lawful judgment of his equals—is an essential part of our national inheritance. It is part of what makes our legal system the envy of the world. It is admired by jurists and legislators from all around, and it has been copied by all those countries—success stories, like America and Australia—that have followed our common law model. However, this Government—without a mandate, without a case and without any evidence to justify their actions—have decided that our ancient rights are little more than an inconvenience that this Justice Secretary thinks he can sweep away with only the briefest consideration. Why? He says this is about efficiency and protecting the rule of law, but that is nonsense.”
“I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Courts and Tribunals Bill because trial by jury is a fundamental part of the United Kingdom’s constitution and democracy; it is wrong to remove defendants’ right to elect for trial in the Crown Court for all triable either-way offences; extending magistrates courts’ sentencing powers, and restricting the right to appeal against sentences and convictions in the magistrates courts, compounds the fundamental injustice at the heart of the Bill; reducing public participation in the justice system will undermine confidence in it; eroding the right to trial by jury will not make a meaningful impact, if any, on the backlog of court cases; and it calls on the Government to instead tackle the court backlog by improving case management and encouraging earlier pleas, increasing sitting days in the Crown Court, and increasing the hours per day that courts are able to sit by improving the use of technology and the efficiency of prisoner transport.” Today, the Government attack an ancient English right that runs through our constitution, from Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights to trials taking place at this very moment in courts across the land.”
“The Institute for Government has made it absolutely clear that the figures that the Government have produced are based on assumptions that are not necessarily shared by anybody who knows what we are talking about.”
“Under this explanation of events, the Justice Secretary accepted the advice of his officials, failed to interrogate their arguments, and without so much as a second thought, decided to do what was rejected even during the pandemic, when lockdown and social distancing rules meant criminal trials were postponed.”
“A reshuffle is under way, and the Cabinet Secretary tips off Sir Humphrey, who promptly gathers his officials and asks them what the new Justice Secretary is all about. A private secretary plays the now notorious episode of “Celebrity Mastermind”. “What blue cheese is paired with port?”, asks the quizmaster. “Red Leicester”, says the right hon. Gentleman. Sir Humphrey’s eyebrow arches. “Which Marie won the Nobel prize for physics?” “Antoinette”, comes the answer. Sir Humphrey smiles a wry smile. “Which English King followed Henry VIII?” “Henry VII,” cries the right hon. Gentleman. Sir Humphrey looks around at his trusted officials, and says, “Finally, I think this time we’ve found our man.” For this is not a new idea. Officials have been itching to do this for years, but wiser Secretaries of State have always said no.”
“Magistrates have their place in the system, but jury trials are fundamental to our inheritance, and to public confidence in the criminal justice system. If the reason is not efficiency, why are the Government doing this? There are only two plausible explanations. The first is that this left-wing Government—determined to censor free speech, and indifferent to public concern about two-tier justice—simply want to do away with the hassle of juries. The second is that the civil service has long sought to do this, and after a line of wiser Secretaries of State than this one, they finally found a Secretary of State foolish enough to go along with it. We can imagine the scene in the Ministry of Justice.”
“She said, “This is ideological.” Asked if the Government would be doing this for reasons other than efficiency, she said yes. If we join the dots, this does make sense, because Labour Governments have tried to do it before—in 1999, 2003 and 2007. [ Interruption. ] The Justice Secretary says Margaret Thatcher did it. Not only is that not true, but if he reads “The Downing Street Years” he will get a lesson in conviction politics and strong leadership, which this Government do not understand.”