Joe Robertson
MP for Isle of Wight East · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Greedy corporate interests have stripped out more than £200 million from our Isle of Wight ferry services in the past 10 years. I am grateful to the Minister for setting up local roundtable meetings, but they are at risk of becoming a talking shop, and the ferry companies do not appear to be taking them seriously.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As a counterpoint to what I just said, I do not understand why, if someone received asylum support for a year—let us say; typically it is a lot longer—and day one was before this section came into force, but day two and 364 of the 365 days were after it came into force, they would be exempt from making contributions for their asylum suppo…”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If someone under the age of 18 was receiving asylum support, then turned 18 and sought it afterwards, they would not be exempt—of course not, because they also received asylum support as an adult—but one would assume that they would not be charged for the portion of time that they had received asylum support while under 18.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I will speak briefly about two of the exemptions to requiring someone to make a payment for their asylum support. They have been referred to already; they are in clause 23(6)(a) and (b).”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government need to be clear about whether a pro rata approach is being taken when a child becomes an adult. If so, why is that not being applied when someone starts receiving support before the Bill comes into play and continues to receive support after? I hope the Minister can give us some clarity.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I take the point that the scheme should not be applied retrospectively, but let us take the example of student loans: students take out loans on terms that are then changed in the future. If UK students have to deal with that, why should it be any different for asylum provisions?”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
1,024 held · 670 searchable for Joe Robertson. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 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 agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is also ahead of me: I will address the tourism tax in my speech. As I say, the Government have a role in creating an environment for seasonal hospitality to thrive, but in my view this Government have done the opposite. I do not accuse the Government of setting out to make life harder for tourism and hospitality in coastal areas, but I do hold them responsible for being careless about how their policies, in particular taxation, have fallen on communities such as mine. It is time for the Government to recognise that and make amends.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“How can they do the right thing now if they do not recognise the harm that is being caused and felt from their own tax policies? Some of the most significant damage done by the Government is to the employment opportunities for young people. Youth unemployment is up; indeed, it is now higher than in the period coming out of covid. The Government’s hike in national insurance, extending it to more part-time work, and changes to the minimum wage that reduce the competitive advantage of employing young people are also major drivers of that unemployment. It is not just theory; we are seeing the real-world consequences in the data and in our communities.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree with the hon. Member that there needs to be long-term support, but also immediate relief. Again, he pre-empts some of the points I am going to make—I realise that my introduction was perhaps a bit longer than it should have been, considering that other Members are making all the excellent points that I am about to. Since the 2024 Budget, the hospitality industry has lost more than 100,000 jobs. Between January and March of this year alone, the equivalent of three hospitality businesses closed every single day. The sector was hit with a £3.4 billion annual cost increase from that Budget. The 2025 Budget added more through business rate changes and wage increases. It is therefore hardly a surprise that we have seen job losses on this scale. The Government are refusing to take responsibility.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is an overnight visitor levy, which is the wrong policy at the wrong time. Coastal tourism visits have already fallen by 10% since April last year. Analysis by Oxford Economics suggests that if a 5% levy of the kind operating in Edinburgh was fully introduced by 2030, we would see a £1.8 billion reduction in tourism spending, 33,000 jobs being lost and 9 million fewer nights being spent in accommodation. These are not small margins. In coastal communities, where summer trading keeps businesses viable through the winter, the damage would be concentrated and severe.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the past 2 years, many of the taxes we pay to the Government have increased drastically, our gas and electricity has increased by almost double, the cost of ingredients has increased, some by as much as quadruple, wages have risen rapidly and business rates have increased.” They go on to say: “We have made the decision to leave the industry that we love and close the Bugle down.” The Pointer Inn, in Newchurch, has taken aim at the Chancellor herself: “The absolute legend Rachel Reeves”. It also took aim at her “nice pub tax”, adding an AI image of what the pub might look like shortly. Then there is the Hare and Hounds, which is located just outside Newport and dates back to the 1730s, but has now been shut. I turn to the holiday tax, or the visitor levy, which has already been referred to.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They are jobs that give a young person in Ryde, Shanklin or Ventnor their first pay slip and their first employer reference. There are 67 pubs in Isle of Wight East, four breweries, and 1,200 jobs in the sector, generating £40 million for the local economy. Nationally, the pub and brewing sector contributes £34 billion and generates £17 billion in tax. Those are not small numbers. Of course, pubs are about more than just pints. A third of drinks sold in hospitality are spirits, such as Mermaid Gin on the Isle of Wight. When distillers suffer, pubs suffer and vice versa. The Bugle Inn in Brading sadly closed its doors for the final time just four days ago. Jasmine and Daniel were clear about the reasons why: “We have become another victim of the current pub crisis.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would urge the hon. Member to do all that she can to encourage her ministerial colleagues to improve the lot for young people. The fact remains that youth unemployment is going up and coastal communities are suffering. I would welcome any intervention that the hon. Member can bring about through her powers of persuasion. In coastal communities, hospitality provides flexible, accessible, seasonal work that simply does not exist in the same volume anywhere else in the local economy. More than half the sector’s workforce is part time. For many young people—students, carers, people managing health conditions—that flexibility is what makes work possible. Job postings for temporary hospitality work were down by 25% in 2025, year on year. For many people, summer jobs are their first job.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman is right, we need both. Our tourism and hospitality sector is one of the most highly taxed tourism and hospitality sectors, compared with our European neighbours, who already have a cost-competitive advantage.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I understand that the hon. Lady is trying to sell her own Chancellor’s policies, but this support is pretty thin—a short, indeed temporary, VAT tax giveaway, set against the severe damage done by two successive Budgets, which runs into the tens of billions of pounds. On business rates, the hospitality sector pays 10% of all eligible business rates but accounts for only 2% of relevant economic activity. That equates to an overpayment of £1.8 billion. The Government legislated for a 20% discount; what they have delivered is a 5% discount. Without a sector-wide solution, 963 restaurants and 574 hotels could face closure this year, and we are already seeing closures.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I therefore call on the Government to support seasonal hospitality in coastal areas by scrapping their plans for the overnight visitor levy, introducing a national insurance holiday for businesses employing young people and those not in employment, education or training, and scrapping business rates for thousands of hospitality businesses up and down the country permanently. The Government should stop trying to convince businesses, whose rates are going up, that they are going down—businesses know what their rates are. They should urgently publish the promised visitor economy growth strategy and disapply the ETS tax on car ferry travel to the Isle of Wight, bringing it in line with every other UK island that will pay nothing. Our hospitality businesses are resilient and have survived a great deal, but resilience has limits.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Instead, for the Isle of Wight, the Government have increased the already rip-off costs of crossing the Solent by car—of course, the Isle of Wight is completely reliant on ferries for transport to and from the island—and have done that by introducing a new emissions trading scheme tax, which they have not applied to Scottish islands with smaller populations and have not applied in full to Northern Ireland with a bigger population. It is insulting and inexcusable. The Government say that they want coastal communities to succeed, but a whole string of policies and tax-and-spend decisions do not support that aim. Indeed, many directly undermine it.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree with all those comments. The Government should do all they can to support this sector. I say again that coastal communities face some of the biggest structural challenges, in terms of both demographics and geography, of any of our communities. That is why the Government should have a particular focus on these areas. I will finish by speaking briefly about transport. A House of Lords Select Committee identified in 2019 and again in 2023 that poor transport connectivity is holding coastal communities back. The Isle of Wight knows that better than most places. The Government have made no specific investment plans for transport in coastal communities.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for her response. Obviously, it falls short of what we are calling for, but I thank her for her consideration. I urge her to continue to consider providing more support and better relief for those living in coastal communities.”
House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The conflict in the middle east is not the Chancellor’s fault, but she has chosen this time to make it more expensive for my constituents to take a car from Fishbourne on the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth. Will she do the right thing and scrap the emissions trading scheme levy that she intends to introduce in July this year? It should not only be Scottish islands that are exempt.”
House of Commons21 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I know the Minister is aware of them, and I urge him to do whatever he can to bring down costs in the maritime sector, particularly for ferries on which people rely to connect with the rest of the UK.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I echo the words of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, particularly in relation to the cost to the maritime sector and, for my constituents, the cost of using ferries. Of course, the increase in fuel costs is a significant issue with which they have to grapple, not helped by the Government’s decision to levy a green tax—an emissions trading scheme levy—on them, which they cannot avoid. That is not to say that the Isle of Wight ferry companies are not hugely responsible for their own costs, which they bring to bear on my constituents who try to cross the Solent, given that they are unregulated, private companies that fund private equity and pension funds abroad. I am grateful for the opportunity to remark on the costs.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Oh dear. My question was about how many prisoners have been released in error under this Government, and the Minister does not seem to know the answer. That is okay, as I can tell him. It is 441, which over a two-year period is the worst on record. Will he now apologise, or will he provide a convoluted excuse about why it is not his Government’s fault?”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is nothing in the King’s Speech that will secure the country’s energy supply, bring down energy costs or create the jobs and investment that the Government have promised. As we have heard from Members across this House, there is a consensus—there is unity. We all want to decarbonise energy use, but Conservative Members will not support doing so at the expense of families, households and individuals, particularly those who are hard up and least able to pay. This is not a binary choice, where we are either pro-decarbonisation or against it; we can be for it, yet understand that the security of energy supply and household energy bills must come first. What country in the world would run headlong into an ideological experiment for the sake of it, leaving hard-up citizens behind? No country in the world.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The security and price of energy affect every household, individual and business in every constituency, up and down the country. It is a matter that concerns everyone. That is why, when the Secretary of State was in opposition, he promised during the last election to cut household energy bills by £300. Instead, in government, he has presided over a £200 increase in those bills. That is his record as he sets his sights on his next job, the job he so desperately craves: replacing the Prime Minister. He is also the Secretary of State who has set up GB Energy, which will not produce any energy, will cost taxpayers £8 billion and, as its own chief executive says, will take something like 20 years to employ just 1,000 people.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I accept that there are some difficult questions in and around this whole area of debate. The truth remains that no Government have done more to decarbonise the economy and to bring forward green technology than the last Conservative Government, but we would not do that at the expense of hard-working families. The bonkers green tax agenda that this Government are peddling is harming the debate on decarbonising the economy. I will give an example of that.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government, instead of helping us—they say they will help, and I am still holding out hope that they will—will in July levy a carbon emission tax on the Fishbourne to Portsmouth route that the ferry company cannot avoid. It cannot decarbonise its ferries and go electric, because there is no grid charging capacity in Portsmouth harbour. There is no grid charging capacity in Southampton either. These are not strange little harbours—they are the naval base of the United Kingdom and one of the biggest export container ports respectively—yet there is not the grid capacity to charge an Isle of Wight ferry. The ferries will pay, however, and guess what: they have passed on that charge to consumers and my constituents.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I acknowledge that the last Government made mistakes—I do not have a problem with that—but that is not an excuse for the hon. Lady’s Government to do even worse for hard-up working families. Bonkers green taxes harm the debate, and I will give this House an example. UK emissions trading scheme levies on the maritime sector are levied on ferry companies. My constituents on the Isle of Wight rely on those ferry companies to access things that everyone else takes for granted: health, education, jobs and seeing friends and family. Next month, someone can travel across the Solent to the Isle of Wight, taking their car on one return trip, for £511. That is for a five-mile return crossing.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The EU is bringing in that charge and ringfencing the money it receives from its emissions trading system to invest in grid capacity in ports—but not the UK Government; they are taking the money, shoving it into the Treasury and making no promises about investing in grid capacity. That is not the last Government; it is this Government. I say to those on the Government Front Bench that these bonkers green levies make no sense, harm ordinary people and undermine the entire case for their green agenda.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I gently say to the hon. Lady that the reason her Government are in such a mess and polling at under 20% is that she and her colleagues think that the universal excuse for her Government’s inaction is to blame a previous Government. She won that argument at the last election, and since then her Government have done nothing. Southampton will have that grid-charging capacity for boats in the mid-2030s, yet the Government are bringing in a charge in July this year. Do you know what the irony is, Madam Deputy Speaker? One of those ferries has batteries on board. It is a hybrid boat that can use batteries to cross the Solent and not burn fossil fuels, but it is being charged because it cannot use its batteries, because it has nowhere to plug into.”
House of Commons19 May 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I too support the new clauses, and I concur with a lot of what has already been said about the reasons for supporting them. I will make a couple of wider points on the merits of specialist rape courts and courts for sexual offences. There is nothing wrong with the legal system in this country when it comes to the fundamental principles of trying these crimes—that someone is innocent until proven guilty, that they have a right to be heard in court, and that evidence must be tested rigorously, as is the right of a defendant in any case. The issue is how that is applied in the way our courts operate in respect of a set of crimes that are extremely sensitive because of the impact on the complainant—the victim—who is almost always a live witness.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I seek clarity on whether the new clause would apply to all judges or just to those in the criminal courts. In the family court the idea is to bring in expertise around the sort of issues that she talks about from agencies—such as the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, and even social services—in which there are lots of trained people, but that system does not always ensure that the judge is best placed to make a good decision, as we have seen in evidence. Will the hon. Lady clarify that point?”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I realise that the hon. Member is struggling to read his own handwriting, but does he have anything at all to say about the Prime Minister’s conduct in appointing Peter Mandelson?”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is articulating it perfectly. Does he agree that the principle of innocent until proven guilty is no comfort at all for these people who are subjected to years of gruelling inquiry just to establish what we already know: they are innocent?”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I wish to address a number of issues in relation to this grouping. First, I will say something about the figures that have been quoted at length today and in previous sittings. Secondly, I will say something about the reasons given by the Government for curtailing jury trials in this way. Then I want to go on to say something about evidence and procedure, and why jury trials exist at all, because sometimes it is possible to sit here listening, wondering whether the Government’s reasoning would not justify a banning of all jury trials for evermore on any crime. Finally, I will talk about some of the perversities that the hon. Member for Chichester has articulated well.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I intended to intervene on the Minister to ask a question, but I am happy to pose it by way of a speech. She has indicated—in fact, she stated very clearly—that she wants to formally clarify in writing, but she is declining to formally clarify orally. Does she not accept that if we proceed to a vote on clause 3, she is at risk of inadvertently misleading this Committee if she cannot clarify what she says she wants to clarify in writing before we vote?”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister talks about the statutory test for complexity, among other things. I cannot identify the statutory test for complexity. Where is the test in the new legislation?”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It seems that efficiency is being used to justify a fairly hastily put together Bill, and that the Government do not recognise the possibly unintended consequences of its provisions in order to get their business through. The best way of addressing those issues, and accepting that there might be loopholes and unintended consequences, is to give genuine due regard to amendments tabled in good faith, on this occasion by the shadow Minister, to improve the lawmaking process and the Bill. The amendment does not seek to drive a coach and horses through what the Government are trying to achieve with the Bill, even though we disagree with some of it; it seeks to improve, to perfect and not to allow unfairness to creep into the Bill.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The arguments have been well made by the shadow Minister, and I do not wish to repeat them, but it is not an inefficient process to allow a right of appeal. I assume that the decision made by the judge in the first instance on how to allocate the trial will not be a particularly lengthy process anyway, so an appeal of that decision will be no lengthier—indeed, less so. I have never heard the argument that appeals are against efficiency in any other aspect of law. Indeed, appealing the substantive outcome of a case—a claim of wrongful conviction—has not one but many stages of appeal: appeal to the High Court, appeal to the Court of Appeal and appeal to the Supreme Court. I have never heard the argument that someone should not have the right to appeal the outcome of a trial because it is inefficient or might cause delays.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, which would ensure the right of appeal to a decision whether a trial should be heard by a jury. The Government’s reason for not accepting the amendment, as they have put forward on a number of previous amendments, is the principle of efficiency—that it would slow the system down and would not drive the efficiencies that they hope to secure through the Bill. The principle of efficiency cannot be an untamed principle that runs roughshod over carefully fought legal principles of fairness and natural justice. Efficiency cannot simply trump everything. If efficiency has no limits, why have trials of more than a few days at all?”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member is making a very good speech, but she is almost being generous. The wording in the Bill is not “complex”; it is “complexity”, which is a description, not even a value. The Bill is even vaguer than what the hon. Member is suggesting in her well-made point.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The principle of reasonableness, while giving discretion and, some might argue, a vague term in the English language, is a well-tested word in criminal law and the English legal system. We know what reasonableness means; it is an objective test—“What would an ordinary person think is reasonable?” What about appropriateness? Does that mean appropriate to that judge on that day? Does it mean appropriate to a particular, theoretical juror? There is absolutely no guidance in Bill about how this novel word, “appropriate”, should be interpreted. Even when there are words in legislation such as “reasonableness”, which are backed by decades or even centuries of case law, the judge is very often given guidance in the legislation as to what is and is not reasonable.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On length, it says that the judge will have to decide if the “likely length of the trial…makes it appropriate for the trial to be conducted without a jury.” On complexity, they will have to decide whether “the likely complexity of the trial” is “appropriate for the trial to be conducted without a jury.” It is even hard to decipher from that whether it means complex is good or bad for a jury. Complexity is just a description; it is not a value. This is incredibly unusual, novel and, I would say, badly worded legislation. Ordinarily, a provision of this sort would say something along the lines of: “If the court is satisfied that the length of trial is so long that it would make it unreasonable for a jury”. That would be more normal wording.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“How long is a piece of string? The unanswerable question. I could ask another question: is a 2-metre piece of string a long piece of string? If I asked you that question, Ms Butler, you would have a lot of questions for me before you gave your answer, yet the Minister thinks it is easy to answer the question, “Is a two-week trial a long trial?”. She thinks it is obvious and that a judge will be able to make a decision. She is not willing to put a definition on that, because she says it is evident in the way that the Bill is drafted. I look at the words in the Bill—which is all that a judge will have to make that decision.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is her view as to what will make a case lengthy, and I do not criticise her for that, but there is no guidance here for the judge to consider those things —[Interruption.] I paraphrase her—she is welcome to intervene if she disagrees about how I characterise her views on what is lengthy for a juror.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, the Bill will basically lead to a complete lottery in decision making, depending on the judge a person gets on the day. I suspect that judges ordinarily do not like vague law or having to provide their own interpretation. They are usually more comfortable if the statute is more precise, or if it is backed by caselaw, but there is no caselaw here. On the issue of length, we know what the Minister thinks because she has told us in this Bill Committee. I do not criticise her for this opinion, but she thinks a case is long if it is disruptive to the personal or professional life of a juror or their wellbeing.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This theoretical person that the judge has to imagine would make an argument that it is appropriate that the trial should not take place with a jury, because they do not have a week in their busy life to just hand over. Alternatively, others may say that they see it as a civic duty and a fundamental contribution they make to society to be available for jury trial if called. Perhaps they have never been called and they have reached a ripe old age, and they are happy and prepared to take a month or two out of their life to devote to making a decision on whether someone is guilty.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree with my hon. Friend; he actually pre-empts the point I am about to get on to. I thank him for taking me on to that. It should be fairly obvious to most people that there will be a wide range of views as to how much time a person can take out of their ordinary life, bearing in mind that people are not called for jury service at the drop of a hat. They are not told, “You must cancel all your plans next week”; there is a degree of warning. Most people take quite a wide view on how much time they can afford to give, depending on what is going on in their life. For some people, taking two weeks or even a week out is very disruptive.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Indeed. Might a judge, halfway through a trial, decide that it has suddenly become inappropriate, having heard whatever formal or informal representations are made on that point? Even if there is some objective consensus about how long an ordinary person in this country should be prepared to set aside to serve on a jury, does that in itself make it appropriate that a case should not be heard by a jury? Even if we could agree, for example, that devoting any more than a month to a jury trial is disruptive to a person’s life, does that automatically make it inappropriate for a case to be heard in a jury trial? No, not at all. If it is inconvenient for someone to sit on a jury for a particular length of time, that does not mean the case is inappropriate for a jury trial.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If they did something knowingly, dishonestly or recklessly, also depending on the crime, that would normally be enough for them to be convicted.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would argue that the more complex a case, in certain circumstances, the more it should be heard by a jury, especially if the complexity relates to what is in the mind of the defendant, rather than, for example, complex financial papers. Does the involvement of complex financial papers, on its own, necessarily make a trial more complex, if the real issue in the case is whether the defendant intended to be dishonest? As we have already heard with fraud cases, as well as most of the cases in schedule 1, the real issue is not whether something happened; it is the mindset—the legal term would be mens rea—of the person who did that thing. If they did something by accident or unintentionally, depending on the crime, that would often be enough for them to be acquitted.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are a number of personal and professional circumstances that can enable people to make that argument and get exempted from jury trial or, indeed, not have to sit on the jury in the original case but have it deferred to a more convenient time. She is absolutely right that flexibility for ordinary people in this country is already built into the way that juries are selected. “Length” is probably the easiest of these three difficult terms; “complexity” is even harder to nail down. How is a judge supposed to decide what level of complexity makes it appropriate to have a jury?”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is absolutely no reason why the Government could not have included a test in the Bill—it does not have to be the same test—to assist the court and give certainty, which would help defendants and victims and would improve efficiency.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is what a test looks like. The law of New Zealand directs a judge to consider, in determining whether a case is likely to be long and complex, “the number and nature of offences with which the defendant is charged”. We understand what that means. It also directs them to consider “the nature of the issues likely to be involved…the volume of the evidence likely to be presented” and “the imposition on potential jurors of sitting for the likely duration of the trial”. It has a catch-all, which is not unusual in legal drafting: “any other matters the court considers relevant.” The judge in New Zealand has a test to apply: whether the case is likely to be long and complex.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“She could help judges making this decision by setting that out in the legislation. This is not merely a theoretical, academic discussion on the criminal law of this country. I can point to another country. The Minister has taken pleasure in using other countries as examples to justify many provisions in the Bill, as though England and Wales can learn from other jurisdictions. I do not disagree with that premise. I will give her the example of New Zealand, another common-law jurisdiction. It has a similar provision, whereby a judge has to exercise a similar sort of decision making about whether a trial is likely to be “long and complex”, rather than its likely complexity. Set out in its legislation is a legal test. The Minister says that there is a test of complexity in the Bill. I tried to intervene on her to say that there is not.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“She thinks—I paraphrase; I do not seek to put words in her mouth—that it is complex financial evidence, presumably written evidence in many cases, in a fraud trial or crimes related to money. It is perfectly possible to have a great volume of evidence but, as the case unfolds, a detailed understanding of that paperwork may no longer be the issue on which the case turns. Does having a large volume of written evidence and a long list of witnesses make a case complex, or does it depend on what the witnesses might say or exactly what is in those papers? The Minister has spoken about juries moving at the pace of the slowest member. Is her test for complexity the mindset of the slowest member of a random 12 selected from the British public, or is it the average—one might say reasonable—person?”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗