Ben Lake MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Apr 2025 · Universities: Funding and Employment · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) on securing this very important debate. As we have heard, a great number of higher education institutions across the United Kingdom face very worrying times indeed, and I am sure we will hear of other examples from Members. Many who are more learned than me will say that the situation has been developing for quite some time. Scarcely a week goes by without yet another announcement of significant job cuts at a university somewhere in the UK, so there can be no doubt that the situation is unsustainable. If we do not act, and if the Government do not intervene to get a grip of it, a great number of higher education institutions face collapse. That should worry us all because, as well as the incredible research and teaching they provide, universities make an important contribution to the economy of the United Kingdom. In Wales, higher education supports more than 60,000 jobs, contributes more than 4.2% of Welsh GDP and has an overall economic impact of nearly £11 billion. The new Government have identified growth as a key mission, and as such research and development will be key. In Wales, just as in other parts of the UK, universities are critical to ensure that research and innovation benefits not just communities but the economy. They account for 37% of all Welsh research and development expenditure. I have seen that at first hand in my constituency of Ceredigion Preseli, from the good work of the AberInnovation centre, associated with Aberystwyth University. Universities also help ensure that we have the skills we need for a prosperous society and economy. A report by Universities UK estimates that more than 400,000 extra graduates will be needed in Wales by 2035 to respond to the skills gaps and workforce challenges of the future. That is clearly a problem if institution after institution in Wales announces severe reductions to teaching provision and staff cuts. We should also bear in mind that universities are crucial to train the workforce of key public services, particularly in education and health. From my personal experience, not just as an MP but as someone born and raised in a university town—Lampeter, the birthplace of higher education in Wales —I know we face a very uncertain future. The university in Lampeter has announced its decision to relocate undergraduate teaching from the campus in the town; more than 200 years of history is going down the pan. The point is that the university also sustains a whole load of extracurricular community benefits, from the arts hall to the sports facilities. We often make the point that universities are important to the economy, and they are—that is where I had my first job, so perhaps I should declare an interest—but as a young student at sixth form I was able to benefit from the resources at the library and the extracurricular courses that the university provided to enrich my own learning and prepare myself for university. Many of my sports teams trained in the university sports hall during winter months. The university also plays host to two of the big events in the town: the St David’s day march and the annual food festival. All that is now in jeopardy. When we consider the importance of higher education providers, let us remember not just the economic impact but the wider social and community consequences.

• 24 Mar 2025 · European Union: UK Membership · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. University towns in communities such as mine benefited from those cultural exchanges, and visitors from the EU enriched many of our communities.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Miscarriage of Justice Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered miscarriage of justice compensation. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I wager that the majority of citizens are unfamiliar with the workings of the criminal justice system, and still less familiar with miscarriages of justice. Perhaps, if they are aware of miscarriages of justice, they are aware of certain high-profile exonerees or miscarriages of justice, such as the Cardiff Three, the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six. Most people will understandably and reasonably assume that victims of miscarriages of justice are compensated, particularly if they spent time in custody before being pardoned or having their convictions quashed. However, this is not the case. In England and Wales, compensation for the wrongly convicted is the exception rather than the rule. The current compensation scheme enables only some people in England and Wales who have had their convictions overturned, or been found not guilty at retrial, to receive compensation. I make it very clear that my concern is not that miscarriages of justice happen. Sadly, no system in the world is perfect. Miscarriages of justice happen—we cannot get it correct 100% of the time—but when they occur, citizens expect the state to right that wrong. In a survey by Opinium in December 2024, 71% of those asked believed the Government should ensure fair and swift compensation for those who are wrongly convicted. Many will therefore be appalled to learn that this is not the case, that victims of miscarriages of justice seldom receive compensation for the wrong that has befallen them, that the wrongly convicted often have to fight for years, at great cost, to clear their name, and that the justice system unnecessarily forces the innocent to suffer continued injustice. The issue in this debate is the failure of the state to right these wrongs. We should be clear that a miscarriage of justice inflicts considerable harm on the wrongly convicted. A 2018 report by the campaign group Justice, “Supporting Exonerees: Ensuring Accessible, Consistent and Continuing Support,” underscores the grave hardship and difficulty that the wrongly convicted have in adjusting to life after conviction, and the trauma that they have gone through, which they must deal with for years after the event. The report highlights how victims of miscarriages of justice struggle to adjust. Having spent time in prison, becoming institutionalised and grappling with the fact that they should not be there, they struggle to trust authorities. The unfairness of the current system was brought into sharp relief for me when I met my constituent Mr Brian Buckle and his family and learned of their experiences. I am pleased that they have made the journey from Fishguard to join us in the Public Gallery. In May 2017, Mr Buckle was convicted on 16 counts of historical sexual offences and sentenced to a total of 15 years’ imprisonment. He had always maintained his innocence, and in September 2022 the Court of Appeal overturned his conviction and ordered a retrial. He was immediately released on bail, having served five years and four months of his sentence. The retrial took place in May 2023. Mr Buckle and his defence team, led by Mr Stephen Vullo KC, who is also in the Public Gallery, prepared a detailed defence and presented new witnesses and forensic evidence. After three long weeks in court, the jury returned unanimous not guilty verdicts in just over an hour. I cannot fathom the strain that Mr Buckle has endured as a result of years of legal proceedings and the travesty of being imprisoned for a crime that he did not commit. Let us remember what the wrongly convicted must go through and its impact. He missed important family milestones, such as his daughter’s 18th and 21st birthdays. His imprisonment cost him over £500,000 in lost income and devastated his plan to retire at 55 with a private pension, because he had been unable to make any contributions following his imprisonment. Furthermore, his state pension is now in jeopardy, given that he was unable to make any national insurance contributions for more than five years. The impact on Mr Buckle is not limited to the period in which he was deprived of his liberty. Indeed, I am afraid to say that he has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder because of the impact of his wrongful conviction and imprisonment. His mental health is such that he has been unable to work since his release. Prior to this awful state of affairs, Mr Buckle travelled every week from west Wales to London because he was in charge of an engineering firm. He performed this very important role, which had a lot of responsibility, for more than 15 years. He made the weekly journey on the great western main line or the M4 that the Minister and I also make. This travesty of justice could befall any of us, through no fault of our own. Although it is difficult to comprehend the nightmare that has befallen Mr Buckle and his family, one can estimate the financial impact of his ordeal in terms of the income and pension that have been lost. Perhaps we can also put a figure on the costs incurred for appeals and legal defences, but how can we begin to calculate the impact on his health or the loss of precious time with his family? I am sure we would all agree that that is a difficult dilemma, but it was not difficult, it would seem, for the Ministry of Justice, which issued a cruelly simple response to Mr Buckle after he applied for compensation under the statutory scheme. In the decision letter, which was issued almost a year after the application was submitted, the MOJ rejected his claim out of hand: “Having carefully considered the particular circumstances of the reversing of your conviction, I do not consider your case demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not commit the offences for which you were convicted.” Mr Buckle spent five years and four months in prison, and he had his conviction overturned by the Court of Appeal. He produced a detailed defence, including new witnesses and fresh forensic evidence, at retrial, at which the jury unanimously returned not guilty verdicts to all 16 counts in just over an hour. Having been subjected to that ordeal and having jumped through all the hoops that one could expect him to jump through, the Ministry of Justice’s response was not only to deny him compensation but, worse, to state that it does not consider that his case “demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not commit the offences for which you were convicted”— the same offences of which he was acquitted. There was no reference to the harm he has suffered, to the impact on his family or to the Court of Appeal being concerned that the original trial was so flawed that the jury had failed to approach their task correctly that it ruled the conviction unsafe, such that the new witnesses and fresh forensic evidence were ultimately unnecessary. All that Mr Buckle received was a pretty meaningless reassurance that the matter had been “carefully considered.” If this is what comes from careful consideration, I dread to think what would result from reckless handling, but it surely could not be much worse for Mr Buckle. After years of legal battles following his wrongful conviction, he has been told that, although he is not guilty, the state will not compensate him for the years spent in prison because it does not believe that he has proven his innocence. One does not need to be a King’s Counsel to see the unfairness of this situation. There can be no doubt that such a decision prolongs the miscarriage of justice in Mr Buckle’s case. That is a wrong that this new UK Government can and, indeed, must put right. Before I discuss how the Government can do that, it is worth our reflecting briefly on how we have arrived at the current situation. Before 2006, the Government operated two compensation schemes for victims of miscarriages of justice in England and Wales: a discretionary scheme and a statutory scheme. The discretionary scheme was abolished in 2006, but the statutory scheme afforded the Justice Secretary the discretion to pay compensation to a wrongly convicted person when: “his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice”. In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the meaning of “miscarriage of justice” for the purposes of the statutory scheme should not be restricted to applicants who are able to conclusively demonstrate their innocence, and should be extended to cases where a new or newly discovered fact “so undermines the evidence against the defendant that no conviction could possibly be based upon it”. However, in 2014, the then UK Government legislated to reverse the effect of this decision. The test for eligibility for compensation under the statutory scheme, as set out in section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, was amended by section 175 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 in such a way as to restrict compensation to those who can prove innocence “beyond reasonable doubt”. Therefore, for applications made to the statutory scheme on or after 13 March 2014, there will have been a miscarriage of justice “if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence”. That modest rewording of a single section of an Act of Parliament has proved devastating. Indeed, it is legally illiterate to effectively reverse the burden of proof in this way, for it places a burden on the victim of a miscarriage of justice to prove their innocence. This is such a high bar that, in the words of the joint dissenting opinion of judges in the European Court of Human Rights case of Nealon and Hallam v. the United Kingdom, it: “represents a hurdle which is virtually insurmountable”. Such a claim is not solely a matter of opinion, but an observable fact. The data on applications to the miscarriage of justice application service shows that less than 7% of applications submitted between April 2016 and March 2024 were successful.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Miscarriage of Justice Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the additional time to conclude the debate. Prior to the Divisions, I was reiterating the perversity of the situation that the 2014 change has forced the wrongly convicted into. It can be summarised as follows: they are required to prove that they are innocent of a crime of which they have already been exonerated. To the layman, it is difficult to understand how such a situation is compatible with the principles that underpin our criminal justice system, for it undermines the well-understood principle that we are all innocent until proven guilty. I know that this can be challenged in practice, but the fact remains that the current compensation rules place the obligation on the defendant to prove that they did not commit a crime—a crime, of course, of which they have already been acquitted to the criminal standard of proof, which is beyond all reasonable doubt. Let me return to the case of my constituent Mr Buckle. In its rejection letter, the Ministry of Justice, as well as reassuring him that his case had been carefully considered, asserted that, despite rejecting his claim for compensation, he is still presumed to be and remains innocent of the charges brought against him. If we were ever looking for a definition of Orwellian doublespeak, this response is a perfect example. It illustrates the way in which, by reversing the burden of proof, the 2014 change undermines the presumption of innocence and forces the Ministry to perform quite impressive, but illogical, linguistic gymnastics. For if Mr Buckle is presumed to be innocent in law, he must be treated as such by the state. A man presumed to be innocent, who has spent more than five years in jail, should be compensated; if the state wants to treat him as though he were a guilty man, and deny him that compensation, why should the burden of proving his guilt not fall on the state? The Ministry’s claims that Mr Buckle is still presumed to be, and remains, innocent of the charges brought against him ring rather hollow when he is also denied a single penny in redress. It is clearly an affront to justice that the eligibility test prevents those who have been wrongly convicted from enjoying the full and unconditional benefits of being presumed innocent. There is a growing acceptance of the need for action on this matter. Sadly, the list of miscarriages of justice that have perhaps not received as much media attention, but which are just as deserving of compensation, grows ever longer. I could mention cases such as that of Sam Hallam, who was imprisoned for seven years; Victor Nealon, who was imprisoned for 17 years; or Oliver Campbell, who spent 11 years in prison and a total of 34 years fighting to clear his name. All have suffered unimaginable harm as a consequence of their wrongful convictions and, just like my constituent Mr Buckle, deserve justice. The new UK Government have an opportunity to provide it, and I urge them to address this injustice without delay. I know that the Minister will agree with the principle that the state should compensate those who have wrongly been deprived of their liberty by the state, and I would welcome confirmation from her that this is the Government’s position. The Law Commission is consulting on reform to the law governing criminal appeals, because it, too, acknowledges that the current state of affairs is completely unfair. The Law Commission’s intervention is to be welcomed, in so far as it acknowledges the unfairness of the current position of the wrongly convicted. In its consultation, the commission suggests that, if the burden is to fall on an accused to prove innocence to obtain compensation, it should be to the civil standard, rather than the criminal standard, as is the position in every other situation in a criminal case where the evidential burden shifts to the defence. That would bring things into line with the normal state of affairs. Will the Minister offer the Government’s position on the Law Commission’s proposal? Would the Government accept such a recommendation? If they are minded to accept, will they ensure that the recommendation is applied retrospectively to those wrongfully convicted since 13 March 2014? Although I cautiously welcome to the intervention of the Law Commission, and agree that it would make the current situation fairer, it still does not explain why someone presumed innocent has a further obligation or burden to prove it, nor would it address the failings made by the scheme in determining Mr Buckle’s application for compensation, or prevent other claims from being rejected after similar careful consideration. If the Government maintain that it is necessary for a person presumed innocent to prove it to receive compensation, I do not believe the appropriate authority to make that decision is an official at the Ministry of Justice, someone who, through no fault of their own, will be unfamiliar with the facts of the case and will not have witnessed the evidence given under oath, but who instead must work solely from the papers. Such an individual is not best placed to decide on such applications. Surely it is the trial jury that is best placed to decide whether the evidence proved Mr Buckle—in this case—to be both not guilty and innocent. I request that the Minister meets us to discuss the handling of Mr Buckle’s specific application and also the merits of amending the law to allow a judge to ask the trial jury, in circumstances where they have acquitted the defendant on all charges, to consider also whether they are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendant is innocent of those same charges. If it is the Government’s intention to ensure that true victims of miscarriages of justice are fairly compensated, asking the trial jury to make the decision must be the fairest way. It is difficult to see any rational argument against it. I ask the Minister to be kind enough to agree to a meeting to discuss how we can ensure that Mr Buckle is granted that opportunity, so that this miscarriage of justice and the ordeal that he and his family have endured is finally brought to an end. Urgency is key, because justice delayed is justice denied.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Miscarriage of Justice Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman has got to the nub of the matter. That is precisely the effect of the change implemented in 2014. It has devastated the number of successful applications for compensation, because if we consider the data for the period between 1999 and 2024, we can see that, prior to the introduction of the new section 133 test, 45.6% of applicants received compensation for their wrongful convictions, but, following its introduction, just 6.6% of cases were successful—a drop of 39 percentage points. This new test has virtually put a stop to compensation payouts for these kinds of miscarriages of justice—an insurmountable hurdle indeed. Members may wonder about the purpose of restricting eligibility in this way, and I am sure we will hear arguments that it was done to prevent those exonerated on a technicality from receiving compensation, but the cynic in me fears that the restriction was introduced to cut costs. Prior to 2014, the Ministry of Justice made average annual payouts of £5.9 million. Following the change, we have seen the average annual payouts under the scheme drop by 95%, to an average of £297,000. Even successful applicants have seen their individual compensation payments fall, with the average pre-2014 payment totalling just over £267,000, falling to an average of £61,000 after the change. I am reminded of Cicero’s teachings, over two millennia ago: “Justice looks for no prize and no price; it is sought for itself”. He also said, of course: “The worst kind of injustice is to look for profit from injustice.” It is for others to consider whether anyone profits from this injustice, but the savings that the 2014 test realises for the Ministry of Justice perhaps offer an answer to that age-old question of, “What price do we put on justice?” Well, I can tell you, Mr Turner: it is around £5.6 million a year on average, compared with the pre-2014 payments. The current system therefore places an almost impossible burden on the applicant—one whereby they are required to find a new fact that shows beyond reasonable doubt that they did not commit the offence for which they have been acquitted. The perverse situation into The perverse situation into which the 2014 change forces the wrongly convicted can be summarised as follows: they are required to prove that they are innocent of a crime for which they have already been exonerated. I appreciate that this is an academic point, but it is worth considering whether some high-profile exonerees—the Cardiff Three, the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six—would receive compensation if they applied under the scheme today. To the layman, it is difficult to understand how such a situation is compatible with the principles underpinning our justice system, because it undermines the well-understood principle that we are all innocent until proven guilty. I know there might be a challenge to that assertion, but the fact remains that the current rules place the obligation on the defendant to prove that they did not commit a crime to the criminal standard of proof, which is beyond reasonable doubt. In Mr Buckle’s rejection letter, the Ministry of Justice, as well as reassuring him that his case had been carefully considered, asserted that, despite rejection of his claim for compensation, he is still presumed to be, and remains, innocent of the charges brought against him. If you were ever looking for a definition of Orwellian doublespeak, Mr Turner, that response is a perfect example. It illustrates how the 2014 change, by reversing the burden of proof, undermines the presumption of innocence and forces the Ministry to perform quite impressive but legally illogical linguistic gymnastics. For if Mr Buckle is in law presumed to be innocent, surely he must be treated as such by the state. A man presumed to be innocent who has spent more than five years in jail should be compensated. If the state wants to treat him as though he were a guilty man and deny him compensation, why should the burden not fall on to the state to prove his guilt? Claims by the Ministry of Justice—

• 19 Mar 2025 · Miscarriage of Justice Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by apologising, Mr Turner, for failing to acknowledge that this is your inaugural session in the Chamber. May I say how admirably and professionally you have chaired the debate, especially given that we had the unexpected interruption of Divisions? Thank you very much for doing so. I also thank my fellow Members from every part of the United Kingdom for their contributions. It is heartening to hear a great degree of consensus that there is a wrong to be righted and that the new Government have the opportunity to do that. In summing up, I will make a few quick points. We have this opportunity to right a very clear wrong. There are far too many people who have had their convictions overturned, and who have been found not guilty at retrial after spending years in prison, but who are still awaiting compensation. We need to appreciate that any delay to this justice is effectively justice denied. While appreciating the need to proceed with caution and reasonably, we need to make sure that we do not waste any time, because too many individuals have already suffered ordeals for far too long. We have an opportunity here, as Members of Parliament and with a new Government, to do something that I think is very honourable. It is something that a far more honourable Member than I, who sat just over here, once told me: we are sent to this place to right wrongs. I think today there is a great consensus in that endeavour. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered miscarriage of justice compensation.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention, and I very much agree. We have an opportunity to right this wrong now. That would not only deliver justice to the 1950s-born women who suffered as a consequence of the changes—or the failure to communicate them—to the state pension age, but provide an important contribution to restoring faith in MPs, Parliament and the whole democratic process. I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter. However, I have to say—perhaps this is the cynic or the pessimist in me—that when we consider everything we have asked 1950’s-born women to do in recent years, such as jumping through all the various hoops and processes, coming up to London, which is quite the journey to make from west Wales, petitioning, demonstrating and organising, it is quite outrageous to ignore the ombudsman after it has proven, acceded to and accepted their case. On top of that, the Government are now, I understand, refusing to even engage with representatives of 1950s-born women in alternative forms of mediation. Perhaps worst of all, they are not giving Parliament the opportunity in Government time to vote on the matter. That is my one call and request of the Minister. We have already heard this afternoon about the four options offered by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Give us that chance to express and voice the will of Parliament. I am confident that there is consensus in Parliament to see justice done for a generation of inspiring women, whom I feel incredibly honoured to represent.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on opening this debate in such a powerful way. I had to do some sums earlier on, because I seem to recall that the very first time I spoke as a Member of Parliament was in a debate, in this very Chamber, about this injustice to 1950s-born women. I was able to find out that I made that contribution on 5 July 2017. If I recall correctly, there was then, as there seems to be this afternoon, great consensus amongst Members that 1950s-born women have indeed suffered a great injustice. What has changed since then, however, is that we have had years of debates, petitions, demonstrations and an investigation by the ombudsman, who has also found in their favour. Little could I have imagined back then—some eight years ago, now—that we would be standing here in this very Chamber debating and agreeing yet again that a great injustice had befallen 1950s-born women, yet also be arguing about a Government refusing to implement and honour the recommendations of the ombudsman. It would be easy to despair if it were not for the 1950s-born women of my constituency, who are an absolute inspiration. Thousands of women have spent the past eight or so years diligently attending meetings, organising petitions and offering support to each other. The impact of the maladministration has been severe, as others have mentioned: people have fallen into great financial hardship and distress, which has led far too often to strain on family relationships, as well as an impact on people’s health. However, these women have stuck together, organised and ensured that they give each other support in the darkest of days. More importantly, they set about the task of diligently collecting the information and evidence required of them to prove their case as part of the ombudsman’s process. These women have done that. They have jumped through the many hoops of the various stages of the ombudsman process, with some compiling cases for the independent case examiner. I agree with all those who have spoken before me: it is a real travesty for us to fail to offer those women justice after they have proven their case and had the ombudsman rule in their favour. I agree with others that that calls into question the integrity of not only the ombudsman process itself, but, more fundamentally, the whole democratic process that Parliament embodies.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Political Finance Rules · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government are awake to the evolving nature of the threat, especially in cyber and on social media platforms. One of the things that I hope they look at is the various ways that social media can be used to directly or indirectly benefit political parties.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  I am very pleased to hear the Minister emphasise that the withholding of humanitarian aid is a direct contravention of international humanitarian law. What steps are her Government taking to work with partners in the region and in Europe to apply pressure on the Israeli Government, to ensure that the flow of critical aid is no longer impeded?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that there seems to be a disconnect between some of the statements made by the Government about the impact, or lack of impact, of the measures on small and medium-sized enterprises, and the fact that, week after week, small businesses and family businesses tell us, as constituency MPs, that they will have to reconsider much of their investment and recruitment plans for the coming year as a result of the measures in the Bill?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I join others in commending the Ukrainian people for their bravery in the face of Russian aggression, and the Government’s steadfast support for the nation’s sovereignty. The Foreign Secretary referred in his statement to the need for European nations to contribute more to future security guarantees for the Ukrainian people. Does he envisage more bilateral and multilateral agreements between European allies playing a part in that endeavour, much in the vein of the Lancaster House treaties or, latterly, the Trinity House agreement?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for outlining his concerns about devolving the Crown Estate to the Welsh Government—he listed a number of them. Am I right in saying that he believes that the devolution of powers from the Crown Estate to Scotland has fragmented the market, and is in some way to the disbenefit of people in Scotland?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s arguments against devolving the administration of the Crown Estate to Wales. The previous Government— his Government—devolved those same powers to Scotland. Can I ask him, very simply, why it works for Scotland, but is too complicated for Wales?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. The plan is quite simple: we could look at what is happening at this very moment in Scotland.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  There has been much debate about the discrepancies between the estimate of the Treasury, which states that some 500 farms will be affected every year, and the estimates from the NFU, the Farmers’ Union of Wales, the CAAV, the AHDB—I could name a few more. Is the Minister not concerned, and should it not give the Government pause for thought, that the Central Association for Agricultural Valuers has estimated that in Wales alone the proposals will make an extra 200 family farms subject to an inheritance tax liability? If we are to believe the Government’s estimates, that would constitute 40% of the UK total.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 6 Feb 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  Diolch, Mr Speaker. Any proposal that would oversee the forcible transfer of the entire population of Gaza would clearly constitute an egregious breach of international humanitarian law, but it would also amount to ethnic cleansing. The Government have previously emphasised the importance of a rules-based international order underpinned by adherence to international humanitarian law, but how do they hope to defend and strengthen that order when yet another permanent member of the United Nations Security Council seems intent on dismantling it?

• 3 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for outlining some of the Government’s thinking behind clause 91. Will she elaborate on whether the Government have considered the fact that such a disqualification would have a disproportionate impact on somebody living in a remote area, compared with those in more urban areas, where there is much greater access to public transport?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Growing the UK Economy · Hansard source

  More

  It was heartening to hear the Chief Secretary talk about the importance of inclusive growth in every nation and region of the United Kingdom, and that regional growth will be hardwired into the comprehensive spending review and the Government’s infrastructure plans. However, he will be aware that such promises have previously been made to areas such as Ceredigion Preseli, but remain unfulfilled. Will the Chief Secretary therefore explain what investment the people of mid and west Wales can expect to see under his Government’s plans?

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  A number of Members have raised concerns about the discrepancies in incomes and average earnings across different regions and nations of the UK. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the Migration Advisory Committee will look at those?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Northern Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  It has been estimated that over 650 attacks have been launched on healthcare facilities in Gaza and more than 1,000 healthcare workers have been killed, injured or detained since October 2023. I recognise that the Minister has raised his concerns with his Israeli counterpart, but could he perhaps explain what the consequences will be if the Israeli Government fail to listen?

• 18 Dec 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  In 2022, the Prime Minister supported calls for fair and fast compensation for 1950s women impacted by the changes to the state pension. Yet, just yesterday, his Government rejected those same calls out of hand. Is that what the Prime Minister meant when he promised to lead a Government of change?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Minister give way?