Jeremy Wright MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 8 Jul 2025 · Down’s Syndrome Regression Disorder · Hansard source

  More

  I add my thanks to all who participated. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Down’s syndrome regression disorder research.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Road and Rail Projects · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State has made reference to those areas of the country that wanted transport infrastructure projects and have not got them. May I ask her to spare a thought for those places that have got transport infrastructure projects that they do not want? She knows that High Speed 2 passes through my constituency but delivers no benefit to the people I represent. In future rounds of consideration for rail and road projects, will she consider giving priority to those places that are suffering in that way, but which have a real need for other types of transport infrastructure that perhaps they deserve as compensation?

• 26 Jun 2025 · BBC World Service Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for not mentioning the thing he has just mentioned. [ Laughter. ]

• 26 Jun 2025 · BBC World Service Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady and all those who have contributed for their self-discipline and collaboration, which has enabled us to make it through with everyone speaking. I now come to the Front-Bench speeches.

• 26 Jun 2025 · BBC World Service Funding · Hansard source

  More

  We will start a minute or so early because, as everyone will appreciate, there are a lot of potential speakers and I want to give everyone maximum opportunity to get in. To ensure that no one is disadvantaged by our starting early, let me make it clear that I will also call those who arrive from 3.10 pm onwards.

• 26 Jun 2025 · BBC World Service Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We have finished early, so now everyone can get into more coffee queues with Ministers. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the funding of the BBC World Service.

• 26 Jun 2025 · BBC World Service Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I remind Members that if they wish to speak they should continue to bob so I can see that they do. If we are going to get everybody in, people will need to restrict themselves to about three minutes, but I am loath to impose a formal time limit. I call Sir John Whittingdale.

• 24 Jun 2025 · National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman’s long experience will tell him that sometimes in government the grander the language the less significant the actual announcement. But if on this occasion—I am perfectly prepared to accept that this is so—the Government are making a serious effort to redraw the boundaries of what is national security policy and what is not, does he agree that we need matching parliamentary scrutiny of that area of policy? As he knows, the Intelligence and Security Committee is the only Committee with the necessary clearances to look at classified material. Does he think that this is a good moment to look again at the memorandum of understanding between the Committee and the Government about what the Committee covers?

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) and many others who have given brave testimony of their own personal experience in this matter. I join the tributes to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), who I think has conducted herself with decency, dignity and compassion throughout this process. But I have heard her and others say that the decision we have to make today is whether or not we are in favour of the status quo, and I respectfully disagree. Our job as legislators is to consider rigorously the proposed legislation before us, and those who propose it bear the burden of persuading us that this is the right change to make, and not a change that may bring problems as big or bigger than those we are trying to solve. I have spent nearly 30 years in this place that makes our laws and practising in the courts that administer them. I have had ministerial responsibility for sentencing and for the Crown Prosecution Service. I have faith in our system of laws, but I have also seen the limitations on our ability to avoid the negative consequences of the laws we make, however hard we try. So very often the legislative decisions we take are about a balance of risks. In this case, the risk of not changing the law is that we leave some of our constituents in pain where it could be avoided, and expose their loved ones to the fear of prosecution for acts of love and mercy. I acknowledge that risk, and I have felt the anguish and desperation of those who want this Bill to pass for the very best of motives. But good people can come to different conclusions on the balance of risks here, and I think that we take a bigger risk in changing the law. That is because of the signal we send in the legislation we pass. Signals sent by changes in the law matter. When Parliament changes the law, it brings consequences for those who break the new law, but it also intends to change behaviour. Creating new criminal offences, increasing maximum sentences or even strengthening regulations are acts that we hope everyone will take notice of and behave differently as a result, because they recognise that Parliament, on behalf of society as a whole, is signalling its disapproval of certain actions or practices. If that is true for legislation that makes unlawful what was previously lawful, why should the same not be true for legislation that makes lawful something that was previously unlawful? We are sending a signal there too: that society, through Parliament, believes that something we used to think was unacceptable is now acceptable—in this case, that assisting someone to die is now something of which we approve. I believe that is bound to have an impact on those who, in great distress at the end of their lives, may already be thinking that it would be better if they were out of the way. I do not want to live in a society in which anyone, including the terminally ill, is encouraged in the belief that their life is not valuable and valued to their very last moment. Though it is not its intent, I fear that the Bill brings such a society closer. That is why I cannot support it.

• 18 Jun 2025 · HS2 Reset · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State knows that HS2 runs through my constituency, and she will accept that what makes my constituents particularly angry about what she has described is that HS2 has pinched every penny in compensating someone unfortunate enough to find themselves in the path of this railway, yet wasted millions elsewhere. Can she assure us that as part of the reset, line-drawing or page-turning—however she describes it—she will look at how people are compensated when affected by such major infrastructure projects? Does she accept that it would be sensible to consider how Parliament could look again at this project, whose budget and timescale have ballooned, and decide whether we still think it is a worthwhile use of taxpayers’ money?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the consideration the Secretary of State has already given to finding a fairer and more effective way of compensating those injured by a covid vaccination, but he knows that those who are profoundly affected by such injuries are anxious for news. Can he give me, and indeed them, a progress report?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In view of the pressure on time, I will limit my remarks to amendment 141, in my name. The Bill, as we have heard, seeks to do many things, but one of them is to accelerate the roll-out of electric vehicle charging points around the country to facilitate the move to electric vehicles. Drivers with disabilities, and there are 1.35 million of them, will also be expected to move to electric vehicles, but public charging points are often unsuitable for them to use. The amendment is designed to address that.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  The policy of successive UK Governments has been that the United Kingdom will recognise the state of Palestine when it is conducive to the peace process and the ultimate realisation of the two-state solution. Up to this point, I have accepted the argument that the Minister and his predecessors have made that that moment has not yet come. But has not the balance shifted decisively with a succession of moves to greater territorial change in the west bank by increased settlement activity and by increasingly blunt and frequent statements from members of the Israeli Government that they are going to restrict Palestinians to a sub-set of Gaza or restrict them from Gaza all together? That is what has changed my mind such that I now believe that it is necessary for the UK, hopefully in conjunction with others, to recognise the state of Palestine urgently. Why has it not yet changed the Government’s mind?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly am, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am doing my best, I hope as briefly as I can, to explain these technical amendments in a hugely important Bill, in a part of the Bill that the promoter has advocated for because she believes it is a safeguard. I think it is important, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we establish whether it is such a safeguard, and if it can be improved, how it can be improved—but I entirely take your strictures on board and I will come as quickly as I can to a conclusion. This is not an equality of arms point—I accept that these are not opposing parties in the traditional sense—but it is really about the presentation of new evidence. Presumably the advice to someone whose application for a certificate has been refused and who has new evidence to present would be to reapply to the commissioner, but what is someone who has new evidence to challenge the basis for an existing certificate to do? Judicial review is no help. That is about the soundness of the decision already taken, which will be assessed using the evidence already presented to the panel that took the original decision.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I understand my right hon. Friend’s point, but I am not sure I entirely agree with him. I think some of the procedural problems I am describing would have existed even with the previous iteration of the Bill, but certainly they are there in its current iteration. At this Report stage, I am seeking to fix the problem that arises from the difficulty for the three qualified individuals who will constitute these panels to express a considered judgment. If we are to have added value in the panel stage of this process, we surely have to enable the panel to make good judgments. Good judgments come from the capacity to assess all the relevant evidence. The Bill, as it stands, makes it very hard for the panel to have access to all that evidence in every case, but perhaps especially in those cases where the additional safeguard is most needed.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I understand the hon. Lady’s point and I have seen her amendments on the subject, which are very sensible. We need to think about the way in which the panel process will actually unfold. If we believe that this is an important safeguard, as, I think, is a common view, we need to do everything we can to make sure that it is an effective one. Like the hon. Lady’s amendments, my amendment 47 seeks to remedy the problem by ensuring that the assisted dying commissioner notifies anyone they think may have relevant evidence to give so that they can give it. That evidence may, of course, not change the panel’s decision, but in some of the most troubling cases it will, and the opportunity for the panel to consider that evidence, when the stakes are so high, must surely be provided for. I accept that what I am proposing is an infringement of the privacy of the person wishing to die—it is a fetter on their ability to choose to die without informing their family or friends as they may wish—but the Bill is all about balancing the rights of a person to die as they wish with, on the other hand, our duty to protect the vulnerable from abuse. That is exactly why the stages through which a person must go in order to be assisted to die are in this Bill, including obtaining the grant of a certificate from a panel. To be of value, as I say, that must surely add new protections to the other stages.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am conscious of the confines of the Minister’s role in the process, but what assessment have the Government made of the capacity of a panel to investigate for itself anything that is not brought before it either by one of the relevant doctors or by the person seeking a certificate? The panel’s capacity to do so is surely important, if any issue that is not raised by either group is relevant to its consideration.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In view of the number of hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, I will restrict my remarks to amendments 47, 48 and 49, which stand in my name and the names of others. The amendments focus on the stage in the process that involves the multidisciplinary panel established by clause 14, and their purpose is to make that system work better. A panel is intended to be an additional safeguard. The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) has made that very clear, and such panels are the successor to the involvement of a High Court judge assessing the merits of each case. The role of the panel is to determine whether it is satisfied of the matters set out in clause 15(2). Some of those matters are procedural—for example, whether the person seeking the certificate is aged over 18 or is resident in the UK, or whether declarations and assessments that should be made have been made. Others are matters of judgment, including professional judgment, such as whether an illness is terminal or whether the person applying for a certificate of eligibility has the mental capacity to do so. The remaining category of matters to be considered are matters of broader judgment, and I suspect those are likely to be where the panel focuses most of its attention, particularly the final two listed in clause 15(2): first, whether “the person has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life” and, secondly, that there is no coercion or pressure from anyone else. On those matters, the panel will hear from the relevant doctors, who will have had to make a judgment on those things, but I do not think that the intent of the Bill is or should be that the panel simply confirms that the doctor has reached a judgment and then adopts that judgment. The panel should, of course, reach its own judgment. It is right that the panel will also hear from the person wishing to die and will make its assessment of them. Particularly on the last matter—the absence of coercion or pressure—it may well be that highly relevant evidence will come from others. It may come from family, friends or others who know the person well, and we are familiar with a least one scenario where a new partner isolated the person in question before they suddenly and unexpectedly changed their view on their own assisted death. The problem is that under the Bill as it stands it is very difficult, and perhaps impossible, for those who know the person seeking a certificate well to know that those proceedings are under way or in prospect. They may not know, and nobody has to tell them, that the person has made the relevant declarations, or even that they have an intention to die, or indeed that there is any reason to submit any evidence they may have. I am not saying that every case in which someone has not told their family and friends of their decision to seek an assisted death will be concerning, but I think it is fair to say that a disproportionate number of the concerning cases will be in that category. In those cases, the panel may be making a judgment in the absence of relevant—perhaps crucial—evidence and they simply cannot do their job properly if that is so.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I think we can expect that the psychiatrist on the panel will subject the requirement on mental capacity, in particular, to some considerable professional scrutiny, but nobody on the panel, whatever their professional competence may be, is capable of doing the job properly if they do not have access to the necessary evidence, so we must make sure they do. The fact that the panel may sit in public is not a sufficient answer to the problem that I am raising. First, that is because there will be many panels considering many cases, and we cannot expect those who have evidence of coercion, for example, to watch the lists in case the person they know happens to appear in them—when, of course, they have no expectation that they will. Secondly, the panel will not sit in public in every case. Paragraph 6 of schedule 2 says: “Panels are to determine referrals in public”. That is the clear presumption, and it is welcome, but paragraph 6(2) says: “The chair of a panel may, at the request of the person to whom a referral relates, decide that the panel is to sit in private.” I can see nothing in the Bill about any grounds on which the panel chair may refuse such a request, so it will occasionally, or perhaps often, be the case that the panel will sit in private, and no one will know what it is doing. The next issue is the way a panel will go about making the judgments it needs to make, which brings me to amendment 48. As we all know, most judicial and quasi-judicial hearings in this country are conducted on an adversarial basis. That is, by the way, a reference not to the tone of proceedings but to the presentation of both sides of an argument so that the tribunal can reach the right conclusion. That is what our judges and lawyers are used to. That matters here because this quasi-judicial stage in the process of seeking assistance to die is being offered as important reassurance that things will be done safely, but that reassurance cannot be offered if panels are asked to adopt a process for which they are ill-equipped. That is not a criticism of those who will sit on the panels. I accept that, under the Bill as it stands, a panel may hear from and question any other person beyond the person seeking the certificate and the relevant doctors, but as I have sought to address in amendment 47, as things stand those other persons will in all likelihood not know about the panel’s proceedings and therefore will not come forward of their own initiative with the evidence. The panel would have to go out and find them, and how exactly is it to do that? How does the panel know who may have relevant evidence to give, and with what resources will it seek them out? The position on what resources will be available more generally for the process under the Bill remains unclear, but the impact assessment suggests that panels will be expected to deal with two cases a day. That suggests that they will spend somewhere between three and four hours on each. That is not much latitude for further investigation. Amendment 48 proposes that the commissioner should notify a designated authority—the Secretary of State can choose the appropriate one—of an application for a certificate. That authority would then supply to the panel an advocate with the responsibility to raise arguments against the grant of the certificate, which the panel would not otherwise hear. I think that is important, because it would ensure that there was another participant in the panel process who could at least help the panel by prompting consideration of concerns, reservations or grounds for further inquiry before decisions were made. My amendment 49 is about what happens once a panel has reached its conclusion. Clause 16 provides for a person seeking a certificate to be able to ask for reconsideration of a panel’s refusal to grant one, but of course the Bill currently provides no equivalent right to challenge the decision to someone who believes that a panel should not have granted a certificate. Anyone in that position would need to resort to judicial review, which is complex and expensive.

• 15 May 2025 · Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits · Hansard source

  More

  Although the Government should have volunteered to defend their position, I accept, having held ministerial responsibility for the prison estate, that they had no good options at this point. Does the Minister accept that the problem with what he is choosing to do is that the return to prison for breach of important licence conditions is there to be a deterrent, and if we reduce that deterrent, we run the risk of more people breaching licence conditions, which would make the overcrowding problem worse? If he chooses that path, will he consider increasing the deterrent effect by ensuring that, following a 28-day return to prison, there are other restrictions on a prisoner’s freedom, such as electronic tagging?

• 15 May 2025 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State knows that High Speed 2’s central purpose is to deliver economic growth, but she knows, too, that it is taking far longer and costing far more to deliver than anyone expected. Given that projects of the scale of HS2 require parliamentary approval, is it not important that Parliament has accurate estimates of how much the project will cost and how long it will take to deliver? Will she commission a properly independent and thorough review of why the budget for HS2 has increased so often and the timetable has expanded so often?

• 14 May 2025 · Ministerial Code: Compliance · Hansard source

  More

  I think it would be fair to say that this is not the first Government who have disregarded this particular provision of the ministerial code, but may I put it to the Leader of the House that if the charge is that the Government, for their own calculated and tactical advantage, have breached the ministerial code by announcing something outside this Chamber, surely the person determining whether such a breach has occurred cannot be the leader of that Government? Is it not time to look again at the recommendations made by, among others, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, of which I was once a member, about how the decision maker as to whether the ministerial code has been breached should be the independent adviser on ministerial standards, not the Prime Minister?

• 13 May 2025 · Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members for their co-operation and self-discipline. I now call the Front-Bench speakers, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

• 13 May 2025 · Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities · Hansard source

  More

  We will find out in a few minutes.

• 13 May 2025 · Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I remind all Back-Bench colleagues to bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate.