Robert Jenrick MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Mar 2026 · Heating Oil Support · Hansard source

  More

  The Treasury is raking in tens of millions in increased tax revenues from rising fuel and energy prices on the one hand; on the other, it is providing some mild relief to a chosen few. The Chancellor is robbing Peter to pay Paul, and then expects the country to give her a pat on the back. Will the Minister do what could be done now: cancel the proposed increase in fuel duty for September and provide some genuine relief to everyone who is feeling hard pressed right now?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  The British people are being clobbered. The Chancellor could have come here today and scrapped her hike in fuel duty. She could have come here, ended the insanity, and got drilling again in the North sea. Instead, she offered nothing—absolutely nothing. This crisis deserves a proper response. When will she finally understand that for now at least she is the Chancellor, not just a bystander?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor is like a rogue landlord who keeps squeezing the tenant with higher and higher rent, and all the while, the property is going to rack and ruin. I do not know who she is speaking to, but she needs to get out and talk to hard-working people who are hard up right now—people who are worried about their bills and the lack of good jobs—rather than the extremists she cosies up to for votes. The Chancellor’s next scheme for raising taxes on working people is to hike fuel duty at the pump. Will she cancel that measure, and give some relief to care workers, white van men and other hard-working people who get up in the morning and drive to work? They are the backbone of this economy.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Iran: Human Rights Violations · Hansard source

  More

  When some of us campaigned for Hezbollah to be proscribed in full, Foreign Office officials and others said that it was impossible, because it would harm diplomatic relations. That was overcome. The same spurious argument was made with respect to Hamas. That was overcome. Imagine how foolish our country would look today if we had not proscribed Hezbollah and Hamas in full. The same argument has been made by the last Government and by this Government with respect to the IRGC. Will the Foreign Secretary be clear that she will not stand in the way of the full proscription of the IRGC, so that these dangerous criminals who harm our own people and our allies around the world have no place and no home in the United Kingdom?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  The surrender of British sovereign territory began under my former party and has been made only worse by this Labour Government. It is a damning indictment of the two old parties. The Minister represents the neighbouring town to mine and, when he is not jet-setting, he presumably walks the same streets and talks to the same people. How can he, hand on heart, say that his constituents should spend up to £50 billion on this policy at a time when taxes and bills are rising and everyone in this country feels hard up?

• 2 Feb 2026 · US Department of Justice Release of Files · Hansard source

  More

  Appointing Peter Mandelson to our premier ambassadorship was always a grotesque error of judgment by the Prime Minister, given everything we knew about this man. Now we are told that this man leaked confidential information to a convicted sex offender when he was a Cabinet Minister and took tens of thousands of pounds in secret backhanders. It is a total disgrace. Has the Minister really come to the House to say that he does not intend to bring forward primary legislation to deal with this now but will write to the House of Lords to seek support for modernising its procedures in a few months’ time, and that he will not go proactively to the police to demand an investigation when Peter Mandelson has clearly broken the law and now stands accused of serious misconduct in public office and should be tried for his offences?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  First, would the Secretary of State stop saying this is a locally led process. The power rests solely with him, and each of these delays is his decision and his decision alone. Secondly, the real question here is: why are elections to be delayed for a second year? When I was the Secretary of State, the legal advice I received—including from Sir James Eadie, the Government’s chief legal adviser —was that it was not legally sustainable to delay for a second year, hence we did not. Even during covid, we kept the elections going and did not delay for two years. What the Secretary of State is doing is almost certainly illegal. If he is so confident of his position, will he publish his legal advice and publish the legal advice that I and the then Prime Minister received when we decided not to delay for a second year? Then we might be able to have faith in what he is saying.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  For two years!

• 21 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  One of the last meetings that I took as shadow Justice Secretary was with the parents of Lenny Scott. Lenny Scott was an exceptionally brave prison officer who uncovered corruption in his prison. He left the service, and years later he was hunted down and brutally murdered. Because he died after leaving active service, there was never any compensation paid to the children he left behind. I know that the Prime Minister would want to right that wrong. I wrote to the Justice Secretary privately after I discovered this—I should say that Lenny Scott’s parents never asked for any support. Will the Prime Minister correct this, ensure that this brave man’s children have the support that they need as they grow up without the father they deserve, and join me in thanking all the brave men and women who serve us in our Prison Service?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  Of course, Mr Speaker—apologies. If the Government have a case, they should publish the evidence and the modelling. This is not a minor policy; it will change something that we have enjoyed as a country for hundreds of years. Something as significant as this should be done on the basis of evidence, so I say to the Minister that whether the Government accept our motion or not today is by the bye, but they should accept the spirit of it and publish the evidence now so that everyone can see it; so that the lawyers, judges and practitioners who care and are worried about this can engage in a proper debate; and above all, so that we in the House of Commons, who are the guardians of our constitution and our ancient liberties, can have a debate on the basis of facts.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a number of very important points. There are better ways to handle this situation. I do not pretend that they are simple; they are difficult. They involve getting to the heart of bureaucratic organisations that have been poorly managed and are unaccountable. Let us look at some of the solutions. One, which Brian Leveson mentions in his report, is incentivising early pleas to prevent cases dragging on unnecessarily, for example by ensuring that those accused of offences meet their counsel earlier, so that they get good advice about their likelihood of success or otherwise sooner, and changing the fee structure accordingly to achieve that.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I am just restating, I think fairly, what the former permanent secretary said. The Ministry of Justice did not do enough to get the backlog under control. There has been a serious failure to fix the productivity problems in our court system, as I think the Institute for Fiscal Studies set out independently in a report last year. Could the last Government have done more? Well, perhaps they could have. They did try to do things: they increased the number of sitting days and brought in special courts, such as Nightingale courts, in parts of the country, which began to make some difference. None the less, the backlog kept rising. The backlog has risen very substantially under this Labour Government as well. In fact, to the extent that we have accurate figures, it is rising by about 500 cases every month, so the problem has continued to get worse and worse. I therefore do not see today’s debate as a partisan debate between the two main parties. The key thing is how we solve the problem. How do we look to the future? Is slashing jury trials the answer? No. Are there better ways to do this? Yes.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I do. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is shameful to our country that victims of serious crimes like rape will have to wait until 2028 or 2029. In fact, I believe the longest listing hence today is 2030. No one in this Chamber could possibly defend that for one moment, but will this policy make a material difference to fixing that problem? I do not believe that it will. I have not heard anyone who really believes in their heart that it will fix the problem, and if it is going to make a difference, publish the modelling and the evidence so we can see it, because Lord Leveson has not published any modelling. Lord Leveson gave a view that it might lead to a 20% reduction in the length of a trial. That is heavily disputed by other practitioners, including—and I do not mean to demean Lord Leveson—people who are closer to the coalface of our criminal justice system: judges and criminal barristers. The Department has not published any modelling. Does it exist? If it does, publish it and then we can have an honest and evidence-led debate.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I will just advance my case a little, and then I will come to my hon. Friend. The most important thing that we could do is get the courts sitting round the clock. There are sitting days on the table that are not being used. The Lady Chief Justice, the most senior person in our judiciary, has said repeatedly that she is able to offer the Government more sitting days. She has said it in the press, she said it before the Justice Committee the other day, and I am sure that she has said it privately to Ministers as well. The Government have been pushed, slowly, to take her up on those sitting days, and I commend them for that. However, there are still, by the Lady Chief Justice’s measure, at least 2,000 extra sitting days available that the Government are not taking her up on. We need to go back to her, welcome those sitting days with open arms, and say, “What would it take for you to produce more? Can we turn 2,000 into 5,000, or 10,000?” Get the courts actually sitting. That is not happening right now. The principal reason for that is financial: the Ministry of Justice has not been able to secure from the Treasury a comparatively small sum of money. We can argue about the priorities of this Government, and we will differ across the House, but the sum of money that we need for the proper operation of our criminal justice system is relatively small. It must be better to spend that money on this cause than to scrap an ancient freedom that we have enjoyed, generation after generation.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  Both parties must share the blame for the present situation. The former permanent secretary of the Ministry of Justice came before the Justice Committee last year and was asked broadly the same question that the hon. Lady just asked me: what is the root cause of the current backlog? She responded that although the system had been poorly funded for some time, which had created a number of challenges, the primary cause was the pandemic. Covid created immense strain on our justice system. As a result of that, a backlog that had, broadly speaking, been falling in the years prior to the pandemic—it had begun to rise slightly in the period immediately before—shot up. [ Interruption. ]

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is right. Having served as a Minister in the last Conservative Government under multiple Prime Ministers, I have been led up a few hills before myself, and I know what it feels like to be a Minister in this situation. This is not a hill to die upon. Let us fix this problem. Let us build a cross-party consensus on how we get the backlog down—I will speak about a few of the solutions as I see them, as we see them, in a moment. This policy is not going to happen. I honestly believe that this is not going to happen. There is opposition not just from the official Opposition, but from every other party—Reform, Plaid, independents and the Liberal Democrats. There is opposition from Labour Members—good, experienced colleagues on the Government side. There is opposition in the House of Lords from Labour peers of the highest repute like Helena Kennedy—people who have spent careers in the law. This was not in the manifesto; the House of Lords does not have to support it. The last time Jack Straw and Tony Blair tried to do this, the House of Lords stepped in and it failed. This is a distraction. This is a waste of everyone’s time. If the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary and his Ministers care about swift justice, they should scrap this pointless distraction and focus every hour of the day on the hard yards of government, on doing the difficult things, and on the administrative failures of the Ministry of Justice that have existed for years, so we can actually ensure that the backlog is brought down.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me come to some potential solutions. It is important to note that the backlog varies very widely across the country. His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is a poorly managed organisation with limited accountability to Ministers, and it has not been performing its function as well as it should. There are parts of our country where the backlog is far smaller than in others. In Liverpool and parts of Lancashire—despite the closure of your local court, Mr Speaker—the court backlog is substantially lower, as it is in Wales. There are significant regional differences because better managers, active judges and good case management of the kind that my right hon. Friend mentioned have made a significant difference.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to the hon. Lady in a moment, but I give way to my right hon. Friend.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I will, but then I must conclude my remarks, because many colleagues wish to speak.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House believes that it is wrong to abolish jury trials for crimes with anticipated sentences of three years or less because jury trials are a fundamental part of the UK constitution and democracy; acknowledges the scale of the courts backlog and the necessity of reducing it to ensure justice for victims but believes that restricting the fundamental right to trial by jury will have a limited effect on reducing that backlog; calls on the Government to increase the number of court sitting days to help urgently reduce the backlog; and further calls on the Government to publish immediately all modelling it has undertaken and received on the potential impact of the abolition of jury trials on that backlog. The Government propose to abolish the right to trial by jury for a vast range of offences and for any case where they expect a sentence of three years or less. This is nothing less than wielding a constitutional axe against a centuries-old cornerstone of our liberty. Juries are not some bureaucratic add-on to our justice system; they are the means by which the public consent to and participate in the exercise of the gravest power of the state: the power to convict and imprison our fellow citizens. Yes, we face a serious Crown court backlog—that is not in any dispute today. That is not even a subject of debate today, because everyone on both sides of the House knows it and acknowledges it. We all accept that its roots did not begin under this Labour Government; it goes back to the pandemic and further than that. We all accept that there has been a lack of investment in our criminal justice system under Governments of all political persuasions, that the criminal Bar is in a weak place, and that young people do not feel they can go into the law or at least not into this most challenging and poorly paid part of it. We all accept that some of our courtrooms are in a terrible state, that the IT system is failing, that the contracts for getting prisoners to court on time are poorly managed and that the private contractors are underperforming. We all accept that the system is in a mess and needs to be reformed, but that is not the question at hand today. The question before us is, what is the best way to resolve this, and is the route to fix our criminal justice system and to deliver swift justice for victims to scrap something that we have known as a country since 1215, if not before?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to the hon. Lady and then to the hon. Gentleman.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I rest my case, my Lord. I sincerely thank the hon. Gentleman for the way he has conducted himself, and the campaign that he has fought and is fighting on this issue. Having campaigned at times against my own Government and having voted against the last Conservative Government, I know that it is not easy to do, and I credit him for the work he is doing.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why if the Government have a case, they should publish the evidence—

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?