1-20 of 3,426 results for member:"Helen Grant"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.388 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.007 seconds
- Search query
- member:"Helen Grant"
- We searched for
- member_ses:300881
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
More
Subject
More
Publisher
That this House expresses its profound sadness at the death of Ann Widdecombe and condemns the violence that led to her death; extends its deepest condolences to her family, friends and all those who knew and admired her; recognises her distinguished record of public service, including her 23 years as Member of Parliament for Maidstone and The Weald, and her wider contribution to public life; pays tribute to her longstanding commitment to animal welfare and animal rights throughout her parliamentary career; acknowledges her reputation as a parliamentarian of conviction who never wavered in speaking her mind and standing by her principles; and believes that her contribution to this House and to public life should be commemorated through the installation of a memorial in her memory within the Palace of Westminster.
That this House expresses its profound sadness at the death of Ann Widdecombe and condemns the violence that led to her death; extends its deepest condolences to her family, friends and all those who knew and admired her; recognises her distinguished record of public service, including her 23 years as...
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the availability of employment opportunities for newly qualified midwives; and what steps he is taking to ensure that qualified healthcare professionals are able to secure NHS employment in a timely...
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the availability of employment opportunities for newly qualified midwives; and what steps he is taking to ensure that qualified healthcare professionals are able to secure NHS employment in a timely...
We recognise the difficulties newly qualified midwives are experiencing when they are seeking employment in the National Health Service. We are investing £10.6 million to fund an additional 1,000 temporary roles to help newly qualified midwives join the NHS. The new roles for graduates will help build on the success of the 2025 Graduate Guarantee that means every newly qualified midwife in England will have the opportunity to apply to join the NHS.
We will also shortly be publishing a 10-Year Workforce Plan, which will put the NHS workforce on a sustainable footing so it can deliver the service model set out in the 10-Year Health Plan.
In addition to this work, the National Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce, which is comprised of family representatives, clinicians, and other experts, and chaired by my Rt Hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, will oversee the development of a new national action plan to drive systemic and sustained improvement across maternity and neonatal care. This follows the publication of the final recommendations of Baroness Amos’ independent investigation into NHS maternity and neonatal care.
At Justice questions last Tuesday, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services restated her total support for the Government’s attack on jury trials. She described it as “pragmatic structural reform”, and suggested that those who oppose it are burying
“their heads in the sand”
—[Official Report, 30 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 743.]
She also said that it is a point of principle to limit trial by jury, and that she would pursue the policy regardless of the crisis in the courts. Whatever the practical concerns, are the proposed changes to jury trials also a point of principle for the Solicitor General—yes or no?
At Justice questions last Tuesday, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services restated her total support for the Government’s attack on jury trials. She described it as “pragmatic structural reform”, and suggested that those who oppose it are burying
“their heads in the sand”
—[Official Report, 30 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 743.]
She also said that it is a point of principle to limit trial by jury, and that she would pursue the policy regardless of the crisis in the courts. Whatever the practical concerns, are the proposed changes to jury trials also a point of principle for the Solicitor General—yes or no?
As I have set out at this Dispatch Box over recent months, Sir Brian Leveson said in his report that investment alone was not enough, and that reform was also necessary to bring down the backlog of 80,000 cases that we inherited from the previous Conservative Government. Inaction just was not an option. The Ministry of Justice has had to take difficult choices. I remind the hon. Lady that, unlike the previous Conservative Government, we have invested in our courts, introduced unlimited sitting days and invested in victim services. We are doing everything we can to get the backlog down, so that victims can have their cases heard without having to wait years and years for justice.
The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), likely the next Prime Minister, has said that jury trials are the
“lynchpin of a fair society”
and that the plans to curb them should be paused. When he takes over, can we look forward to the Solicitor General’s supporting the scrapping or watering down of the very same changes that she has robustly supported? Does she think that any jury would believe a defendant whose story changed quite as often as this Government’s?
The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), likely the next Prime Minister, has said that jury trials are the
“lynchpin of a fair society”
and that the plans to curb them should be paused. When he takes over, can we look forward to the Solicitor General’s supporting the scrapping or watering down of the very same changes that she has robustly supported? Does she think that any jury would believe a defendant whose story changed quite as often as this Government’s?
The hon. Lady will know that I am not the spokesperson for my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield, but I am sure that, like all of us in the House, he is concerned about the unprecedented court backlogs that this Government inherited, and that he will engage with Ministry of Justice Ministers as the Courts and Tribunals Bill progresses through Parliament. Victims are waiting years for a date in court. That is why the Government have invested record amounts in the court system and will continue working to bring down the backlog.
Sir Brian Leveson recommended removing the right to elect a jury trial in cases involving offences that carry a maximum sentence of up to two years. Cases would be heard by a judge, sitting alongside two magistrates, in a Crown court bench division. The Government’s proposals go much further. They seek to remove the right to jury trial for offences carrying a maximum sentence of up to three years. Cases would be heard by a judge sitting alone. Why have the Government departed from Sir Brian’s recommendations in two important respects, both of which make serious inroads into the right to be heard by a jury?
Sir Brian Leveson recommended removing the right to elect a jury trial in cases involving offences that carry a maximum sentence of up to two years. Cases would be heard by a judge, sitting alongside two magistrates, in a Crown court bench division. The Government’s proposals go much further. They seek to remove the right to jury trial for offences carrying a maximum sentence of up to three years. Cases would be heard by a judge sitting alone. Why have the Government departed from Sir Brian’s recommendations in two important respects, both of which make serious inroads into the right to be heard by a jury?
As I set out, we inherited a courts system in crisis, with victims waiting years for their cases to get to court. We have all heard the stories of rape victims waiting three or four years for their cases to get to court. That is unacceptable, and it is why inaction is not an option, and why we have invested over £2.5 billion in our courts system. Jury trials will remain a cornerstone of our justice system. It is right, however—given the backlog that we face, and given that Sir Brian said that investment alone will not shift the dial—that we look at the jury system, which has not been looked at since the 1970s, to see what more we can do to make sure that cases get to court quicker and are heard, giving justice to both victims and defendants.
Given the Justice Minister’s conflicting remarks in the Courts and Tribunals Bill Committee, and given the Solicitor General’s responsibility for upholding the rule of law, will she confirm whether a decision that a defendant on trial will face a judge, sitting alone, will be subject to judicial review?
Given the Justice Minister’s conflicting remarks in the Courts and Tribunals Bill Committee, and given the Solicitor General’s responsibility for upholding the rule of law, will she confirm whether a decision that a defendant on trial will face a judge, sitting alone, will be subject to judicial review?
I will take away the hon. Lady’s comments, discuss them with Justice Ministers and confirm the position to her in writing.
South East Water has openly and publicly admitted that it cannot supply drinking water for all the future homes that are planned for Kent. What is the Minister’s response to that specific concern, and is she having conversations with her colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government?
South East Water has openly and publicly admitted that it cannot supply drinking water for all the future homes that are planned for Kent. What is the Minister’s response to that specific concern, and is she having conversations with her colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government?
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether her Department will produce a specific passenger focused plan on train travel post rail-reform as recommended by the Public Accounts Committee.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether her Department will produce a specific passenger focused plan on train travel post rail-reform as recommended by the Public Accounts Committee.
The Public Accounts Committee recommendation referred to the draft legislation of the previous Government. This Government has been clear it is committed to a relentless focus on passengers, as set out for example in the response to the consultation on the Railways Bill in November 2025. Through this Bill we are putting in place a clear passenger-focused framework for the reformed railway, including new duties on the Great British Railways (GBR) to promote the interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services. The Bill also provides for the Secretary of State to issue a Long-Term Rail Strategy, that will set out the overarching vision for the railway, and GBR will then reflect this in its business plan that will cover both track and train. The combined effect of the Long-Term Rail Strategy, the integrated business plan, statutory passenger duties - plus the creation of a new Passenger Watchdog - together provide a comprehensive and coherent passenger-focused framework.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment she has made of the future funding arrangements for the British Transport Police in the context of rail nationalisation; and whether responsibility for its funding will transfer to central Government.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment she has made of the future funding arrangements for the British Transport Police in the context of rail nationalisation; and whether responsibility for its funding will transfer to central Government.
The British Transport Police’s (BTP) budget is set annually by the British Transport Police Authority (BTPA), following proposals from the Force and views from industry. BTP's costs are passed on to individual Train Operating Companies, Network Rail, and all other bodies who provide railway services. This is set out in the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003.
We are not planning any changes to this primary legislation and so the cost of BTP will continue to be passed on to the rail industry.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether an impact assessment regarding safety on trains following Royal Assent of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership Bill) has been undertaken.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether an impact assessment regarding safety on trains following Royal Assent of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership Bill) has been undertaken.
The Department has not undertaken a specific impact assessment of the safety implications of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill following Royal Assent, as the safety regime is not changing. However, the Government continues to monitor safety across the rail network, tracks emerging issues, and conducts five-yearly post-implementation reviews of rail safety regulations to ensure these remain fit for purpose. As we establish Great British Railways, arrangements are in place to ensure that this transition is managed and implemented safely. These include rigorous validation processes overseen by the Office of Rail and Road, supported by expert advice from across the industry, to ensure that any changes are introduced safely and effectively.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment has been made of the adequacy of levels of public resource available where constabularies act upon intelligence or referrals generated by industry-funded vehicle crime units.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment has been made of the adequacy of levels of public resource available where constabularies act upon intelligence or referrals generated by industry-funded vehicle crime units.
We fully recognise the serious and growing threat that freight crime poses to businesses, drivers, and the wider economy. The Government does not fund NaVCIS. Instead NaVCIS is funded by the industry, including finance and leasing companies, insurers and hauliers.
NaVCIS is a national policing unit that provides dedicated specialist intelligence, and it engages with a range of partners to tackle organised vehicle crime.The Governance arrangements for NaVCIS are a matter for the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC).
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the Department intends to review transparency requirements for nationally operating police-associated units funded by private industry bodies.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the Department intends to review transparency requirements for nationally operating police-associated units funded by private industry bodies.
We fully recognise the serious and growing threat that freight crime poses to businesses, drivers, and the wider economy. The Government does not fund NaVCIS. Instead NaVCIS is funded by the industry, including finance and leasing companies, insurers and hauliers.
NaVCIS is a national policing unit that provides dedicated specialist intelligence, and it engages with a range of partners to tackle organised vehicle crime.The Governance arrangements for NaVCIS are a matter for the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC).
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what safeguards are in place to ensure that outcome-linked funding arrangements do not give rise to perceived conflicts of interest in operational decision-making.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what safeguards are in place to ensure that outcome-linked funding arrangements do not give rise to perceived conflicts of interest in operational decision-making.
We fully recognise the serious and growing threat that freight crime poses to businesses, drivers, and the wider economy. The Government does not fund NaVCIS. Instead NaVCIS is funded by the industry, including finance and leasing companies, insurers and hauliers.
NaVCIS is a national policing unit that provides dedicated specialist intelligence, and it engages with a range of partners to tackle organised vehicle crime.The Governance arrangements for NaVCIS are a matter for the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC).
On Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, told the House that “politics is about choices”, so let us be clear about the choices that this Government have made. They chose to bring forward a Bill with no consultation, no manifesto mandate, no Green Paper, no White Paper and no robust modelling. They chose to go further than Sir Brian Leveson had recommended. They chose to remove the right to trial by jury for offences carrying up to three years in prison—sentences that will cost defendants their jobs, their homes and their families. And they chose to do all this in five days of Committee scrutiny. What does the Minister think about the choices that her Government have made? What will she tell the victims of miscarriages of justice and the thousands of legal professionals who oppose the measures?
On Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, told the House that “politics is about choices”, so let us be clear about the choices that this Government have made. They chose to bring forward a Bill with no consultation, no manifesto mandate, no Green Paper, no White Paper and no robust modelling. They chose to go further than Sir Brian Leveson had recommended. They chose to remove the right to trial by jury for offences carrying up to three years in prison—sentences that will cost defendants their jobs, their homes and their families. And they chose to do all this in five days of Committee scrutiny. What does the Minister think about the choices that her Government have made? What will she tell the victims of miscarriages of justice and the thousands of legal professionals who oppose the measures?
May I first pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s tireless campaigning on behalf of her constituents, Paula and Tony Hudgell? I am pleased that the Government have now announced a child cruelty register.
In relation to the points made by the hon. Lady, Sir Brian Leveson—an incredibly well regarded and experienced lawyer—took months on his two reports, which set out a huge number of recommendations. The hon. Lady talks about choices. Well, we inherited a court system on its knees, with rape victims waiting three years—more, in some cases—for their cases to get to court. It was a dereliction of duty by the previous Government not to tackle that court backlog, but we are getting on with the job. That is the choice that this Government have made.
I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for what she said about the Hudgell case and the child cruelty register. It has been an amazing campaign, led by Paula Hudgell and her little boy, and I am pleased that we were able to get cross-party support to change the law and hopefully look after children and save lives. It is unfortunate that the right hon. and learned Lady just will not answer the very straightforward questions that I am asking.
Jo Hamilton OBE was a victim of the Post Office Horizon scandal. She made it clear that, under Government proposals, none of the wrongly convicted 900 sub-postmasters would have had the right to a jury trial. Just this weekend, there was a further revelation, this time involving the Prime Minister. In a report, he had previously concluded that scrapping jury trials led to unreliable convictions in Northern Ireland in the 1990s. Will the Solicitor General explain how removing this vital safeguard makes the justice system more fair, not less?
I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for what she said about the Hudgell case and the child cruelty register. It has been an amazing campaign, led by Paula Hudgell and her little boy, and I am pleased that we were able to get cross-party support to change the law and hopefully look after children and save lives. It is unfortunate that the right hon. and learned Lady just will not answer the very straightforward questions that I am asking.
Jo Hamilton OBE was a victim of the Post Office Horizon scandal. She made it clear that, under Government proposals, none of the wrongly convicted 900 sub-postmasters would have had the right to a jury trial. Just this weekend, there was a further revelation, this time involving the Prime Minister. In a report, he had previously concluded that scrapping jury trials led to unreliable convictions in Northern Ireland in the 1990s. Will the Solicitor General explain how removing this vital safeguard makes the justice system more fair, not less?
The hon. Lady will be well aware that we are not removing jury trials; they will remain a cornerstone of this justice system. The reality is that the vast majority of cases heard in this country—90%—are not heard by a jury, so it is wrong to say that we are getting rid of jury trials. Some cases involving sentences that are expected to be three years or less will be triable either way, which will be heard by a judge. Judges act without fear or favour, and they swear a judicial oath, but jury trials will still continue in this country.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether Ministers have received information regarding funding arrangements for both fixed contributions and payments calculated by reference to the value of vehicles recovered.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether Ministers have received information regarding funding arrangements for both fixed contributions and payments calculated by reference to the value of vehicles recovered.
Vehicle recovery Statutory fees are prescribed in secondary legislation under road traffic vehicle recovery powers.
The statutory framework provides for both fixed charges and variable payments that reflect the size, condition and recovery requirements of the vehicles involved.
The Home Office does not collect data on the fees collected by forces.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment has been made of the adequacy of the governance arrangements applying to the National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service (NaVCIS), including its industry funding model.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment has been made of the adequacy of the governance arrangements applying to the National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service (NaVCIS), including its industry funding model.
We fully recognise the serious and growing threat that freight crime poses to businesses, drivers, and the wider economy.
The Government does not fund NaVCIS. Instead NaVCIS is funded by the industry, including finance and leasing companies, insurers and hauliers.
NaVCIS is a national policing unit that provides dedicated specialist intelligence, and it engages with a range of partners to tackle organised vehicle crime.
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of barriers to adopting a unified national safeguarding framework for extracurricular activities involving children; and if she will make an assessment of the potential impact of frameworks such as the...
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of barriers to adopting a unified national safeguarding framework for extracurricular activities involving children; and if she will make an assessment of the potential impact of frameworks such as the...
This government is committed to safeguarding children and protecting them from harm across all extracurricular activities.
These activities often take place within out-of-school settings, however, some are run directly by schools and, if so, the schools’ existing child protection and safeguarding arrangements will apply, as set out in ‘Keeping children safe in education’.
Where extracurricular activities do take place in out-of-school settings, we believe that the majority of providers sufficiently deliver safe and enriching education and activities. However, to ensure that this is the case for all, the department launched a call for evidence on 29 May 2025 to better understand current practice and invite views on possible approaches to further strengthen safeguarding.
We are currently analysing responses and given the significance of the issue, this analysis is being supported by independent external analysts.
The department intends to supplement the call for evidence with further engagement, including through focus groups with parents and smaller providers, and sector roundtables with safeguarding experts, national governing bodies and other community representatives, prior to issuing a full response.
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how her Department assesses the effectiveness of safeguarding arrangements for extracurricular activities involving children, including voluntary compliance, self-regulation, and non-statutory guidance.
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how her Department assesses the effectiveness of safeguarding arrangements for extracurricular activities involving children, including voluntary compliance, self-regulation, and non-statutory guidance.
This government is committed to safeguarding children and protecting them from harm across all extracurricular activities.
These activities often take place within out-of-school settings, however, some are run directly by schools and, if so, the schools’ existing child protection and safeguarding arrangements will apply, as set out in ‘Keeping children safe in education’.
Where extracurricular activities do take place in out-of-school settings, we believe that the majority of providers sufficiently deliver safe and enriching education and activities. However, to ensure that this is the case for all, the department launched a call for evidence on 29 May 2025 to better understand current practice and invite views on possible approaches to further strengthen safeguarding.
We are currently analysing responses and given the significance of the issue, this analysis is being supported by independent external analysts.
The department intends to supplement the call for evidence with further engagement, including through focus groups with parents and smaller providers, and sector roundtables with safeguarding experts, national governing bodies and other community representatives, prior to issuing a full response.
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she will make an assessment of the potential implications for her policies of evidence from public inquiries, serious case reviews and independent safeguarding reports on risks associated with unregulated extracurricular settings involving children; and whether she has considered introducing statutory safeguarding...
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she will make an assessment of the potential implications for her policies of evidence from public inquiries, serious case reviews and independent safeguarding reports on risks associated with unregulated extracurricular settings involving children; and whether she has considered introducing statutory safeguarding...
This government is committed to safeguarding children and protecting them from harm across all extracurricular activities.
These activities often take place within out-of-school settings, however, some are run directly by schools and, if so, the schools’ existing child protection and safeguarding arrangements will apply, as set out in ‘Keeping children safe in education’.
Where extracurricular activities do take place in out-of-school settings, we believe that the majority of providers sufficiently deliver safe and enriching education and activities. However, to ensure that this is the case for all, the department launched a call for evidence on 29 May 2025 to better understand current practice and invite views on possible approaches to further strengthen safeguarding.
We are currently analysing responses and given the significance of the issue, this analysis is being supported by independent external analysts.
The department intends to supplement the call for evidence with further engagement, including through focus groups with parents and smaller providers, and sector roundtables with safeguarding experts, national governing bodies and other community representatives, prior to issuing a full response.