The Westminster lensArchive · §02 Speeches · 390 contributions

Speeches by Wright.

Every Hansard contribution by Jeremy Wright this parliament, most recent first. Back to the MP page for the headline figures and analysed positions.

Showing 121140 of 390 contributions · most-recent first

← PreviousPage 7 of 20Next →
DateDebate & contributionWords
12 Nov 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 933)

Indeed, but there is nothing, as far as I can see, in the sub judice resolution that prevents anybody here from criticising that quango for acting in that way. The restriction is only in relation to judicial proceedings, and the activities of IPSO are not judicial proceedings.

47
12 Nov 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 933)

That is a very good question. You are sitting next to Sir Christopher, who has been doing it for a lot longer than I have. The answer specifically is, I do not think so, but that is likely to be because this hardly every occurs, and certainly not in Committee proceedings. Of course, the Panel of Chairs will chair eithe

176
12 Nov 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 933)

The way I read the sub judice resolution is that it is designed to prevent the corruption or undue influence of legal proceedings when they begin. Frankly, I think that would apply to whichever route is taken to reach legal proceedings. I think, probably, what you are concerned about is already covered. The issue may b

198
12 Nov 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 933)

Do you mean to cover decisions that they make on which we as parliamentarians might want to comment?

18
12 Nov 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 933)

At the moment, it says, “Criminal proceedings are active when a charge has been made or a summons to appear has been issued,” so arrest doesn’t trigger it. We might want to consider whether that is the right starting point, but as things stand, there is likely to be a period of time immediately post incident when the s

136
12 Nov 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 933)

I agree with part of that, but not all of it. It is certainly right, as Michael says, that the risk of prejudice diminishes over time, but there is a distinction to be made between the Contempt of Court Act process and sub judice in the House, which is that there are very significant penalties attached to the Contempt

358
12 Nov 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 933)

As would I. Between us we cover about a decade’s worth of being in the Attorney General’s Office, and I have no recollection of any incidents. Because I don’t trust my own recollection, I went and asked the Attorney General’s Office to check, and there was no such incident in the four years I did the job, so I don’t th

278
12 Nov 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 933)

I am conscious, Chair, that you do not want us all answering every question, but the only thing I would add is that I think it is clear in the sense that it is clear when it starts and when it stops—it sets that out with clarity. The only thing that makes it unclear, aside from what my colleagues have already said, is

190
12 Nov 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 933)

I am Jeremy Wright. I took over from Dominic as Attorney General in 2014 until 2018. I am still a serving Member of Parliament.

24
12 Nov 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 933)

I agree. The only thing that we might want to think about as a legislature is that, although Dominic is quite right, the reason this does not often arise as a problem is that, generally, identities are not promulgated after arrest in the way they were. It is not unlawful to do that, and we might want to think again, as

163
3 Nov 2025 Public Office (Accountability) Bill

I recognise the strength of the case that the Prime Minister is making. He will understand the interest that the Intelligence and Security Committee has in clause 6 of the Bill, which provides for certain exemptions for those who work for the intelligence agencies. It then says that those people should report internall

crimesocial-caremp-performance
146
19 Oct 2025Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

I first of all thank the Minister for what he said about co-operation with the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee on this matter. I agree with him, as I often do, that the Government are entitled to clarity about what the question they are being asked is. The question for me is not whether the Government s

defencemp-performanceeconomy-jobs
191
15 Oct 2025 Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements

The first question was about why the deputy National Security Adviser included reference to economic opportunity in his statement when he knew that that was not the question he was being asked, nor the relevant question.

defencemp-performance
36
15 Oct 2025 Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements

It is now clear that the Crown Prosecution Service asked the Government more than once, over more than a year, for some additional evidence on what the CPS considered to be the crucial question of whether China constituted a national security threat during the relevant period. It seems to me, having read those statemen

defencemp-performance
351
13 Oct 2025 Criminal Courts: Independent Review

I understand the point the hon. Lady is making, and to be fair to Sir Brian, he is not suggesting that we remove jury trial in all cases; he is very much talking about a subset of cases in which he thinks it is worth restricting that right. However, she is right that we must balance the clear advantages of jury trials,

crimeeconomy-jobslocal-government
224
13 Oct 2025 Criminal Courts: Independent Review

I beg to move, That this House has considered the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Despite the title of this debate—which I will immediately concede is less than exciting—it focuses on a serious problem with significant consequences.

crimeeconomy-jobslocal-government
2,033
13 Oct 2025 Criminal Courts: Independent Review

The hon. Lady is right, and juries are cheap—that is undoubtedly the case—but they do not sit without a judge, and I am afraid that we pay the judge for a jury trial, just as we would for a judge-only trial. I do not think that the financial saving, in that sense, can be left out of account, and there is not much diffe

crimeeconomy-jobslocal-government
129
13 Oct 2025 Criminal Courts: Independent Review

I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate. In particular, I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee for rearranging his Committee’s diaries so that its members could do so. This has, I hope, been a constructive debate, not least for the Minister to add to her considerations. I hope she will forgive the d

crimeeconomy-jobslocal-government
249
13 Oct 2025 Criminal Courts: Independent Review

As the Minister says, she will have to consider each of Sir Brian’s proposals, although she will know that he says that they are to be taken as a “package” and not with a “pick-n-mix” approach. Is that something that the Government accept? Will they take the view that it is either all of Sir Brian’s recommendations or

crimeeconomy-jobslocal-government
63
13 Oct 2025 Criminal Courts: Independent Review

Yes. My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Again, to be fair to Sir Brian, it is not within his capacity to do all the analysis necessary to follow through his recommendations and to understand quite what the effect on the system will be. However, I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. As I was about to say, we

crimeeconomy-jobslocal-government
659
← PreviousPage 7 of 20 · click a debate to open the transcript with this MP’s speeches highlightedNext →
Sources
SourceHansard · official report
MethodEach row is one contribution (intervention or speech). Word count from the official text.