Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

This is a matter for the University of Cambridge, but having visited the veterinary school at Harper Adams University, I am all too aware—as clearly the hon. Gentleman is—of the importance of having enough well-qualified vets in our country. We need to ensure that the supply and the opportunities to train are there, but this particular decision is one for the University of Cambridge. I am happy to talk to the university, but I am unsighted on the reasons. If the hon. Member wants to talk to me afterwards, I would be more than happy to hear what he has to say.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

9. What assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of agricultural property relief and business property relief on food prices.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

11. What assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of agricultural property relief and business property relief on food prices.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

Modelling has shown that food prices are driven by the interaction of domestic and international considerations, including farm gate prices, import prices and exchange rates. Modelling from industry and Government expects food price inflation to fall gradually over the next two years.

[Nick Timothy]

Happy Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to all Members and staff of the House.

At the Liaison Committee this week, the Prime Minister admitted that some farmers will take their own lives because of the family farms tax, but he repeated the claim that three quarters of farms will not be affected. According to the National Farmers Union, the opposite is true: three quarters of commercial family farms will have to pay it. The big idea now is to drive up profitability, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said, the family farms tax is killing investment. Does the Minister think that Baroness Batters was wrong when she said in her report, on page 4, that the closure of the sustainable farming initiative and the family farms tax have left farmers

“particularly in the arable sector… questioning viability, let alone profitability”?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I do not think that the hon. Member’s characterisation of the Prime Minister’s remarks to the Liaison Committee is entirely accurate, but I am working on introducing and making available in the first half of next year a sustainable farming incentive scheme that will hopefully be more available to smaller farmers, easier to engage with, and much simpler than the mess delivered by the Government of which he was a part. Let us face it: 25% of the money in the SFI scheme goes to the top 4% of farmers. I want to see a different distribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

4. What advice she has given the Government on the potential impact of removing jury trials on the rule of law.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

7. What advice she has given the Government on the potential impact of removing jury trials on the rule of law.

[The Solicitor General (Ellie Reeves)]

This Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record caseload of 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard in the Crown court. Doing nothing was not an option. Let me be clear: jury trials remain a cornerstone of our justice system, but justice delayed is justice denied. Too many victims are being let down and too many defendants are being denied a fair and timely trial due to the ongoing crisis in our courts. That is what the reforms are about.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

Jury trials make up 3% of cases currently heard in the criminal courts. It is important for both victims and defendants that they are not waiting years and years for their cases to get to court, which is happening as a result of the crisis that the previous Government left us in. The most serious cases will still be heard by juries—for example, rape, murder and grievous bodily harm cases—and it is important that justice is delivered swiftly.

[Nick Timothy]

I am going to do my best to get an answer, but I am not sure I will get one, based on the two we have just heard. Without any kind of mandate, the Government want to do away with jury trials and to extend the powers of magistrates to sentence people for up to two years, without any right to appeal the conviction or the sentence. Will the Solicitor General confirm that, of the 5,000 cases appealed from magistrates courts last year, more than 40% were upheld? Is it the Government’s policy simply to live with that number of miscarriages of justice?

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that we are getting rid of jury trials. I will say it again: less than 3% of cases are currently heard by a jury. Under the proposals, some cases would be heard by a Crown court bench, or by the magistrates courts. When we are facing backlogs of up to three years and rape victims are not having their cases heard, doing nothing is not an option.

In relation to the hon. Gentleman’s point about appeals, Sir Brian Leveson has recommended introducing a permission stage for appeals. We are not doing away with appeals. Appeals that have merit will still be heard.