Andy Slaughter MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · West Bank: Forced Displacement · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I will try to be as brief as I can in making some points that are not new, but perhaps bear repetition. The west bank is occupied territory, something that puts it in a different class from many overseas disputes on which the Government have to take a view. That it is occupied is contrary to international law, and the UK is clear in recognising that it is occupied territory. Yet we have heard about the double standards: for instance, our outright—and rightful—condemnation of what is happening in Crimea and the sanctions action taken as a consequence, but just warm words in relation to Palestine. Gaza has undoubtedly given cover, in a brutal way, to the atrocities happening in the west bank. Tens of thousands of people have been killed, and are currently being killed, in the most obscene way: by being lured to food stations and then executed by snipers or heavy arms fire. Of course, the focus is on Gaza, but thousands of people—Palestinian civilians, including children—have been killed or injured in the west bank over the same period. That requires a separate response, because what makes the west bank different from Gaza is not only—if one includes East Jerusalem—the 700,000 illegal settlers there, but the biggest settlement expansion programme in many years. We see the increasingly violent actions of heavily armed—by the Israeli state—settlers, who now seem at every opportunity to be creating pogroms in Palestinian villages, killing people and burning their homes. If that does not provoke the British Government to act, I am not sure what will. As is reflected in the ICJ advisory opinion, we should obviously have active steps now taken to try to control what is happening in the west bank. It is now a year since the opinion was delivered, and I can no longer accept that the Government are still looking at it. The only reason for not publishing a response is that doing so would require not just the stating of a policy or the condemnation of what is happening, but action. That action should obviously include banning trade in settlement goods, looking at our trading relationship with Israel and much more widespread sanctions. The ICJ opinion also found that the crime of apartheid is being committed in the west bank. I have been to the west bank on a number of occasions. I defy anybody to visit and not see that apartheid is the daily effect on the ground. We are watching, in real time, the destruction of a country—a country that we do not even have the decency to recognise as such, despite the UK’s long history of fomenting problems in the middle east, from Balfour through to the mandate. I ask the Minister: can we have a positive response?

• 2 Jul 2025 · West Bank: Forced Displacement · Hansard source

  More

  What is the practicality of holding elections when the Israelis will not recognise the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem as being able to vote? Given the situation in the west bank, let alone that in Gaza, how are they supposed to organise elections? Is that not just utopian?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Criminal Justice · Hansard source

  More

  I do share those concerns. I want to take only a few more minutes with my speech, so I do not have time to go into what is happening in the magistrates courts as well—that is a debate for another day—but the shortage of magistrates, the shortage of legal clerks and low pay rates across HMCTS are clearly some of the factors that prevent us from getting to grips with the backlog, even though I have no doubt the Government wish to do that. I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s allocation of 110,000 sitting days in the Crown court for 2025-26: the highest sitting-day allocation made since HMCTS was created and the biggest financial settlement ever made for the Crown court. I hope that that is enough to bring about some reduction in the backlog. However, I note that the allocation is below the 113,000 days that the Lady Chief Justice told the Committee the Crown court could sit for in the last financial year, and there have been similar increases in sitting days for other courts, including the magistrates court, which will sit for up to 114,000 days a year. The Government have acknowledged that the allocation of days is not enough on its own to severely reduce the backlog in the Crown courts and that more radical reform is required. I therefore welcome Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of criminal courts, which will propose options for both short and long-term reforms aimed at ensuring cases are dealt with proportionately in the light of current pressures on the Crown court and explore how the courts could operate as efficiently as possible. I look forward to the first report of the review, which is due to be published next month. I will briefly touch on the role of the Legal Aid Agency. In terms of expenditure, the LAA is the third largest body within MOJ. Its day-to-day budget was around £0.9 billion, which comprised 8% of the MOJ’s total resource budget. Between 2009-10 and 2023-24, resource expenditure on legal aid decreased by 2% in cash terms and by 31% in real terms. I was surprised to see that the spending review did not include a specific funding allocation for the Legal Aid Agency; the only reference to it was in the context of potential efficiency savings that the MOJ will make in the review period. Concerns have been raised about the sustainability of the criminal legal aid sector, given the number of legal aid firms and of solicitors and barristers practising in this area. In March 2025, the Law Society said that the number of criminal duty solicitors had fallen by 26% since 2017 and that that may, in future, “leave many individuals unable to access their right to a solicitor and free advice.” Even though I welcome the MOJ’s announcements in December 2024 of an additional £92 million per year for criminal aid solicitors, and I look forward to seeing the results of its consultation on that, it may well not be enough. Indeed, the 15% uplift in criminal barristers’ fees as a consequence of the Bellamy review took so long to come in and was so far overtaken by other increases in cost that that again needs to be looked at in the near future if we are to sustain the criminal Bar.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Criminal Justice · Hansard source

  More

  No, I thought not. However, I very much enjoyed our time together on the Justice Committee, and I also enjoy his taking every bad point during these debates—although he should have been kinder to the distinguished former Lord Chancellor David Gauke, who, in my view, produced a very good report. As for the Minister, he is a very good friend of mine, and I thank him for his contributions. We know what a difficult job he has, but that will not stop us being on his back all the time to ensure that the many problems that have been identified today are resolved. Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

• 25 Jun 2025 · Criminal Justice · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend, who is knowledgeable on these issues, is absolutely right. We are relying on the implementation of the Gauke review’s recommendations to do two things: to ensure there is capacity in the prisons for the growing number of people being sentenced in our courts; and, in the longer term, to reduce prisoner numbers through effective rehabilitation. That can take place in prisons—not in overcrowded prisons on the whole —but it can take place more effectively in the community by way of getting people back into normal daily life, which prison certainly is not. In that vein, let me turn to the Probation Service, which will receive an additional £700 million a year to support the reforms in the sentencing review. That is a substantial increase in funding, which is intended to enable probation to supervise more people in the community and expand electronic tagging. The Probation Service currently manages 240,000 individuals on court order or licence. Worryingly, in last year’s annual report, HM inspectorate of probation labelled 10 local probation services as “requires improvement” and 14 as “inadequate”. It identified staffing challenges, unmanageable workloads, deficits in casework and insufficient management of risk, public protection and safeguarding. However, it also found outstanding statutory victim work, commitment and vision from staff and some good partnership working. The Committee has seen that itself on its visit to probation services. I will however raise my concern about the ability of Serco, the current electronic tagging provider, to deal with the dramatic increase in demand on its services that will inevitably result from the sentencing Bill. The Committee has been in frequent correspondence with the Prisons Minister to raise our concerns regarding Serco’s poor performance, which has also been highlighted by Channel 4 and its “Dispatches” programme. The Committee has identified several issues with management of the tagging contract, including substantial delays to the fitting of tags, even to serious offenders. We were shocked to learn that financial penalties have been levied on Serco every month since it took on the service in May 2024. It is unclear how Serco will be able to deal with increased demand given its unacceptable performance in managing the electronic tagging service at its current level. I turn briefly to conditions in the prison estate. In 2023, HM chief inspector of prisons Charlie Taylor said that one in 10 prisons should be closed down. He stated that about 14 Victorian jails were so poorly designed, overcrowded and ill-equipped that they could not provide proper accommodation for prisoners. Last year, 63% of prisoners reported overcrowding. That is often with two or more prisoners in a cell that was designed for one person, with no private toilet facilities. Drugs are an increasing problem in prisons. The Committee has covered that extensively in its “Tackling drugs in prisons” inquiry, which is due to report shortly. Between April 2023 and April 2024, almost 50,000 adults aged 18 and over were in alcohol and drug treatment in prisons and secure settings, which was a 7% rise compared with the previous year. In the 12 months to December 2024, there were 10,600 assaults on prison staff—violence is also on the increase in prison, which is partly a result of the unpredictable environment created by the abundance of drugs available—which is equivalent to 122 assaults per 1,000 prisoners, an increase of 13% from the previous year and the highest number of assaults on prison staff recorded in one year. The use of force by prison officers and rates of self-harm among prisoners have also been increasing in recent years. Self-harm was 10% higher in 2024 than in 2023. Overcrowding, increased drug use, violence and self-harm contribute towards a distressing environment in prisons such that the vital function of prisons to rehabilitate offenders can be almost impossible in some institutions. We are undertaking a major inquiry into rehabilitation and resettlement, which I hope will shed more light on these troubling pictures. Beyond all that, we have the continuing scandal of IPP prisoners—those imprisoned for public protection. I recommend to the Minister the proposals published this week by the Howard League on a new approach to IPP prisoners, which would serve to reduce the numbers continuing in custody substantially. Let me turn to His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, which is the second-largest body in the MOJ. In the Government’s main estimate for 2025-26, spending on HMCTS accounted for 21% of planned resource spending and 12% of capital spending. The current backlog of outstanding cases in the Crown court stands at about 4,000. That is a result of a number of factors, one of which is the shortage of criminal lawyers, driven by low legal aid pay rates and poor working conditions. The backlog in the courts is detrimental to the lives of thousands of people. Victims, witnesses and defendants alike are forced to wait in limbo for justice.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Criminal Justice · Hansard source

  More

  I do not need to add anything to my opening speech, because the inevitable gaps have been filled eloquently by the subsequent speakers. Let me just take two minutes to thank those who have contributed to the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Pam Cox) and for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). They are all members of the Justice Committee, although the hon. Member for Eastbourne was wearing his other hat today as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, and I thank them for being here today. Indeed, I thank all the Committee members. With the exception of the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, who resumed a distinguished parliamentary career after a short gap, they are all new Members, and they all give a great deal of time to this role in addition to everything else that new Members have to do. I also thank the other Members who have spoken. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for his forensic dissection of the last Government’s failings in this area, and I thank, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), who covered ground that I did not have time to cover in relation to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and miscarriages of justice. I am grateful for her work in chairing the all-party parliamentary group for miscarriages of justice, as I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson)—who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on access to justice—for her work on that and to other APPGs in this field. I even thank the Front Benchers for their contributions. The hon. Member for Eastbourne is always very critical but very constructive. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) would like to adopt that approach.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Criminal Justice · Hansard source

  More

  That is already happening. Non-availability of counsel, whether Crime Prosecution Service or defence counsel, is already one of the main reasons for ineffective trials. I therefore hope we will hear something about that and the Government’s plans to alleviate it when the Minister responds. I briefly mention the cyber-attack that the Legal Aid Agency was subject to in April. The attack revealed serious concerns about the robustness of Government-managed digital services and the protection of sensitive data, and holds risks for the day-to-day operation of the justice system. We need the further statement that the Courts Minister promised on the steps being taken to recover that position—not today, perhaps, but soon—and the Committee will conduct its own inquiry into access to justice, beginning with a call to evidence this summer. I reemphasise the importance of the role the criminal justice system plays in the proper functioning of our society. Out of sight should not be out of mind, in that respect. I appreciate the steps that this Government are taking and the struggle and the tasks that they have going forward. However, there is so much to do that we need to get on with it in a speedy fashion. Finally, let me thank all those who work in the criminal justice system: those who risk their lives and their safety as frontline prison officers and probation officers, and those who keep the system running—judges, barristers and court staff. Across the piece, we see people going above and beyond because of the situation in which the system has been left. I am sure this is one point that will unite both sides of the House: we all appreciate the work that goes on every day to keep people safe and to ensure that justice is done.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Criminal Justice · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this important debate on the spending of the Ministry of Justice on criminal justice. An effective criminal justice system is vital to the proper functioning of a democratic society. An ineffective criminal justice system presents grave risks for both social and economic stability. We are at a pivotal moment for the health of our criminal justice system, with prisons operating at close to full capacity, coupled with a backlog in the Crown courts of over 74,000 cases. Investment and reform are required. The Ministry of Justice suffered some of the most severe budget cuts of any Department during the years of Tory austerity. In 2023-24, its resource expenditure level was 11% less in real terms than it had been in 2010-11. I therefore welcome the Labour Government’s investment in the criminal justice system, announced through the main estimates and the spending review. The main estimates confirmed that the MOJ’s day-to-day spending is set to increase by £793 million or 6.5%, which includes further investment in the Prison and Probation Service and the Courts and Tribunals Service. The MOJ’s investment capital spending is also set to increase by £351 million or over 20%, largely driven by investment in creating new prison places and major projects to maintain court capacity and invest in digital systems and security measures. The spending review also announced £7 billion to be allocated between 2024-25 and 2029-30 to support the delivery of 14,000 urgently needed new prison places by 2031, and an increase of up to £700 million a year for the Probation Service by 2028-29 compared with 2025-26. This is especially important given the recommendations made by David Gauke’s independent sentencing review, which I will come to in a moment. The spending review also announced up to £450 million a year of additional investment for the courts system by 2028-29, aimed at increasing Crown court sitting days and implementing the forthcoming recommendations from Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts, which is set to deliver its first report next month. Combining the estimates and the spending review presents a largely positive picture for investment in the MOJ. The estimate for resource expenditure in 2025-26 is 14% more than the spending plans for 2024-25. This increase may help to offset some of the underfunding that the Department was subject to in the 2010s. The estimate for capital expenditure in 2025-26 is 32% more than the plans for the year 2024-25. This will be a record high level of capital expenditure for the MOJ over the course of a financial year. It remains to be seen whether the funding will be enough to address the challenges that the criminal justice system faces. In the interests of time, I will focus on three key areas: prisons and probation, the courts and legal aid. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is the largest body within the MOJ in terms of expenditure. It makes up 47% of the MOJ’s day-to-day spending budget and in the 2025-26 main estimate will make up 82% of its planned capital spending. The prison population has more than doubled over the last 30 years and stands at around 88,000. It continues to grow year on year and is at a record high. If things continue as they are, the prison population will be at 93,500 by September 2026 and over 100,000 by September 2028, and there will not be sufficient places. The MOJ cites the following reasons for the increase: an increase in police charging activity and flow into the courts; an increase in people on remand, who now make up an astonishing 20% of the prison population; and changes in sentencing policy, which keeps the more serious offenders in prison for much longer. I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s commitment to build 14,000 prison places by 2031, and I hope that will ensure that emergency measures such as SDS40, which last year saw prisoners released automatically having served 40% of their sentences, do not have to be used again. In the context of the prison capacity crisis, the Government commissioned a sentencing review, which reported last month, by David Gauke, who gave evidence to the Committee last week. Many of the review’s recommendations have been accepted in principle by the Government. They include a recommendation for a new model of sentencing called the “earned progression model”, which could see some prisoners serving fixed-term sentences released after a third of their sentence, dependent on their behaviour. That recommendation and others in the review are aimed at making greater use of non-custodial sentences and therefore attempting to reduce the prison population. I look forward to seeing the detail of how those recommendations will be implemented in the forthcoming sentencing Bill. Non-custodial sentences will place an additional burden on the already struggling Probation Service, to which I will turn. But, before I do that, could I issue a cautionary note? Even if David Gauke’s recommendations are wholly successful, prisons will still be full, and that has unintended consequences. It means, for example, that prisoners have to be slotted into places where those become available, and rehabilitation is more difficult. As Sky News reported recently, some prisoners are put into lower category prisons—category C and D prisons—years before they should be with regard to their sentence planning, and the prisoner escort service, which is already in a pretty parlous state, often brings prisoners late to court because it is not available at local prisons. Therefore, anything that can be done for effective community punishment and rehabilitation is clearly good.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The postponed French-Saudi conference on a two-state solution may take place as early as next month. Does the Minister think it will provide the significant opportunity that he seeks for us to recognise Palestine as a state, alongside UK allies?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend believe that the attacks on Iran are beneficial to this country or will they create more instability in the middle east and beyond? As an upholder of the rules-based international order, which he says that we still support, is there a cost to the UK if the actions of our allies—the United States and Israel—are judged to be contrary to international law?

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

  More

  I am not going to give way. The obvious qualification to what should be a clear and personal choice to leave life in a matter and at a time of one’s choosing is the risk of coercion, and that has rightly dominated much of the debate for the past eight months. There are two points to be made here. First, great effort has been expended, and is reflected in amendments to the Bill, to make the safeguards as comprehensive and watertight as possible, learning from and going beyond practice in other jurisdictions. Compliance with the provisions of the Bill is a rigorous process, but it is also a practical one; it is designed to be transparent and to test the intent of the person seeking an assisted death. Secondly, some say that that is still not enough, but with what are they comparing it? The answer at best, and in some cases, is the status quo, which may involve an investigation post mortem as to whether assistance has been given—putting a caring loved one at risk of prosecution, but doing nothing to prevent those of malign intent. Finally, although I have tried to see both sides on every issue, there is one point on which the opponents of the Bill are, in my opinion, just wrong: whether the Bill has, thus far, seen due process. I have been in Parliament for a month over 20 years, and I can think of few Bills of this length and scope that have received so much scrutiny and so many hours in Committee, or on which so much evidence has been submitted and comment made. Members will vote against the Bill for many reasons, even though by doing so they restrict the choice of others. They should compare the regime pre and post legislation and, I hope, decide that the Bill gives greater protection. But I ask them not to vote against it because we have lacked the time or information to make a decision—we have not—or because we do not as a country have the ability to resource the Bill—we do. A great trust and great opportunity have been given to the Members of this Parliament. This is the moment of decision, and we should discharge it to the best of our ability.

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

  More

  I will speak briefly and cover just three points. I do not expect to persuade those committed to opposing the Bill to change their minds; I hope that I do not persuade those supporting it to change theirs. This is the time to put our concluded thoughts on the record before seeking their lordships’ opinions. I start where I finished my speech on Second Reading: agency. Since that debate last November, I have continued to meet constituents on both sides of the argument, and answered hundreds of letters and emails—I am sure that other hon. Members have done the same. I have met mainly with groups that oppose the Bill, including faith groups, because they have sought to change my mind. I have not changed my mind. I am still driven by the plight of those suffering unnecessarily at the end of life. I wholly respect the decision of those who would not want assisted dying for themselves, but I cannot accept their right to deny that choice to those who would, for the most profound reasons, use the provisions of the Bill to end their lives. The pain, suffering, indignity and degradation of a slow, painful, tortured death is something none of us would wish on a friend or relative—on anyone. If that suffering at the end of life, in the narrow circumstances prescribed by the Bill, can be avoided, who are we to deny that?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Non-violent Drug-related Offences: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  Given that the independent sentencing review suggests that more use could be made of community sentences in such cases, but courts seem reluctant to use them as an alternative to custody, what can the Law Officers do to ensure that sentencers have confidence in community sentences, which have better outcomes than imprisonment in reducing reoffending?

• 18 Jun 2025 · HS2 Reset · Hansard source

  More

  Delays to HS2 have blighted parts of west London around the main site at Old Oak Common. Benefits, when they finally arrive, will include a major interchange with Great Western Railway and the Elizabeth line. Will the Secretary of State consider opening the Elizabeth line station at Old Oak Common as soon as is feasible rather than waiting for HS2 to begin operating, and will she reclaim some of the good will of the people of west London by directing a tiny fraction of the costs of HS2 to the repair of Hammersmith bridge?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will not give way again. Frankly, I found the right hon. Lady’s last intervention a bit beyond the pale, so I am not giving her another opportunity. I am afraid that the sort of information she peddles leads to the situation that we are in. The constant threat of criminalisation of nomadic lifestyles has a devastating impact on families. That is why human rights campaigners and international bodies, including the Council of Europe and the United Nations, have raised concerns about the legality of the provisions that I am addressing.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The powers are there, but we must look at their implementation. I am always sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman, because he was such a good opponent for me at two elections, and I take to heart the measured way in which he puts his point, but to counter what he says, in May 2024, following a judicial review of part 4 of the 2022 Act brought by Wendy Smith against the Home Office, the High Court issued a declaration of incompatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998. The Court found that certain provisions on the extension of a ban on returning to a particular area from three months to 12 months constituted unjustified discrimination against Gypsies and Travellers. Despite that, the powers remain in force, and although the declaration of incompatibility with our laws relates only to the provisions I just mentioned, I put it to the Minister that all of part 4 could be scrapped without any detriment to the enforcement of previous laws. Police and local authorities already have a whole spectrum of other powers, as I have set out, which they can and do use against encampments. If they are failing to use those, it is for them to say why. I also know that the police did not seek those powers; they were simply imposed on them. The Crime and Policing Bill presents the perfect opportunity for the Government to put this right by repealing part 4 of the 2022 Act, which, let us remember, allows police to ban Gypsies and Travellers from an area, to arrest and fine them, and even to seize their home. I hope to receive positive news today, but if my right hon. Friend the Minister wishes to discuss these matters further, I would be happy to engage in that discussion—I have great support from Friends, Families and Travellers, and other excellent groups representing the Roma Gypsy and Traveller communities—to see how the law can be made fair to nomadic and non-nomadic communities. That is what is being asked for here. Frankly, at the moment the law does not create a balance; it creates a bias one way.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When it was people like me proposing it, it was regarded as comical, but now Idris Elba is in favour of it, as well as experts across the field. I pay tribute to not just those celebrities, but victims and experts, particularly those on the Safer Knives group, of which I am member. It looks at the legal, medical and psychological effects of knife crime, and suggests practical ways of not eliminating but reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries. New clause 25 seeks to repeal draconian police powers relating to unauthorised encampments. Those powers were introduced to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which became law under the previous Government. These punitive and hostile powers led to the victimisation of Romani, Gypsy and Irish Travellers, who are among the most marginalised groups in UK society.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that is the sort of nonsense that I hear a lot of the time. Let me read to the right hon. Lady some of the measures that were in force before the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act was passed: temporary stop notices, injunctions to protect land from unauthorised encampments, licensing of caravan sites, possession orders, interim possession orders, local byelaws, the local authority power to direct unauthorised campers to leave land, addressing obstructions to the public highway, planning contravention notices, enforcement notices and retrospective planning, stop notices, breach of condition notices, powers of entry on to land, power of the police to direct unauthorised campers to leave land, and police powers to direct trespassers to an alternative site. That was the position before that Act came into effect. There were ample powers to deal with these matters.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to new clauses 23, 24 and 25 in my name. New clauses 23 and 24 propose restrictions on the delivery and display of pointed knives to avoid death and serious injury from knife attacks. New clause 25 repeals certain unnecessary and unlawful punitive measures directed against Roma, Gypsy and Traveller communities. I am grateful for the interest the Minister has shown in these matters and for meeting me to discuss them. I do not intend to press them to a vote, but I look forward to her response as to how they may be progressed. I support many other amendments and new clauses to the Bill. I have signed new clause 13 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and new clause 155 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) on setting up an economic crime fighting fund. I of course congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on her new clause 1 which was debated and passed yesterday. On Second Reading, I expressed a general concern that the necessary and complex legislation affecting the criminal justice system set out in the Bill and in other Bills and reports in this Session would place an even greater strain on an already creaking system. I will not repeat what I said then, but I hope and trust that Ministers from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice are working together to ensure that resources are in place to deal with the unintended consequences when supply in one part of the criminal justice system causes demand in another. More police numbers mean more arrests, prosecutions, convictions and incarcerations, but early release or community alternatives to custody can create more work for probation and for the police. New clauses 23 and 24 would change the selling practices of manufacturers and retailers in the following ways. First, they would prevent the delivery of lethal pointed knives to domestic premises, remote lockers and collection points. Nothing in them would prevent the delivery of pointed knives to chefs, butchers, fishmongers or any other commercial enterprise that uses pointed knives in the course of business. Secondly, they would prevent the display of pointed knives in shops, but would allow safer, rounded knives to be openly displayed in shops, and delivered by courier or mail with minimal restrictions.

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

  More

  The sanctioning of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir is welcome news, not least because theirs are the loudest voices calling for annexation of the west bank. The settlement building and forced displacement of Palestinians are accelerating, and surely it is time to recognise Palestinian sovereignty over the 22% of mandate Palestine that remains to them, before that too is entirely eaten away.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Grenfell Tower Fire: Eighth Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for securing this debate, and for realising from the first day he was elected that he is the Member for not only Kensington and Bayswater, but Grenfell. It is good that the Government are implementing all 58 recommendations of phase 2 of the inquiry, but does my hon. Friend agree that the four-year timetable is a long time to wait on top of the eight years that have already passed?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Bank Closures and Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this incredibly important debate. Last month, the well-used Chiswick post office in my constituency closed without notice. I met Post Office Ltd yesterday, and it assured me that a service would be restored shortly. Does he agree that this volatility and uncertainty in the market is damaging to both local communities and the reputation of financial institutions?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Criminal Cases Review Commission: Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend, who is an assiduous and very qualified member of the Committee, and often puts me to shame in relation to my knowledge of matters. Anybody who listened to Dame Vera’s interview on the “Today” programme this week, in which she addressed several times the report and these findings, as well as three other reports that there have been over the past 10 years, will be under no illusion about whether she understands the scale of the task she faces and has the skills to tackle it.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Criminal Cases Review Commission: Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful, as always, to the hon. Gentleman for his question. All I can say today is that the CCRC covers Northern Ireland and that any recommendations that come from Dame Vera Baird’s review must also affect the other jurisdictions in which the CCRC has a role. Clearly, most of the points that we dealt with in what was a relatively short inquiry related to England and Wales, but I will ensure that Northern Ireland is not forgotten going forward.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Criminal Cases Review Commission: Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this statement. I rise to make a statement on the third report of the Justice Committee, which is titled “Leadership of the Criminal Cases Review Commission”. I first want to place on the record my thanks to the Committee secretariat for their work in preparing the report and to the members of the Committee. Even though I thank all my colleagues, I will particularly mention the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for her thorough questioning of witnesses at our evidence session. The Criminal Cases Review Commission is an independent body with statutory responsibility for investigating alleged miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It has the power to refer a case back to an appeal court if it considers that there is a real possibility that the court will quash the conviction or reduce the sentence in that case. The CCRC is a hugely important organisation, and it is essential to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system that it works effectively. Our report found that that was not currently the case. On 14 January 2025, the chair of the CCRC, Helen Pitcher, resigned following the decision of an independent panel convened by the Lord Chancellor, which concluded by a majority that she should no longer head the organisation. The panel found that the chair had failed to restore confidence in the CCRC in the aftermath of Andrew Malkinson’s acquittal by the Court of Appeal in July 2023. The panel also found that she had not sufficiently challenged the performance of the chief executive of the CCRC, Karen Kneller. On 29 April 2025, the Committee held an evidence session with Karen Kneller and Amanda Pearce, casework operations director at the CCRC. Both are very long-serving senior managers. The Committee asked the witnesses about Chris Henley KC’s independent review of their handling of the Andrew Malkinson case, their leadership of the CCRC and the CCRC’s remote working policies. Before and after the session on 29 April, the Committee received a significant amount of information from individuals who have worked with and for the CCRC, from casework managers to commissioners. The evidence presented to the Committee indicated that, in an echo of Mr Malkinson’s own words, a root-and-branch review of how the CCRC operates is urgently needed. We intend our findings to inform that work. Since our report was published on 23 May, Dame Vera Baird KC has been appointed as interim chair of the CCRC. I welcome the appointment of such an experienced and respected figure who has the skills and robustness to reform an organisation that has lost its way so fundamentally. I also welcome that, at the Committee’s request, the chair of the CCRC has been added to the list of roles for which the Justice Committee conducts pre-appointment scrutiny. The cases of Andrew Malkinson, who was imprisoned for almost 20 years for a crime he did not commit, and Peter Sullivan, who spent 38 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, underline the importance of the CCRC’s role. Both Mr Malkinson and Mr Sullivan made applications to the CCRC, which were rejected. The failings in the Malkinson case have been made abundantly clear by Chris Henley KC’s review. Our report does not rehearse the facts of that case; rather, it addresses the way the CCRC conducted itself in response. I want to highlight two key points in relation to the Henley report: the insufficiency of the CCRC’s apology to Mr Malkinson and the delays in the publication of the report. It should not have taken an independent review for the CCRC to apologise to Andrew Malkinson. The public statements of the then chair, Helen Pitcher, after Andrew Malkinson’s acquittal were woefully inadequate and showed a worrying lack of understanding of the potential damage to the CCRC’s reputation and public confidence that would almost inevitably arise from a failure to admit its mistakes and apologise. By failing to offer a timely apology, the leadership of the CCRC caused significant damage to the organisation’s reputation. The CCRC’s statements gave the impression that the organisation and its leadership were more concerned with defending their own reputation than offering an honest assessment of how they had failed Andrew Malkinson. The Committee was unpersuaded by the justifications given by Karen Kneller for the delays in the publication of the Henley report. The report was provided to the CCRC in January 2024, but not published until July 2024. Among the reasons for the delay in publication given to us by Ms Kneller on 29 April was that the report was a draft that contained typographical errors that needed correcting. In an exchange of letters with the Committee, Chris Henley KC told us that his report had not contained typographical errors, but that the CCRC had instead asked him to make substantive changes to its wording, and he provided us with evidence of that. We also found it was inappropriate for the CCRC to suggest to Chris Henley KC that his report should not draw broader conclusions on the CCRC as an organisation based on his analysis of their handling of Andrew Malkinson’s case. The CCRC’s leadership should have accepted the gravity of the failings in the handling of the case and their wider implications. We were further unpersuaded by Karen Kneller and Amanda Pearce’s explanation that publication of the Henley report was not possible because of the proximity of the general election. When Karen Kneller and Amanda Pearce appeared before us on 29 April, we provided them with an opportunity to respond to public criticisms of the leadership’s recent performance. The answers provided to the Committee did not inspire confidence; on the contrary, the partial nature of their answers led Chris Henley KC and Chris Webb—a crisis communications consultant employed by the CCRC to advise on the Henley report and the response to it—to write to us to correct points made by Karen Kneller on 29 April. Both Chris Henley and Chris Webb made allegations that Ms Kneller had misled the Committee. In the spirit of fairness, the Committee offered Karen Kneller the opportunity to respond directly in writing to those allegations and incorporated her responses into our report. The allegations made by Chris Henley and Chris Webb served to reinforce the sense that the leadership of the CCRC had continually failed to learn from its mistakes and confront its failings with the seriousness required. As a result of our concerns regarding the performance of the CCRC and the unpersuasive evidence Karen Kneller provided to the Committee, the Committee concluded it was no longer tenable for her to continue as chief executive of the CCRC. The conclusions the Committee reached were far broader than just those relating to the chief executive and to the organisation as a whole. Commissioners form the body corporate of the organisation and make the key decisions with regard to the CCRC’s work, and we were alarmed that the CCRC had operated without a full quota of commissioners since 2023. We were also disappointed that the terms of commissioner recruitment only require commissioners to work 52 days per year. The responsibility for the lack of commissioner recruitment in recent years is an issue for both the Ministry of Justice and the CCRC. We made recommendations that the incoming interim chair’s review of the organisation should consider whether the terms of appointment for commissioners, the corporate structure of the CCRC and the commission’s relationship with the MOJ are currently appropriate to ensure that the CCRC has the resources it needs to operate effectively. I understand that the terms of reference of that review will be published shortly. During the pandemic, the CCRC moved to remote-first as a means of operation, which it has retained. That is out of step with the rest of the public sector and seems unsuited to the nature of the commission’s work. We were particularly shocked that both Ms Kneller and Ms Pearce, the senior leadership of the organisation, only attend the office once or twice every few months. We recommended that senior leadership should have a regular presence in the office, particularly in the light of recent events and the high-profile criticism directed at the commission. Exclusively remote working is not suited to a body that relies on investigation and challenge to correct miscarriages of justice. The CCRC is a hugely important organisation and the senior leadership could have done much more in their evidence to reassure us that they understood the seriousness of the criticisms it has faced, and the need for an overhaul of the organisation to rebuild public trust and provide applicants to the CCRC with the justice they deserve. For an organisation that is designed to identify failures within the criminal justice system, the CCRC’s leadership has shown a remarkable inability to learn from its own mistakes. The new interim chair, Dame Vera Baird KC, will now conduct a review of the CCRC, and it is already clear from her public statements that she is across the scale and complexity of the task that she has been set, including the issues raised in our report. There is a real prospect of changes being made at CCRC, and I am hopeful that that will lead to better outcomes for those who have been victims of miscarriages of justice.