Kieran Mullan MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 16 Sept 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know the new Justice Secretary will not want to be accused of misleading the House on such important matters. A moment ago, he referred to the measures before the House not affecting the sentences for people accused of “the gravest crimes”. The measures before the House will reduce sentences for rapists and child abusers. He either thinks that those are grave crimes and wants to correct the record, or he does not—

• 16 Sept 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to colleagues on all sides of the House for their contributions to the debate, and I welcome the Minister to his post—I think today is his first time at the Dispatch Box. As I have said before, wanting to see more consistent delivery of justice for victims of serious crime was one of the primary reasons I sought election to this place, and I do not think that any Government in my lifetime has universally delivered that. For decades, across parties, our justice system has fallen short far too often. I am sure that many Members from all parties can relate to the experience of hearing about some of the most horrific crimes that take place and being appalled by the sentences given. That is not new, but the question we have to ask ourselves today is whether the Bill we are considering will make the situation worse or better. Will more victims get what we would consider justice as a result of this Bill, or fewer? Since this Labour Government came to power, we have quite rightly been holding them for account for the measures they have already taken to let people out of prison earlier. Members on both sides of the House will be familiar with the consistent debate we have had about pressure on prison places, where responsibility for that lies, and what can be done about it. Labour Members point to our prison-building record, while I point out to them that the pressure on the prison system left by the last Labour Government was worse, and that there are other options for foreign nationals and the remand population. A lot of heat is generated, but there is not much more to it. Labour Members point out that they have had to take emergency steps, and it is true that the measures they have taken have not been permanent changes to our sentencing framework. However, I say to them that the Bill we are considering today does something very different. As the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and others have demonstrated, I am not sure that Labour Members fully recognise what the Government are asking them to support today. There are measures to be welcomed in this Bill—the new restriction zones and the measures to better track domestic abuse cases, which the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), also supported—but there are a number of reasons why I do not support the Bill. We have heard Members including the shadow Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), raise criticisms relating to short sentences, community sentences, Parole Board reform, probation and the Sentencing Council, but I am not surprised that Labour Members do not agree with those criticisms. However, I do not believe Labour Members can sincerely think what I am about to talk about is something they would knowingly want to support. I am going to read out a list of offences: rape; assault by penetration; rape of a child under 13; assault of a child under 13 by penetration; inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity; paying for the sexual services of a child aged under 13; kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence; and creating or possessing indecent photographs of children. I hope Labour Members felt as uncomfortable being forced to consider those offences and what they entail as I did while reading them out. I am going to read them again: rape; assault by penetration; rape of a child under 13; assault of a child under 13 by penetration; inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity; paying for the sexual services of a child aged under 13; kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence; and creating or possessing indecent photographs of children. In fact, there are even more of those sorts of offences that we need to have in mind this evening. Why do we need to consider these offences? Because despite what some Labour Members have said to the contrary—without ill will, I accept—and for all the things it does that Members might support, the Bill we are considering this evening will mean one thing for the vile criminals who commit those sorts of offences. It will mean that they are let out of prison earlier, not as a temporary measure in response to the kind of short-term prison crowding challenge that we have debated and recognised, but as a permanent and profound change to our sentencing laws. Members who support this Bill will be putting their name to legislation that will forever change our sentencing laws to let rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier. The hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) talked about legacy. I cannot honestly believe that Government Members want to support a Bill that will allow rapists and paedophiles to get out of prison earlier. That is not political posturing or hyperbole or scaremongering, as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) described it. It is not an unfair interpretation or misrepresentation of the Bill before the House today. Rapists and paedophiles—those are the people that Members will be voting to let out of prison early if they support this Bill this evening. Is that really what they came to this place to do?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Rapists and sexual offenders will spend less time in prison as a result of this Bill. Does she know that?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member will have noted that at the outset of my remarks I said that I have never been entirely in support of all the policies of a Government of either party on these issues. He has every right to make those criticisms, but they do not change the vote he is being asked to make tonight. They do not change the policy he will be putting his name to and supporting. There is no excuse for the things he will be changing on a permanent—not temporary—basis to deal with a short-term prison crisis. I do not think that that is what any Government Member’s constituents want. These profound and permanent changes to our sentencing laws are the exact opposite of what the vast majority of victims, their families and the public want. They will sit on the record of those Members and this Government until the next election. They will need to justify themselves to their voters. I do not believe that the majority of Labour Members, deep down, want to support such changes tonight. It will be a great compliment to party managers if, after this reality has been spelled out to Labour Members, they decide to support this Bill anyway. If they speak to their constituents like I speak to mine, and ask them about child abusers and rapists, their constituents will tell them that they are already concerned by the limited time they spend in prison, which undermines justice. We have heard so many times from Members in this House about the horror of rape and other sexual offences, about the victims of grooming gangs and about the horror of all kinds of sexual abuse. Not once do I recall a campaign or a concern raised by Members that the answer is to make such offenders spend less time in prison. I accept that there is a different debate to be had about different cohorts of offenders and different offences. There is always a tension between prison time as a punishment and helping to rehabilitate offenders. As others have said, and I agree, I do not think the Bill strikes the right balance in that area, but I respect those Government Members and members of the public who would draw the line in a different place from me for certain types of offences and offenders. However, we are not talking about drug addicts stealing to fund their habit, or the young man from a broken home who spent their childhood in care and vandalises the local playground. The hon. Members for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop), for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), and others coherently and sensibly raised the debates we might have about how long those individuals spend in prison and how we rehabilitate them. However, here we are talking about rapists and paedophiles—criminals who sexually assault children, criminals who create sexual images of children and circulate them around the world and criminals who snatch unsuspecting women walking home through a park, drag them into the bushes and rape them. Those are the sorts of criminals that Labour Members will agree should be let out of prison earlier if they support this Bill. We should be clear that not a single voice among victims’ representatives supports this element of the Bill—not a single one. The Victims’ Commissioner does not support it. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner does not support it. Justice for Victims does not support it. Victim Support does not support it. The Victims’ Commissioner for London does not support it. Apparently, however, we will see this evening that Labour MPs do. Let me also clear up any confusion about the circumstances under which these violent and sexual offenders will be released early. Members, innocently, may have been led to believe that prisoners will have to jump over considerable hurdles to secure early release. In fact, the former Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) told us they would need to “earn” their release. The reality of the proposals in the Bill make clear what a complete sham that suggestion was. Actually, prisoners will actively need to break prison rules to run the risk of losing early release. That is not earning anything. That is doing what the majority of the public do day in, day out, without any reward—just behaving themselves and not breaking the rules. Apparently, however, if a rapist or a child abuser does it, Labour Members think that should entitle them to walk away from the proper punishment that they have been given for their crimes. In fact, what Labour said to the press in an attempt to manage the news of this terrible set of policies gave the impression that the large discounts amounting to, in some cases, many years off prison time could be quickly reversed for bad behaviour, and that this was a radical departure. While the amount of time after which the Government are choosing to let people out is certainly radical, the mechanism to keep people in is nothing of the sort. As we see in the detail of the Bill, they will simply make use of the existing prison punishment legislation. I wonder whether Labour Members are aware of the average number of days in prison that is added by the prison punishment regime. According to the latest data I could find, the average number of additional days given to a prisoner who breaks the rules is 16. When sentences for rapists and child abusers will be discounted by many months and years, they run the risk of having a handful of days added back on for breaking prison rules. That is shameful, and it does not apply only to the offences that I have mentioned. The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) spoke about a 15 year sentence, and about how the victims of the person concerned would feel about their not being given a lifelong driving ban. How will they feel when they are told that instead of serving 15 years in prison, that person will spend five years there? The parlous state of this Government is a blessing for Labour Members tonight. There are many other issues receiving media coverage at present—the political survival of the Prime Minister himself is in question—so they may get away with voting this Bill through unnoticed. However, this is just the first stage. I know that the timetable for the Bill is as short as the Government could make it—just a day of Committee of the whole House, which also means that the many victims groups will not be able to come before the House and voice their objections, and then one day for Report and Third Reading. The Government clearly hope that the Bill will also go through its future stages unnoticed by their constituents, who, they hope, will not know that Labour MPs want to let rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier. [Interruption.] That is the reality of the Bill that they are voting through. Labour Members are chuntering and saying, “Shameful.” What is shameful is that they are preparing to vote for that policy this evening. Shame on all of them. The Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Justice Secretary and I will do our utmost to hold Labour Members to account for this grave, grave injustice to victims and their families. We will do our best to make sure that their constituents do know, do hold them to account, and do understand the choice that they make in the end. I honestly do not believe, despite the chuntering, that that is a choice many of them would want to make if they had listened clearly to the position that I have set out. I do not think it is a choice that any of them came to this place to make. We have seen Labour Back Benchers exercise their power over the welfare Bill. They can do that again—if not tonight, in future stages of the Bill, because we will seek to amend it. Labour Members can support us in that. Rape, assault by penetration, rape of a child under 13, assault of a child under 13 by penetration, inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, paying for the sexual services of a child under 13, kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence, creating or possessing indecent photographs of children—tell your Whips that you will not support people responsible for those offences being let out of prison early. Do your job as representatives of your constituents, do your job as advocates for women and girls—

• 16 Sept 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Labour Members should do their job as advocates for women and girls and advocates for all victims of crime, and vote against these horrendous proposals this evening.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Prison Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the murdered prison officer Lenny Scott, whose killer was found guilty and sentenced over the recess. It is hard to overstate the seriousness of the case: this was a prison officer murdered simply for doing his job. Like police officers, we ask prison officers every day to stand up to some of the most violent people in our society. Does the new Lord Chancellor agree that prison officers deserve the same legal protections as police officers?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Prison Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that prison officers will welcome any future announcements that the Lord Chancellor makes. We have talked this morning about preventive measures we can take to ensure prison officer safety, but police officers benefit from legal protections in terms of the consequences for murdering them, with mandatory whole-life orders imposed on people who do that. The Opposition will table an amendment to the Sentencing Bill that would give the same protection to prison officers. I think they deserve it, and I would welcome his support for that measure.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this important debate. He has been a tireless advocate for bereaved families and communities affected by tragedy. His determination to keep these issues before Parliament commands respect across the House. We owe a debt of gratitude to the campaigners and families themselves. From Hillsborough to Grenfell, from the infected blood scandal to the Post Office Horizon affair, they have shown extraordinary courage in pressing for truth and accountability. Their persistence is the reason why we are here today, and it must not be forgotten. The Hillsborough disaster in 1989 is the clearest example of why the call for a duty of candour has become louder over the years: 97 lives were lost and countless other people were traumatised, and it was very powerful for us all to hear from the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby, who was there on that day at a young age. In the years that followed, there were inquiries, judicial reviews and inquests, yet for far too long, the true circumstances of what happened were hidden. In 2017, Bishop James Jones was asked to reflect on the experience of the Hillsborough families. His report set out in stark terms the lessons that need to be learned. He said that it was vital that the state ensure “proper participation” of the bereaved at inquests at which public bodies are represented. He identified four strands to achieving that: first, publicly funded legal representation for bereaved families when public bodies are represented; secondly, an end to the practice of public bodies spending limitless sums on their own representation; thirdly, a culture change so that public bodies see inquests not as a reputational threat, but as an opportunity to learn; and finally, changes to procedures and the training of coroners so that bereaved families are placed truly at the centre of the process. His report also served a reminder that legislation alone is not enough. As others have mentioned, we already have a statutory duty of candour in parts of our system—particularly the NHS—but too often that duty has become a tick-box exercise, satisfying process rather than securing trust. If the Hillsborough law is to mean anything, it must embed a genuine culture of truth-telling and accountability, as well as changing the law. It is against that backdrop that the idea of a statutory duty of candour has emerged and persisted. Sir Brian Langstaff, in his recent report into the infected blood scandal, reinforced the same point: too often, institutions have closed ranks, failed to disclose information openly and thereby compounded the suffering of victims and families. The King’s Speech in 2024 committed the Government to bringing forward a Hillsborough law, including a statutory duty of candour and provisions on legal representation. The stated aims were to improve transparency and accountability and reduce the culture of defensiveness, and to ensure that failures such as those on Hillsborough or infected blood are not repeated. Conservative Members are sympathetic to those aims, and it is worth remembering that some steps have been taken. Part 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 legislated for the creation of an independent public advocate to give victims and families a stronger voice in the aftermath of major incidents. The previous Government also worked with police chiefs, prosecutors and fire leaders to establish the Hillsborough charter, which commits signatories to put the public interest above organisational representation.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families · Hansard source

  More

  I will go on to talk about some of the other steps that we did take. Labour Members might reflect on the many things that, in opposition, they called for, demanded and promised to deliver, but that they are finding considerably more challenging to get done in government. That is our experience of Government in many respects. As I said, there are other things that we did. On legal representation, the then Government removed the means test for legal help and representation at inquests, particularly in relation to the exceptional case funding scheme, and measures were introduced to promote candour in policing. The offence of police corruption was created in 2017, and in 2020 a new duty to co-operate was written into the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020. As the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby highlighted, however, more needs to be done. In its 2023 report, the Joint Committee on Human Rights looked closely at equality of arms at inquests. It highlighted that during the first Hillsborough inquests, public authorities and senior police officers had multiple legal teams, all funded from the public purse, while bereaved families received no public funding at all. As I said, changes we have made would mean that that would not happen again in future in the same way. The Committee concluded that this inequality hindered the effective involvement of families, and risked damaging the ability of inquests to get to the truth. Yet, as recent events have shown, the issue is not straightforward. As detailed in the letter the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby published earlier this year, the Government’s draft Bill was rejected by Hillsborough families, who argued that its proposed safeguards against dishonesty by public servants were not strong enough. The Prime Minister has met them on several occasions, both since taking office and previously in his role as Director of Public Prosecutions, and has emphasised that any legislation must command their confidence. As yet, however, no Bill has been introduced to Parliament. In April, further reports suggested that draft legislation did not include provision for funding parity. Campaigners expressed real concern, and Ministers in the House of Lords offered reassurances, but admitted that there was concern in Government about the overall availability of legal aid funding. Further reports over the summer suggest that resistance in the Treasury is slowing progress. The Justice Secretary has apparently made it clear that her Department could not fund the costs within existing budgets, and the Ministry of Justice was said to have sought over £1 billion in additional legal aid funding. In July, the Prime Minister made the point that although he was fully committed to introducing a Hillsborough law, including a duty of candour, he wanted to take the time to get it right before putting it to Parliament. On the same day, the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby brought forward his private Member’s Bill on candour and accountability. The desire for progress is strong, but the practicalities remain contested. We are sympathetic to the principle of a statutory duty of candour. We agree that bereaved families should not face the state’s lawyers without adequate support of their own, and we recognise the force of the campaigns that have led us here. However, we also understand the difficulty of translating principle into workable law. How do we ensure fairness for families without creating unmanageable costs and adverse unintended consequences? Those are not small questions, and they deserve careful thought. In closing, I return to where I began: the families. Families who lost loved ones at Hillsborough, families devastated by Grenfell, families affected by infected blood and families ruined by Horizon—they have all faced unimaginable grief and years of struggle to uncover the truth. We cannot undo their loss, but we can ensure that the state learns, that institutions are held to account and that families in the future are treated with the openness, honesty and fairness they deserve. Families and victims deserve nothing less.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q4. Mr Speaker, I am sure that you, like me, got to enjoy everything that UK hospitality has to offer over the summer. Fifteen local pubs received nominations in my community pub awards. I visited places including the Bull Inn in Battle, the Castle Inn in Pevensey, the Swan Inn in Dallington, the New Inn in Westfield and Sidley working men’s club. Many of them told me how hard-hit they have been by Labour’s jobs tax. UKHospitality estimates that 80,000 jobs have already been lost, and the British Beer and Pub Association says that a pub a day will close this year. Can the Prime Minister name a single pub landlord who thinks that the Deputy Prime Minister’s Employment Rights Bill will help, rather than just make things worse?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal Of Prisoners For Deportation Order 2025) (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. Let me begin by confirming that the Opposition will not be voting against the statutory instrument. We support further reforms to the removal of foreign national offenders from our prisons. It is right that those who have committed crimes here and have no right to remain should be removed at the earliest possible opportunity, both to protect the public and to reduce the pressure on our system. This measure builds on steps that we took in January of last year to advance the point at which early release can take place, from 12 months from the end of a sentence to 18 months. The order expands the early removal scheme to allow foreign national offenders serving determinate sentences to be removed from prison and deported as early as the later of two points: once they have served one third of their custodial sentence, or when they are four years from their earliest release point. The Government’s own explanatory memorandum for the order confirms that the impact of this change on the prison estate is modest—just 350 to 500 spaces freed up—and those gains will be quickly offset by the forecast growth in the prison population. Perhaps more telling than what the order does is what it fails to do. First, there is no serious new mechanism for enacting it. Far too many countries simply refuse to take their own nationals back. We in the Opposition have been clear: if a country refuses to accept the return of its own nationals, we should apply visa sanctions, because there must be consequences for countries that are unwilling to co-operate. The Government’s refusal to act on that proves that they are not truly committed to tackling the issue. Secondly, nothing in the order stops foreign national offenders abusing the Human Rights Act 1998 to block their removal. We all know how that plays out: legal claims made by those abusing the Human Rights Act, appeals, reappeals and endless delays, while taxpayers foot the bill and the dangerous individuals remain in the UK. The Conservatives would disapply the Human Rights Act from all immigration-related cases, ending the cycle of endless appeals and legal loopholes. We would ensure that if someone breaks the law here, they are returned to their country of origin or a third country—no excuses, no exceptions and no delays. Earlier this year, we tabled to the Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill an amendment calling for the automatic removal of any foreign national convicted of any offence or charged with immigration offences. Labour had the chance to back firm action, but it chose to reject that. Right now, removal is triggered only if the offender receives a prison sentence of at least one year. Our amendment would have replaced that broken model with a clear principle: if someone breaks the law here, they are returned to their country of origin. We are not opposed to this order, but let us not pretend that it is a bold step forward. It is a half measure from a Government who refuse to face up to the scale of the challenge. I will finish by saying that I have enjoyed speaking opposite the Minister over this session and I wish him and his colleagues an enjoyable recess. With all the rumours of a reshuffle, who knows whether we will end up facing each other again?

• 16 Jul 2025 · Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise on behalf of the official Opposition to express our support for the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill. I do not have the benefit of being a learned Member like the Minister, so I have enjoyed getting to understand what property law looks like in the UK. As the Minister said, this Bill comes before this House from the other place, where it has already received careful and considered scrutiny. I particularly acknowledge the contributions made there by the noble Lord Holmes of Richmond, whose deep expertise in digital and emerging technologies greatly enriched the debate, and the noble Lord Sandhurst, who rightly described this Bill as “a necessary but appropriately constrained measure.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. GC284.] This Bill both preserves the inherent flexibility of the common law and provides just enough statutory clarity to support continued innovation and legal certainty in a fast-moving world. Recognising the need in 2020, the previous Conservative Government asked the Law Commission to examine how the law of personal property should respond to digital assets. The commission undertook extensive consultation and concluded that some assets defy current classification. In response, it recommended confirming in statute that assets need not be things in possession or in action to attract property rights, paving the way for a third category of personal property and ensuring that our common law can continue to evolve with confidence and coherence. This may be a short Bill, but it carries significant weight for not just the UK’s legal framework, but our global reputation as a leader in digital innovation. As other jurisdictions watch how we respond to technological change, this Bill reaffirms the UK’s commitment to legal clarity, innovation and economic competitiveness. We have a world-leading fintech ecosystem, and with trillions of pounds in digital asset transactions expected globally by the end of the decade, the UK must ensure that it remains at the forefront, supporting innovation, financial inclusion and the future of capital markets. This Bill also complements a wider programme of regulatory reform already under way in the UK. Since 2023, firms promoting crypto assets have been subject to Financial Conduct Authority rules, including mandatory risk warnings and a 24-hour cooling-off period for new consumers. Anti-money laundering rules apply, and crypto firms must register with the FCA. In 2025, the Government published draft legislation to bring a wider range of crypto assets activities, such as trading platforms and custody services, under full financial regulation. The FCA and the Bank of England are also consulting on new rules for stablecoins, prudential safeguards and the safe custody of digital assets, while the Bank explores the future of a potential central bank digital currency, the “digital pound”. Those efforts, taken together with this Bill, represent a joined-up and forward-looking approach to digital asset regulation in the UK. As the Minister explained, for centuries the law has recognised two traditional categories of personal property: things in possession, referring to tangible objects such as a bar of gold, and things in action, such as debts or contractual rights enforceable only through legal process. However, the rise of the digital economy has introduced a growing range of assets that defy those historical classifications. From crypto tokens and digital files to in-game items and carbon credits, individuals and businesses now interact with a third category of asset. This Bill introduces that third category of personal property by confirming what the courts have been increasingly willing to suggest: that a thing is not precluded from being treated as property merely because it does not fit the traditional mould. It does so in a deliberately modest way, allowing the common law to evolve with technological change, rather than attempting to predict or prescribe it. As Lord Sandhurst put it in the other place, we should champion the flexibility of the common law and legislate only to reinforce and clarify developments already emerging within it. This Bill strikes the right balance: it is principled in substance but careful in its implications. It gives confidence to our courts, clarity to commercial actors and reassurance to individuals navigating digital ownership. We welcome the Government’s amendment in the other place to extend this legislation to Northern Ireland and the agreement of the Northern Ireland Assembly to that extension. I understand that the Scottish Government have consulted separately on the question of recognising crypto tokens as property under Scots law. Let me take a moment to welcome the Government’s stated intention in the impact assessment of reducing the burden on businesses by improving clarity in this space. At a time when digital assets are increasingly used as a means of payment, representation or value storage, it is vital that our legal architecture keeps pace—not to control innovation, but to support it with the rule of law. We on the Conservative Benches are committed to ensuring that our legal system remains fit for the 21st century and can accommodate new technologies while safeguarding rights and responsibilities. While we are pleased to support this Bill, let us not lose sight of the broader context. After a year of downgraded growth forecasts, our economy contracting, unemployment and inflation rising and borrowing costs creeping up, the UK urgently needs legal reforms that drive up competitiveness and economic growth. Like the recent reforms to our international legal procedures, it is no coincidence that this Bill stems from a review commissioned by the last Conservative Administration—a Government who really understood the importance of forward-thinking legal reform to support technological and financial innovation to drive economic growth.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Financial Services Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Given the news on inflation today, along with the ongoing increases in unemployment and the downgrading of growth forecasts, it is quite right that this Government are looking for other ways to stimulate growth. One of the reasons being put forward for these reforms is the poor rates of return on ordinary bank accounts and savings accounts, but what my constituents want are just decent rates of return on ordinary savings accounts. Martin Lewis and others have pointed out that that market remains stubbornly resistant to passing on interest rate savings and offering competitive rates. I understand why the Government want to encourage people to invest in other types of savings, but what plans do they have to tackle the poor rates of return that people are getting from their ordinary savings and bank accounts?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I am deeply moved by the Minister’s commitment to reducing poverty. Will he explain why, as a Minister, he supported the Government’s proposals in the Universal Credit Bill last week, which their own impact assessments said would increase poverty?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Not right now. I recognise, of course, that some people are not able to make the same choice about the number of children in their family—including, for example, children who are cared for under kinship arrangements, or adopted; there are many exceptions to the policy to make it fair. The welfare system is already growing unsustainably, with spending on health and disability benefits alone set to hit £100 billion by the end of the decade, yet Labour, Reform and the Liberal Democrats all back higher welfare spending, including scrapping the two-child limit, which will keep taxes high. The Resolution Foundation estimates that scrapping the two-child benefit limit will cost £3.5 billion a year by 2029-30. Is this really an appropriate time to put more pressure on the public finances?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, which at its heart is about fairness and what works, rather than what sounds good. I believe that supporting families and helping parents requires a balanced system that provides support for those who need it, but that also ensures a sense of fairness to the taxpayer and the many working families who do not see their incomes rise automatically when they have more children. The previous benefit structure, which adjusted automatically for family size, was unfair on taxpayers, who pay for the extra benefits being received. Indeed, under the previous Labour Government, 1.4 million people spent years trapped in out-of-work benefits, with 50,000 households allowed to claim benefits worth over £500 a week, or over £26,000 a year, which was higher than the average wage at that time. Taxpaying families who are not in receipt of benefits often have to make tough decisions when choosing how many children to have, and many will have made the decision not to have more simply because they could not afford it. As others have pointed out, for demographic reasons we may wish that that was not the case, but it is, and it simply is not fair to ask families who are making those difficult decisions to pay for the benefits of others who are not making those choices.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  As others have pointed out, the Government put forward welfare reforms that were supposed to save money but ended up costing money, and this is yet another attempt to placate their Back Benchers in a way that we cannot afford. We must be clear about our record: we brought down absolute child poverty when we were in government. Labour Members are happy to quote figures on relative poverty and take them at face value, but when we quote figures on absolute poverty from the same datasets, they do not want to hear it. I am clear that I care more about absolute poverty, and how much someone actually has to spend on things that they need, than I do about relative poverty.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. I find it hard to believe that Labour Members would allow and support a system where someone could have five, six, seven, eight, or nine children—all being paid for by somebody else—and think that that is fair.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I think we need to look at the absolute poverty figures and at what difference we can make to them—and what makes a long-term difference to the number of people in poverty of any kind is employment. We reversed the decline in employment, but we are now seeing it get higher every day under this Government’s policies. That is what is bringing even more people into poverty—their record on the economy and on employment.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I want to finish my speech. Poverty is, of course, a matter for Government. It is about policies and about incomes, but there is another important side to child poverty in this country that people are too uncomfortable to talk about: child maintenance and the absence of payments made in single-parent families. Research by the single-parent advocacy organisation Gingerbread found that 43% of children in single-parent families in the UK are living in poverty, compared with 26% in couple families. We know that poverty has many causes and there is no single solution, but there is clear evidence that when child maintenance is paid in full, it has a significant impact in lifting children out of poverty. Research shows that where it is received, child maintenance cuts the child poverty rate by 25%. Gingerbread’s “Fix the CMS” report found that 57% of parents who care for a child and had a child maintenance arrangement in place reported that they did not receive the full amount. The amounts involved are significant. At the end of September 2024, total cumulative arrears of payments that were formally expected stood at £682.1 million, and that figure is due to reach £1 billion by the end of the decade. That is just a fraction of the story, because those figures are based only on the sometimes quite pitiful amounts that non-custodial parents have to pay, either because they earn little or because they hide what they earn. Those figures also do not include parents who are not pursued for money by the custodial parent. Absent parents are denying children much higher amounts of money than the official figures suggest, and there is a deep unfairness to that. If a custodial parent simply chose not to provide any more resources to the child they care for, they would face criminal sanction for neglect. A non-custodial parent who does not give money for the upkeep of their child faces no similar ramifications. I have no idea why we do not place an expectation on a non-custodial parent to make the same efforts to find work and earn money as we do with out-of-work people on benefits, as they are also creating a burden on the taxpayer. As the Minister may know, there is legislation that allows steps to be taken to place non-paying parents in home detention. I urge her and the Government to look closely at that. If people cannot be bothered to go out, work and pay for their children when they do not live with them, they should not be allowed out on a Saturday night to drink beers with their mates. That would help to drive down the huge amount of money that is owed to children by parents who are simply not paying for them—

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  It is the inability to have difficult conversations and make difficult points that puts Labour Members on the wrong side of these issues and on the wrong side of British taxpayers, who understand the complexity of these things.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Draft Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. This delegated legislation follows on from legislation laid by the previous Government as part of their response to the independent domestic homicide sentencing review undertaken by Clare Wade KC. As the Minister outlined, the regulations amend schedule 21 to add aggravating factors for when the murder is connected with the end of an intimate personal relationship, and when the murder involves strangulation, suffocation or asphyxiation. The previous Government, of course, gave consideration to introducing these measures, as they were determined to identify approaches to reduce the rate and nature of violence perpetrated against women and girls. Our earlier legislative changes introduced statutory aggravating factors for repeated controlling or coercive behaviour by the offender, and sustained and excessive violence towards the victim, but, as the Minister will know, the Government chose not to take forward these specific measures at that time. I am sure that he has been privy to the full range of official advice on these amendments, even if he has ultimately decided to move forward with them now. The Sentencing Council articulated the counter-argument to their introduction in its consultation response, focusing on the challenges of an approach that distinguishes through method rather than the impact of violence of one type or another. The Sentencing Council also expressed concerns that trials might face complex evidential questions about what constitutes an intimate personal relationship. It was not unreasonable to pause and give consideration to those concerns, but we recognise why the Government have now chosen to proceed with these measures. As the Minister explained, in over a third of the murder cases studied in the Wade review, “the murder occurred at the end, or perceived end, of the relationship.” The use of strangulation was also frequently involved, a method of killing that is disproportionately used by men against women, and which has long been recognised as a marker of escalating abuse and lethal violence. The Law Commission is currently reviewing the law on homicide and sentencing more generally. So if there is a residual concern about how all the different aggravating and mitigating factors interact, that review will present an opportunity for the Government to consider the matter in the round in a way that might assuage concerns about these individual measures. In conclusion, for now, we respect the Government’s settled view that they believe these measures may on balance bring benefit, and we will not oppose them this evening. But I say to the Minister that the Government do need to make up their mind. The benefit of introducing measures such as these is somewhat muted, because at the same time, the Government are introducing a whole raft of other measures that make the efforts to tackle violence against women and girls and particularly the fight for justice for them harder. The Government have committed to letting out offenders after serving a third of their sentences simply for not breaking the rules while in prison. They voted against our measures to allow victims to appeal unduly lenient sentences and to protect victims from having their impact statements unduly interfered with. They have introduced automatic release in relation to parole breaches, rather than keeping people in prison until it is safe to let them out. And last week, they welcomed a report that recommended even greater discount for guilty pleas, which, when combined with the Gauke recommendations, could see a domestic abuser serve just one fifth of their sentence. Measures like these this evening are not going to change the situation, and victims will notice. They will know when they are being given something with one hand only to have twice as much taken away with the other, and we will hold the Government to account for that every step of the way.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to express the Opposition’s support for the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for bringing it forward. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) was not so keen for me to make the most of the time available, so I do not intend to. As was noted during the earlier stages of the Bill, this legislation largely mirrors a previous Bill introduced before the election by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson)—my office neighbour, as it happens. Although the previous Bill did not complete its passage, I pay tribute to her dedication and clear commitment to improving outcomes for children in custody. She laid the ground work for the Bill we are debating today, and I have no doubt that she will be pleased to see it return to the House with the support of the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth. Secure 16 to 19 academies, also known as secure schools, are a new form of custodial provision, with education and rehabilitation at their core. They represent a much-needed shift in how we support and care for young people in custody. The last Conservative Government introduced the first secure school, Oasis Restore in Medway. The evidence shows that smaller units that focus on education, health and the root causes of offending are the most likely to reduce reoffending. By helping these children—and they are children—to turn their lives around, we can make sure that everyone is safer in the long run. Secure schools are not typical educational institutions, and it is both appropriate and necessary that different legal and procedural requirements apply to them. The Bill makes a number of changes to funding and consultation requirements, which are all eminently sensible. Although we agree with the Bill’s provisions, we would welcome reassurance from the Government that the schools will be properly funded and supported, and that appropriate steps are being put in place to ensure that young people in custody are properly supported to reduce their reoffending. If secure schools are to succeed where other parts of the youth estate have historically struggled, they must be properly resourced, effectively led and rooted in strong local partnerships. We would be interested to hear more in due course about the Government’s long-term vision for the youth estate. What further plans do they have, if any, to open any new secure schools? What future role do they see young offender institutions and secure training centres playing? How will the Government ensure that partnerships with health and education providers are strengthened to maximise the impact of this reform? I would be grateful if the Minister could make some remarks along those lines. This is a practical and proportionate Bill. The Opposition support it and look forward to seeing its progress.