Kieran Mullan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2025 · Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. The draft order will amend the criteria for determining whether an offender recalled to custody should be eligible for automatic release after a fixed term. It has been framed as a pragmatic response to prison overcrowding, but in truth, it is a short-sighted and potentially dangerous change that prioritises expediency over safety and reactivity over long-term strategy. Let me be absolutely clear that this is not a procedural tweak but a significant recalibration of how we manage and record offenders. The draft order would mandate fixed-term recall—automatic release after 28 days—for the majority of offenders serving under four years, so long as they are not managed under MAPPA level 2 or 3, they have not been charged with a new offence or they are not linked to terrorism or national security. We cannot possibly support that step. There are 67,000 registered sex offenders in the UK, and 95% of them are managed at MAPPA level 1. More than 63,000 registered sex offenders would now automatically be released from prison outside of very limited circumstances. Such a sweeping change to recall policy, which would affect a large and potentially serious cohort of offenders, raises concerns about public protection and undermines the careful balance that recall decisions are meant to strike. In 2023-24, 45% of recalled offenders were deemed too unsafe for release by the Parole Board, yet under these new rules, many of them could now re-enter society without proper assessment; it is absolutely imperative that the Minister explains how many of those offenders would have been let out if these rules were in play at that time. The chief inspector of probation, Martin Jones, has warned that the policy risks creating a bounce-back effect whereby prolific offenders are released for up to 28 days, then recalled again repeatedly without the root cause of their behaviour being addressed. These are not edge cases. The policy will apply to criminals serving sentences of up to four years, including those convicted of serious sexual and violent offences who, under the current arrangements, might have remained in custody pending robust risk assessment. Victim safety, public protection and community confidence demand far more than blanket rules, and the draft order exposes us to unacceptable risk. It makes a fundamental change that will create capacity at the expense of victims and public safety. Let us dwell for a moment on the human consequences: by mandating automatic release after 28 days, the draft order strips away an important layer of risk management. We know that many offenders breach licence conditions not just on a mere technicality but with behaviours that signal a resurgence of their threat. That threat is particularly clear in cases involving domestic abuse. Domestic abuse charities and campaigners have raised deep concerns about fixed-term recalls being applied in this way, and last month Victims’ Commissioner Baroness Newlove stated: “Victims will understandably feel unnerved and bewildered by today’s announcement. The cumulative effect has been to corrode confidence in the justice system and undermine victims’ sense of security.” Ellie Butt, head of policy and public affairs at Refuge, warned: “Refuge has consistently raised concerns about the serious safety risks posed to survivors of domestic abuse as a result of prison early release schemes…if a perpetrator were to breach” licence conditions “and be recalled to prison, they could be free to offend again in less than a month.” The Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Dame Nicole Jacobs, stated: “I cannot stress the lack of consideration for victims’ safety and how many lives are being put in danger because of this proposed change…Re-releasing them back into the community after 28 days is simply unacceptable.” The Government will tell us they have no choice. Short-term thinking is jeopardising public safety. A couple of weeks ago, reports emerged that the Government have decided not to proceed with constructing new cells in an existing prison. Specifically, the Ministry of Justice has rejected long-standing plans to build a 240-place house block at HM Prison Gartree. They claim to be doing all they can to prevent early prisoner release, but how does that decision align with their attempts to increase capacity? The Government will claim that there are not alternative solutions, but there are, such as tackling the remand population. As of March 2025, the number of people held on remand in England and Wales stood at 17,582, which is a full 20% of the total prison population, and still several thousand above the historical average. Those are people who are not yet convicted of any crime, and many may not ever be. Still, however, the Government failed to act on the Lady Chief Justice’s offer of additional court sitting days. Even now, sitting days remain available, but they have decided not to fund them. Every month they delay means more courtrooms left empty, more victims and defendants left waiting, and more pressure piled on to the system. What about probation? The impact assessment for the draft order concedes that it would “increase the workload” on the Probation Service. That is an under-statement. In reality, the order would transfer pressure from the prison estate to the community, demanding that probation officers, already overstretched, manage a sudden influx of higher risk, less thoroughly assessed offenders. There has been a decrease in the absolute number of probation officers in the year up to March 2025, at a time when the Government are pledging to expand probationary services. The impact assessment says that will “increase demand for probation services as offenders will spend more time on average on licence being supervised” in the community. When do the Government expect to increase the total number of probation officers in a sustained way? How much of the additional funding in the spending review was allocated to this policy? There are further impacts on the police, as the impact assessment makes clear. Chief Constable Gavin Stephens responded to the spending review on behalf of the police chiefs, commenting, “it is clear that this is an incredibly challenging outcome for policing. In real terms, today’s increase in funding will cover little more than annual inflationary pay increases”. Police forces are already shouldering a substantial share of risk. As I said, approximately 95% of registered sexual offenders in England and Wales are on MAPPA level 1, and are usually managed locally by the police and Probation Service. We are adding an additional task to their workload. The statutory instrument fails on multiple fronts. It ignores victims, it burdens probation and it makes the public less safe. It does not address the underlying causes, and instead we have a blunt tool, wielded in haste, in the hope that no one notices the deeper difficulties it conceals. For those reasons, we will oppose the order today.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Everybody in the Committee today will be familiar with the importance of engaging with local authorities and social housing providers in relation to antisocial behaviour. We will all have seen examples of good work and proactive local authorities and social housing providers, but we have almost certainly also seen examples of where they do not do the basics that we might expect for our constituents as residents of their housing. We therefore welcome the expansion of the role of the Victims’ Commissioner into this area. My question is about understanding the different roles that agencies will have. First, what discussions did the Minister have with her colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government about ensuring that local authorities are minded and sighted to these changes, as well as on how they will operate and play their convening role when it comes to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the regulators of social housing. I am sure the Victims’ Commissioner will do their own work and engagement, but the MHCLG and the MOJ will have an important role ensuring that all stakeholders understand and co-operate to make the most of these new powers, for the benefit of all our constituents who experience antisocial behaviour in local authority and social housing.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q It is really welcome that you are here. There is an understandable focus on women and girls, but these issues do not just affect women and girls, so it is great to have your representation. I want to ask about exclusion zones. At the minute, a perpetrator will be told that there are certain places that they cannot go, but they can go everywhere else. We have heard evidence that this means that victims of domestic abuse or other offences are constantly unsure about where they might run into the offender. The Government propose changing that around, so that there will be certain places that the perpetrator can go, and then the victim can be confident that, by not going to those places, they will not run into them. Do you have any views on that approach? Mark Brooks: We support that approach, because it puts the victim first and the rights of the perpetrator second. The ex-partners of some of the men we have spoken to have gone to prison and, after coming out, have caused a huge number of problems for them in the wider community. Those men and their children—daughters and sons—have had to move, and they are continually fearful of coming into contact. We would be in favour of that approach. It is the right way round.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Good morning. I am Dr Kieran Mullan, a shadow Justice Minister. The antisocial behaviour that your work focuses on is often resolved, at least initially, through non-custodial sentences, so the other measures available to the court are particularly important. I would like to ask you about court fines and compensation. I have spoken to victims who feel it is unfair that if someone is responsible for, let us say, the criminal damage of property, the victim will not necessarily be awarded compensation for the value of that property, as they would if they took someone to the small claims court. To reassure people in the community that the measures available are effective, would there be benefit in ensuring that when someone is responsible for property damage, the victim is awarded compensation that matches the value of the damaged property? Rebecca Bryant: Compensation in relation to antisocial behaviour cases is currently quite vague. Often, if you are looking at cases that are resolved through an early intervention and prevention approach, you would be looking at more of a restorative justice element, and perhaps mediation, where there is no compensation and it is more about recognising the impact of the behaviour the person has perpetrated. Once you move into the legal action arena, we have to recognise that a lot of the people who are perpetrators of antisocial behaviour may not be in a position to pay any compensation—although I recognise that, from a victim’s perspective, some sort of restorative approach would be welcome. Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: I agree with that. Part of the problem with antisocial behaviour is that when we record it, and when certain agencies take reports, there is a real grey area in how it is classified. We struggle with the classification of crime versus antisocial behaviour. It is often dismissed as a misdemeanour or, as Baroness Helen said, it is low level, so we are not necessarily going to reach the threshold at which we can look at compensation. That is impactive for victims of antisocial behaviour, because it immediately makes them feel that what they have experienced and suffered is not as important or serious as other cases that might meet the criteria. We would really need to look at that before we could go that way. Additionally, victims of antisocial behaviour often do not report what they are experiencing because they feel they are not going to be listened to or taken seriously. Introducing a compensation element would just complicate that at this stage.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Is it ever an element of the community resolution process that a perpetrator might agree to make some kind of financial compensation voluntarily? Rebecca Bryant: That is not something that I have come across at all. Restorative justice and community remedy can be either between the two individuals or group of individuals who are involved in the antisocial behaviour—bringing them together and doing a piece of work to recognise the impact of that behaviour—or something in the community itself, perhaps with higher visibility. There was a pilot last year around immediate justice and the impact on the community of seeing the behaviour paid back, if you like. Restorative justice is often only one of the tools that we use to respond to antisocial behaviour. When we are talking about early intervention and prevention, we also use mediation and warnings, highlighting to the individual perpetrator the impact that the behaviour is having on the victim and the community.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I appreciate that some of what you deal with would not end up involving a magistrate passing a sentence, but sometimes that will be the case. Would it benefit transparency for victims, even at a magistrates level, to have a record of the remarks that were made in relation to why the sentence was passed? Rebecca Bryant: Absolutely, yes, I do. What is taken into account around sentencing is often rather opaque, as is whether someone actually has to attend the sentencing. Victims need to be able to see justice done, because they have had a traumatic experience and have perhaps gone through the process of giving evidence live and having to face the person who has perpetrated the antisocial behaviour, crime or community safety issue. Having access to the sentencing report and the sentencing itself, and understanding that their victim impact statement is being read out and taken into account, would be significantly beneficial. Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: I agree. We have to look at everything on a case-by-case basis, and in some situations it would not be appropriate—a victim would not feel comfortable with it. The problem with antisocial behaviour is, again, that grey area between ASB and crime. Impact is the biggest factor, and a victim needs to have that voice and explain how they have been impacted, but we certainly do not want the secondary traumatisation of coming face to face with someone who potentially does not acknowledge what they have done. You would have to look at the complexities of each case.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to move on to questions about the victim personal statement, commonly referred to as a victim impact statement. I know we have discussed this, and there is widespread reporting that it has been suggested to individuals that they have to make their statements say different things and not necessarily criticise the defendant, even though they have been convicted and are guilty at that point. We have put forward an amendment to try to remove those curtailments on what victims can say in their impact statements. Do you have experience of victims being told they cannot say what they want, and would you support us doing what we can to reduce those restrictions? Baroness Newlove: Again, from personal experience—after 17 years, and still going through the criminal justice system—I think that, once a person is convicted, you have to consider the whole environment of what the victims and families have sat in. I sat for 10 weeks in a courtroom, listening to everything, and I think we need to understand that the victim personal statement—I prefer “impact statement”, to be honest; it was changed under Gordon Brown—is their right to have their say. I do not think there is the right to keep redacting. I am now a bit concerned because I am hearing that it is a piece of evidence, so they have got to be careful what they say. In all the years that I have been working in this area, I have never heard that before. For me, it is about having that voice—for example, hearing about somebody who has been brutally murdered. It is their opportunity. I am going to look further into this, as Victims’ Commissioner, but I think it is a right for the victims. It is in the victims code; it does not have any caveats. I am very concerned to hear, when we meet victims, that something has been redacted three times, or taken out three times. There needs to be more evidence about this and how they are treated. These are the most appalling crimes, and I do not think it is acceptable. Otherwise, victims are just going to say, “Why bother?” The championing I have done over 13 years has been to ensure that the victim impact statement is the voice of the victim, which has been silenced all the way through. Katie Kempen: The addition from our perspective is that the victims we support, by and large, find the whole process quite confusing, and they need support to get through it. We would welcome clear guidance, clear information and respect for the victim’s right to have their voice heard, in so far as is possible. Dame Nicole Jacobs: I would agree. A lot of these answers are going to come back to the same principles: one of the things that we have not achieved is clear support for victims, end to end. There are contracts, or bits and pieces—I am sure Katie can speak to this—that are parts of the process. However, all those things feed in to one another. The victim impact statement is an example of where victims often do not understand what their rights are. They do not understand who to speak to if they are being told something they feel is unjust or they do not agree with. We could do so much more. One gap in the Bill that I wanted to mention concerns wider support for victims, in terms of building community-based support that could start at a much earlier point in the criminal justice process. In the context of court delays, court backlogs and the sentencing changes afoot, this is a critical piece of legislation that could address some of those gaps. That would help victims very much, end to end. Some of the examples of injustice that we pick out would be much more comprehensively addressed. That is one of the things I would encourage you all to consider.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Related to that is the issue of fines, which are separate from compensation. I accept your point about people’s ability to pay, and that there is always a process that ensures that fines are collected only in a way that is proportionate to someone’s means, but you can time out of fines: if you have not paid them in a certain amount of time, you do not have to pay them. Would you support that time limit being taken away, so that if someone comes into financial means later on in life, they will still be held accountable for stuff they did in the community for which they were given a fine as part of community resolution? Rebecca Bryant: Yes, I think I would, but how long is that time? I think a victim of antisocial behaviour, community safety issues or even crime wants to see some closure, move forward and move past the incident that has happened. Having something like that hanging over them for an indefinite amount of time might not enable them to have that closure. Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: The bonus of fines or penalty notices for antisocial behaviour is that we hope they act as a deterrent. If they are not working as a deterrent, it does not matter what amount of time we put on them: they are not going to have the effect on the perpetrator of stopping the behaviour. Yes, there needs to be culpability —we should not just have a “get out of jail free” card if we can wait out the clock—but we need to be realistic about what they are going to achieve.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Humanist Marriage · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain, in what has been a heart-warming debate. I thank the hon. Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) for securing this debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. Marriage and civil partnerships play a vital role in fostering stable families and, as a result, more stable communities. Marriage and civil partnerships are more than personal milestones; they are cornerstones of strong, cohesive and enduring relationships—values that my party holds dear. When talking positively about marriage, I always like to point out that my parents were divorced; I do not approach this issue with some idealised view of what marriage represents and can mean, but understanding that an institution is not perfect does not mean that one cannot champion all of its benefits. I must also declare an interest in that I consider myself to be a humanist, and I am a member of the all-party parliamentary humanist group—this seems to be a gathering of humanists in Parliament today. The exact meaning of what it is to be a humanist will be different for different people, just as the interpretation and meaning of religious faith varies among individuals. To me, it has its greatest value at a community and societal level. We can all individually decide to try to lead what we consider to be moral, values-based lives, but humanism provides us with the opportunity to do so from a shared perspective. Many humanists celebrate significant milestones—births, marriages and deaths—in ways that reflect their values and worldview. As others have said, a humanist marriage ceremony is often deeply personalised, focusing on the couple’s individuality and commitment, rather than adhering just to religious traditions. Humanist ceremonies are gaining in popularity because they offer an alternative that resonates with those who prefer secular yet still meaningful celebrations. Approximately 1,200 couples a year choose to have a humanist marriage ceremony, and currently they all have to have a separate legal ceremony. The public, outward-facing nature of a marriage ceremony puts into action the idea that values can be even more powerful when shared and celebrated together as a community. Previous Conservative Governments understood and recognised the importance of marriage. We delivered the groundbreaking Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, which allowed gay and lesbian couples to lawfully marry for the first time. Indeed, that legislation provided for a review and subsequent public consultation on humanist marriages too. I understand that the majority of respondents to the 2014 consultation were in favour of changing the law. However, the coalition Government, which included the Liberal Democrats, decided that the legal and technical requirements of marriage ceremonies and registration in England and Wales should be considered more generally, alongside making a decision on this issue. The Law Commission was asked to review the law governing how and where people can marry in England and Wales, and the Law Commission concluded its work in 2022. The final 500-page report on reforming weddings law set out 57 recommendations. One feature of the proposed new scheme is that regulation would be based on the officiant rather than on the building in which a wedding takes place. The report also set out a scheme by which anybody could be authorised to conduct civil marriages. I have some concerns about the Law Commission’s proposals. I understand that the recommendations go beyond giving humanist wedding ceremonies legal status, and they would create a free-market, celebrant-based approach to the wedding industry. I disagree with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), that marriage is an entirely individual choice. We have talked about how its value sits within society; and if society does not regulate and choose how that operates, marriage loses its wider shared meaning. Alongside humanists, others have expressed that such a move could undermine the solemn nature of marriage. I understand that the current Government have also taken the view that wholesale reform is preferable. But every year that passes rightly creates further pressure, as the balance tips closer to those arguing that having specific measures to support humanist marriage ceremonies is the fairer approach. Let us not forget that Scotland and Northern Ireland already legally recognise humanist marriages. During the pandemic, the previous Conservative Government took steps to adapt our marriage laws to accommodate the social distancing regulations in place at the time. In June 2021, they recognised the need for flexibility during a challenging time for individuals wishing to marry and for wedding venues, by extending legal recognition to outdoor civil marriages on an interim basis. The measure allowed ceremonies to take place outdoors on approved premises, addressing the unique challenges posed by the pandemic. Following a consultation, that temporary reform was made permanent in April 2022, ensuring that couples could continue to celebrate their union in a safe and meaningful manner. The reform demonstrates the ongoing Conservative commitment to marriage and proves that specific adaptations to our legal framework to meet the needs of the moment are eminently possible. On a personal level, and as a member of the APPG, I share the frustration with the continued delay to marriage reform and, as a result, the recognition of humanist marriages. I also note the YouGov poll, conveniently published earlier this week, showing strong public support for recognising humanist marriages, with 70% in favour and only 15% opposed. The support is consistent across religious and belief groups of different kinds. Notwithstanding the concerns I have outlined, the Opposition are positively predisposed to the introduction of humanist marriage ceremonies. While we would need to consider any proposals in detail, we hope to be able to welcome any reform package brought forward. We are increasingly sympathetic to the need for specific measures to allow humanist marriages to take place, given the ongoing delays. A number of Conservative Members who support these measures wished to attend this debate, but as is often the case, timetables can be challenging. I hope the Minister can outline a timetable, and if she cannot, can instead explain what consideration the Government are giving to targeted reform. What do they see as the obstacles to this approach? As other Members have mentioned, the manner in which the marriage ceremonies of Quakers and Jewish groups are legally recognised provides a template for the Government. At the heart of this discussion lies a fundamental truth: marriage and civil partnerships are institutions that promote stability, responsibility and community cohesion. These are values that I, as a Conservative, champion unequivocally. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plans for bringing them to the fore for the humanists in our society.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition on Third Reading, following on directly from the Committee of the whole House, where Government Members rejected our amendments to strengthen the Bill. We now know the strength of the appetite on the Labour Benches to tackle this challenge properly and comprehensively here and now: there is not one. In truth, we knew that already. The Government had an opportunity weeks ago to restore democratic accountability to the Sentencing Council through the private Member’s Bill of the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). They rejected that opportunity, and earlier today they rejected even the more modest strengthening we proposed. That should not be a surprise. Labour has a Prime Minister who is first and foremost a lawyer, not a leader. He is a lawyer steeped in the philosophy of securing political change through legal activism. That is the very approach that the Lord Chancellor has been forced to bring in emergency legislation to curtail. That approach is why the appetite for proper action is so limited. The legislation before the House is a fig leaf to hide the truth that a Labour party led by Keir Starmer will always have to be dragged kicking and screaming to tackle the judicial activism that he has long championed— [ Interruption. ]

• 30 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would expect the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to at least acknowledge that such references are to judges in their capacity as leaders of the Sentencing Council, not to judges sitting in individual cases. That is an important distinction to make when parliamentarians comment on their conduct.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of amendments 3 and 4 in my name and in the name of the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and of Conservative colleagues. As MPs from across the House have made clear, the draft guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council would have led to an unacceptable two-tier justice system in which defendants were treated differently on the basis not of their crimes, but of their racial, cultural or religious identity. In fact, the record will show that two-tier justice did exist for several hours, because this issue was managed so shambolically that the guidance came into effect ahead of its formal withdrawal. That is not justice—it is a betrayal of the fundamental principle of equality before the law. It would have happened under the watch of this Labour Government and this Lord Chancellor but for the intervention of the Opposition, and in particular the shadow Secretary of State for Justice. This Bill is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Instead of acting decisively to restore public confidence, after the Labour Government have been dragged to this Chamber to act at all, they now bring forward a half measure—a meagre response that falls short of what it should be. That is why the Opposition have tabled two important amendments. Amendment 3 would ensure that in future, sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports cannot simply be issued by the Sentencing Council without democratic oversight, and would instead require the consent of the Secretary of State before coming into force. Why is that now necessary? The Sentencing Council has proven itself not just in the initial measures it proposed, but in its attitude and response towards parliamentary and public scrutiny, to be unable to sustain public confidence in its work in this area. It is one thing for a public body to possess operational independence and to seek to exercise that independence on a day-to-day basis; it is quite something else for a public body to choose not to exercise good judgment and make use of that independence to act with restraint in the face of widespread Government, Opposition, parliamentary and public concern. While they do, of course, have their merits, the actions of the Sentencing Council have brought to life the potential pitfalls of unelected quangos that are deaf to the concerns of the people who pay their wages and the politicians who represent them. While this whole affair has no doubt been humiliating for the Lord Chancellor and the Government, the damage to public confidence in the leadership of the Sentencing Council is just as great. Despite what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) said in his remarks on Second Reading, the Sentencing Council did not agree to pause the implementation of the guidelines to allow for a period of reflection—it outright refused to do so. He has misunderstood the sequence of events. The council paused only because we would have otherwise entered into a constitutionally unsustainable situation where people were being sentenced in the courts, with guidelines being legislated against in Parliament through emergency legislation. It was that direct threat alone that caused the council to pause and demonstrated its lack of judgment. I am afraid that we must therefore act more broadly to constrain the Sentencing Council in future, pending any wholesale changes that may be forthcoming. That is why the shadow Secretary of State put forward a Bill that would have taken the necessary steps to return accountability of the body through the Lord Chancellor while wholesale reform could be undertaken. Labour chose to oppose that Bill. Today, it is out of scope for the Opposition to seek to introduce a similarly wide amendment, and we are therefore restricted to seeking to at least restore accountability where we can in this field. The amendment would require that guidelines on pre-sentence reports drafted by the council must be expressly approved by the Secretary of State before they come into force as definitive guidelines—a basic safeguard of democratic accountability, ensuring ministerial oversight on sensitive sentencing matters. Without our amendment, history may repeat itself: the same council will be free to bring forward ideological frameworks that Ministers will be powerless to stop before the damage is done. Had these guidelines gone unchallenged, we would have tilted sentencing based on identity politics, undermining public confidence in the entire system. Our amendment would create a crucial safeguard, ensuring that no future set of guidelines in this field, at least, could bypass ministerial accountability. I encourage those on the Government Benches who have made clear that they wish to see accountability restored across the work of the Sentencing Council to vote in support of amendment 3; doing otherwise would make clear that they are unwilling to follow through on their concerns with action. Amendment 4 would make clear that sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports must not include consideration of a defendant’s status as part of a group that has experienced historical or intergenerational trauma. Why is this necessary? It would be deeply wrong to allow collective historical grievances to influence the sentencing of an individual today. This area is the latest frontier of identity politics, with the public being told that what should be given disproportionate focus in all sorts of domains—that what matters more than what is happening today, with the whole variety of challenges facing people of all creeds and colours—is, in fact, the past. Sentencing must focus on the actions, culpability and direct personal circumstances of the defendant before the court, not on sweeping assumptions based on historical events. We are not able in this Bill to legislate across all the workings of the criminal justice system as much as we might like to. The events of the past few months have shown that what has happened with these guidelines was not a one-off. There is a creeping, systemic attempt to inject identity politics into our judicial processes, bail decisions, probation, and even training materials. If we do not confront this now, it will embed itself deeper and deeper into the foundations of our system. It is fundamental to the rule of law that justice looks to the individual, not to the group. It is fundamental that we deal in evidence, not in ideology. Taken together, our amendments are designed to strengthen this Bill, to ensure that it is not merely a reactive measure, but, in this narrow area at least, provides lasting protection of the principle that justice must be blind, and must be seen to be blind. The public expect justice to be equal, not preferential. Our amendments will go further in helping to secure that. We are in this Chamber today because the Lord Chancellor was not paying attention, and was then humiliated by the recalcitrant leadership of an unelected body turning its face against parliamentary and public concern. The Government should have acted decisively and immediately and we provided them with an opportunity to do so, but they failed to take it. Even now, we are faced with a Bill that does not do the full job. Our amendments are closing the gap between what the Lord Chancellor is offering and what is necessary—decisiveness in place of timidity. I urge the whole House and the Government to support them.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; they do not want to hear it. The root cause of the issue is that the Prime Minister appointed an Attorney General—the Government’s own Law Officer—who is steeped in judicial activism. The Prime Minister himself practised in a chambers that relished it and wholeheartedly supported its expansion case by case. For anyone interested in a treatise on the risk of this approach—from someone much more qualified than me, as I am sure the House will agree—I encourage them to listen to Lord Sumption’s Reith lecture. His analysis on the divide between matters that should properly be the domain of politics and matters for law could not be more pertinent. He said: “It is a vice of some lawyers that they talk about law as if it was a self-contained subject, something to be examined like a laboratory specimen in a test tube, but law does not occupy a world of its own. It is part of a larger system of public decision making. The rest is politics. The politics of ministers and legislators of political parties, of media and pressure groups, and of the wider electorate.” Lord Sumption went on to say: “The Courts have developed a broader concept of the…law which greatly enlarges their own constitutional role. They have claimed a wider supervisory authority over other organs of the State. They have inched their way towards a notion of fundamental law overriding the ordinary processes of political decision-making, and these things have inevitably carried them into the realms of legislative and ministerial policy. To adopt the famous dictum of the German military theorist Clausewitz about war, law is now the continuation of politics by other means.” Be in no doubt: this whole sorry episode has been an exquisite further example of that mentality, this time from the Sentencing Council and its members as part of the wider judiciary establishment. The Lord Chancellor has failed to act decisively today. If she continues to refrain from taking decisive action, we will be here again and again, with the Opposition making sure, on each and every step of the way, that voters know where the sympathies of the Labour party and its leader lie: not with the ordinary, law-abiding citizen who expects equal treatment under the law and the democratically elected politicians of this country deciding on policy, but with activists and campaigning lawyers who want to wrestle control from them. The Bill is barely adequate—barely. We will not oppose it, because it is better than nothing—and at least it tells the public everything that they need to know about those who sit on the Government Benches, and about the mentality of the man leading them. Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing the debate, and thank him for being willing to share his personal experiences. His doing so has been incredibly valuable. Similarly, I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). The criminal injuries compensation scheme is one of the most important parts of our justice system. It does not simply punish wrongdoing but, crucially, offers some measure of direct justice—some attempt to right a wrong for those whose lives have been changed by violence and abuse, as incomplete as that attempt may often be. In 2020, the previous Conservative Government published the findings of a comprehensive review of the scheme as part of a wider review of a first ever cross-Government victims strategy. It found that overall the scheme was operating well. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was dealing with more than 30,000 applications a year and had a high satisfaction rating of 95% from applicants who had been in contact in the preceding period. Those levels of satisfaction had been broadly maintained. Today’s debate has already highlighted that, within broad levels of satisfaction, there can often be serious and consistent individual failings, which it is important we do not take for granted. However, the review also recognised that changes and improvements could be made, and a consultation was launched on a number of areas to make the scheme simpler, more transparent and easier for victims to understand and engage with. Those included the approach to classifying and compensating for disabling mental injuries, overhauling how brain injury is represented and reforming the groupings of other injury types. The review also proposed changes to bereavement awards. Members may be aware that there was a need to launch a further, targeted consultation on the unspent convictions rule to ensure that it was fully and comprehensively reviewed for possible reform. Under that rule, an applicant’s compensation award could be reduced or withheld depending on the sentence imposed for an unspent offence they had committed. The Supreme Court has previously found that the unspent convictions rule was lawful and that the rationale underlying it was legally sound. The judgment also rejected the notion that vulnerability that leads to later offending should require any special exemption from the rule, on the basis that the criminal justice system should already include measures to allow any vulnerability of victims to be taken into account at the time of their prosecution and sentencing. Following that judgment, there was further impetus to consider change, as the Government rightly sought to respond to the final publication of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which made further recommendations regarding the scheme, as a number of Members have touched on. The 2023 consultation focused on time limits and the scope of the scheme. It considered the inclusion of online abuse in the definition of a crime of violence. It also looked at whether children who suffered abuse should have longer to apply for compensation. It also raised the question of whether non-contact offences should be brought within the eligibility criteria. The variety of consultations and additional areas for reform reflects what has been a rapidly evolving area of political and public concern. That has created a greater and greater focus on groups of victims, as our understanding of the nature and impact of sexual abuse, particularly historical sexual abuse, domestic abuse and online harms has broadened. Across the consultations, hundreds of responses were received and difficult questions were explored in detail. However, before a final response could be published, the 2024 general election was called. Last month, the current Government sought to move forward to resolve those pieces of work and to progress on the basis of this extensive background. However, they have also decided to make no changes at this time to the scheme’s scope or time limits or to the unspent convictions rule, and it is important for the Minister today to clearly explain why. I recognise the concerns about singling out particular categories of offending and about the unintended consequences of such changes. However, concerns arise when the guidelines that do exist that attempt to allow for exceptionality do not operate as well as they should. If the Government choose not to make formal changes to the rules, there is an even greater emphasis, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield said, on ensuring that the guidelines that do exist that operationalise the exceptionality clauses function as they should. On unspent convictions, the Government have laid out their reasons for not making changes—again, that is on the grounds of not wanting to create unintended consequences for victims. However, a proposal for reform was put forward that would have allowed the Government to maintain an overall bar on people seeking compensation despite their offending, by considering whether lower-level offences, such as community offences, could be removed from the disbarring applications, or where there could be a significant gap between the injury suffered and the nature of the indexed offence. That would be universal, rather than singling out particular types of offending. I would be interested to hear why the Government did not take forward that suggestion. I would also like the Minister to explain further the Government’s failure to provide a comprehensive response to the 2020 consultation, which suggested many reforms. The Government have said, to quote directly from the Minister’s foreword to the Government response: “I have decided not to publish a substantive response to the 2020 consultation as the victim support landscape has changed substantially since 2020. I am concluding that consultation by writing to the Justice Select Committee notifying it of my decision.”

• 12 Mar 2025 · Draft Civil Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Fees (Amendment) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the draft order, which seeks to reform the setting of court fees in a number of areas, as the Minister has set out. Court fees set under section 92 of the Courts Act 2003 may recover costs at only a reasonable predictive estimate of the cost of administration. As the Minister has explained, these reforms relate to three fees. First, fee 4.1 pertains to applications for council tax liability orders, which local authorities use to collect unpaid council tax. Secondly, fee 9.1 addresses applications for warrants of entry. These warrants are most frequently used by utility companies to gain access for disconnections, but they also serve a crucial role in safeguarding vulnerable individuals. Finally, fee 11.2 of the Civil Proceedings Fees Order 2008 covers the cost of selling seized ships or goods valued over £100,000 through High Court auctions. The fees play an important role in financing the operations of HMCTS. For example, CTLO applications generated £1.1 million in 2022-23, while warrants of entry raised £7.2 million from approximately 327,000 applications. These reforms sit alongside a revised costing methodology introduced by the Ministry of Justice, which offers a more detailed and accurate assessment of administrative costs. The change ensures that cost assessments better reflect operational realities and provides a clearer basis for determining whether adjustments are necessary. Although we broadly support this draft order, we ask the Government to provide further reassurances in some key areas. As the Minister emphasised, the draft order does not change the value of fees, though it does establish a framework for future increases above costs. It is essential that any future adjustments are subject to appropriate scrutiny and do not disproportionately impact court users, particularly those on lower incomes. Enhanced fees must not become a barrier to justice. Although these fees are relatively low in nominal terms, they apply to high-volume processes and could affect a significant number of people. We ask the Government to commit to monitoring the impact of these fees to ensure they do not deter individuals or businesses from seeking redress. The Government have stated that the future revenue from fees will be reinvested in the justice system. We seek assurances that the funds will be used directly to improve court efficiency, reduce delays and enhance digital infrastructure, rather than being absorbed into broader departmental budgets. I also encourage the Government to establish a periodic review process to assess whether these fees continue to be appropriate. Costs fluctuate, so regular reviews would ensure that fees remain fair and proportionate over time. We urge the Government to engage with stakeholders and to commit to regular reviews to ensure that court fees continue to serve their intended purpose without creating unintended barriers for court users. We support this draft order, but we will remain vigilant in holding the Government accountable for its implementation.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Anti-social Behaviour: East of England · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady must forgive me: as I explained, I am not the shadow Policing Minister so, although I have heard about that, I do not know the local circumstances in detail. I am sure that she has made representations to the police, fire and crime commissioner on behalf of her constituents, as is appropriate if she does not agree with that course of action. Analysis conducted by the Youth Endowment Fund shows that patrols are particularly valuable. Its research, based on meta-analysis, found that hotspot policing has the potential to reduce overall offending by 17%, including reducing violent crime by 14%, property crime by 16%, disorder offences by 20% and drug offences by 30%. What did Labour come in and do? It scrapped the wider roll-out of the immediate justice approach, despite evidence of its clear benefits. Was Labour ready to go with its own ideas, after 14 years in opposition in which to come up with them? No: we faced a lull at a time when the programme we had been successfully delivering could have gone further. We now have to wait for further pilots and a wider roll-out of Labour’s different approach. Behind the headline figures on police funding, the details reveal a different picture. The funding settlement for the police announced a few weeks ago by the Home Secretary and the Minister increased funding by £1.089 billion, and they made a big play of that figure at the time. However, the funding pressures faced by police forces across England and Wales—including the £230 million extra that police forces will have to pay in national insurance—add up to £1.205 billion for the coming financial year, which starts in just a few weeks. That is about £160 million more than the funding increase. The National Police Chiefs’ Council’s finance lead—the local chief constable of the hon. Member for Norwich North, as she mentioned—warned that those pressures would “inevitably lead to cuts across forces”. The 43 police forces across England and Wales may have to cut up to 1,800 officers to make up that funding shortfall, whereas we delivered the highest ever number of police officers on the country’s streets—149,679—and oversaw a 51% reduction in overall crime, excluding fraud. We should all be concerned about what may happen next. I will also pick up on the points made about youth services and again refer to my experience as a volunteer police officer. We should always be cautious about supporting a narrative that excuses criminality. The vast majority of young people from all different backgrounds, with access to exactly the same services—whether those service levels are higher or lower than we might want—do not commit crime. We should never say that a lack of a youth club is an excuse for young people to turn to crime. What we actually know is that parental background, parental responsibility and families have an incredibly important role to play. When we support the narrative that excuses criminality, we talk down the many successful parents who are doing a good job of keeping their kids on the straight and narrow, regardless of what local services are available.

• 5 Feb 2025 · English Devolution and Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  The Deputy Prime Minister has talked a lot about additional resources, but they are not being spread evenly. There are significant additional costs to deliver services in the rural areas that I represent, but as well as abolishing the rural services grant, the provisional settlement will give around 40% less spending power per head to rural areas than to urban areas. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that that is not fair, and commit to doing something about it?

• 22 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise. If Members are not willing to go along with that courtesy, I am afraid that I will not continue to take interventions. I have tried to be fair and decent. I hope that the Minister will at least be shorter on rhetoric and longer on the details of what will actually happen than the Secretary of State was. That brings me back to my local hospital and what happens next. Shortly after the election, I attended a briefing with East Sussex healthcare trust, which I am proud to say has made incredible improvements over the past 10 years. Despite being in what it described as a challenging financial position, it has reversed its special measures and improved standards across the board. The hospitals under the trust are crucial parts of our local healthcare services in East Sussex and have served the community for decades. Each year, they carry out over 160,000 emergency attendances, 56,000 planned surgeries and 438,000 out-patient appointments. It is also important to remember that those hospitals are not just healthcare providers but job creators, employing around 8,700 people locally. However, East Sussex healthcare trust was clear that the remedial works due under the new hospital programme could not be delivered soon enough. When the programme was announced in 2019, the trust estimated that the total backlog rectification cost throughout all its hospitals was over £300 million. Its critical infrastructure risk was the 10th highest in England, and was estimated to represent around £64 million of the £300 million total required to resolve the backlog. If left untouched, it is estimated that that figure will rise to £220 million over 10 years. Given the disappointing decision to delay the major infrastructure investment that would have addressed the situation, what is the plan now? How will the Government now ensure that those sites can continue to function effectively? I am grateful to the Minister for her time in our previous interactions, but I ask her to explain in detail how the Government are going to manage those issues. The trust is now working at pace to try to develop a better understanding of the impact of the decision and the possible mitigations. What support is being put in place by the Department and NHS England to assist hospitals in that work? Tackling the colossal backlog of repairs is not enough to equip such hospitals for the 21st century. The way that we deliver care has drastically changed since they were built. A new hospital is not just a new building; it is more than just bricks and mortar. It is about rethinking traditional and outdated models of care to reflect the changing needs of patients. Hospitals in East Sussex have been assessed as having a digital maturity level of zero. That must be addressed if the Government’s ambition of a digital revolution is to be realised. The layout of the hospitals is simply not designed for modern healthcare, with far too few single rooms to meet demand, which leaves hospitals poorly equipped to effectively control infection and unable to offer patients privacy and dignity when they need it most. Those issues are more pronounced when we enter the winter months, with the UK Health Security Agency reporting a sharp increase in the number of patients admitted to hospital for flu and other respiratory diseases. As the Health Secretary mentioned last week, there are 5,100 people in hospital with flu, which is more than three times the number at this point last year. That is only compounded by the UK’s ageing population, which is often described correctly as a demographic time bomb, as in the next 25 years the number of people older than 85 will double to 2.6 million. In East Sussex alone, the population is expected to increase by 14%, with significant growth in the over-70s demographic. As that comes to pass, healthcare needs will become more complex and the demand for services will continue to grow. I have been working with a number of GP practices in my constituency to help bring to fruition their plans to move to larger, more modern premises. As such, I am encouraged by the Government’s £889 million of extra funding for general practice. From that work, I know that a significant barrier to those projects being delivered is the rising cost of construction. I was informed by Rother district council that construction costs on its joint projects have increased by approximately 40% since 2020. Those issues underscore how critical the rebuilds are to East Sussex healthcare trust, as well as others across the country, to deliver the best healthcare outcomes for patients and future-proof our NHS. Although financial prudence is essential, the Health Secretary’s delays only escalate construction costs and deepen the strain on our healthcare system. Investment now will save money and lives in the long term. Instead, the Labour Government have delayed plans—admittedly ambitious plans—and kicked the can down the road. The decision to delay schemes in East Sussex will have consequences for patient care, NHS staff and public trust. Without urgent interim funding to address those issues, patient safety and care standards will be at risk. I call on the Minister to secure dedicated resources to tackle the new challenges in maintenance and capital spending created by the Government’s decision, and ensure that hospitals can continue to serve the community safely and effectively while we wait for the new promised facilities to materialise. Delay must not mean deterioration, and I urge the Government to act now to protect both patients and NHS staff.

• 22 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the New Hospital Programme. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, for a debate that is very timely in the light of the statement of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care this week. My remarks will focus on three hospitals that serve my constituency as part of the East Sussex healthcare NHS trust: Eastbourne district general hospital and Conquest hospital, which are situated outside my constituency but are major secondary care providers for my constituents, and Bexhill community hospital. As part of the new hospital programme announced by the previous Government, Eastbourne district general hospital is due to be entirely rebuilt, and Conquest hospital is set to be reorganised and the structure improved to ensure that it is fit for the future. Alongside creating additional in-patient wards and improved parking facilities, the plans include expanding the emergency departments at Eastbourne and Conquest, improving access to cardiology and ophthalmology services, and redeveloping out-patient theatres, endoscopy and diagnostic services. Plans to upgrade Bexhill community hospital are also included in the programme, equipping it to deliver more services locally. Currently, only 53% of space in the hospital is allocated to clinical space. Once that work is complete, that will increase to 70%. To reflect increasing demand for care, the plans will also increase the number of hospital beds by 13%, the number of single rooms as a proportion of hospital space from 18% to 70%, and the number of out-patient consulting rooms by 28%. Having worked in the NHS as a doctor in A&E for a number of years before becoming an MP, I know the difficulties that can arise from working in buildings that are in need of improvement. The physical infrastructure of the building is outside the control of frontline staff, so they often have to do whatever it takes to make it work, but it would be better if they did not have to. I think the Minister would agree that despite those circumstances, our healthcare staff work tirelessly, and we owe it to them to deliver better infrastructure. Whatever the new Government may say, progress on the new hospital programme was being made under the previous Government, despite the challenges presented by the pandemic and the inflationary pressures on construction costs as a result of the war in Ukraine. The programme was incredibly ambitious but remained a significant commitment to investment in hospital infrastructure. During the 2024 general election, the Labour party committed to delivering the new hospital programme. Candidates up and down the country made pledges to deliver on the programme, but this week, the Health Secretary broke that pledge at the Dispatch Box by moving the goalposts, as a result of which many constituents in Bexhill and Battle will not see the benefits of the programme until 2039 at the earliest.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Sanctions: Iran · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the opportunity not just to give my support to the proposal to continue and extend sanctions, but to put on record my condemnation of the Iranian regime and to give my support to the women and girls of Iran, who have been so brave in fighting for their rights in the face of brutal suppression. Sanctions imposed on Iran come as we see increased hostility by groups associated with Iran, or by Iran itself, at an international level. Most recently, Iran’s two direct attacks on Israel this year, which the UK and western allies have condemned as escalatory actions in an already precarious situation, speak volumes about the threat that the regime represents. One of the purposes of the UK’s sanctions on Iran is to deter its Government, or an armed group backed by that Government, from conducting hostile activity against the UK or any other country. The removal of sanctions should come only when there is evidence that Iran has disengaged from that hostile activity, yet all we have seen is the opposite. Since May 2019, Iran has continued to violate the joint comprehensive plan of action implemented to limit the Iranian nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. Furthermore, it is well known that Iran funds multiple groups across the middle east designated by the UK as terrorist organisations. Those proxies act to destabilise the region as a whole, but Iran’s activities are not limited to the middle east. As has been said in the Chamber already, there have been a number of threats to individuals in the UK emanating from Iran, and as the Minister outlined, it is now providing extensive support for the illegal war in Ukraine—both military and logistical—which is impacting directly on the lives of brave Ukrainian soldiers seeking to defend their country. As I said at the start of my speech, Iran’s terrorist actions sadly extend to its own people. We know that Iran’s people currently live under a violent, oppressive regime. In September 2022, Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian-Kurdish woman, was arrested by Iran’s morality police for allegedly not complying with the country’s Islamic dress code. Three days later, she tragically died in police custody, sparking a wave of protests across Iran and drawing the attention of the international community. Despite Iranian officials claiming that Mahsa Amini died of natural causes, the widespread protests that followed were a clear response to years of repression, with demonstrators demanding justice, freedom and accountability. The bravery of these protesters cannot be overstated. The Iranian Government’s heavy-handed response was brutal, with the UN fact-finding mission and Iran Human Rights reporting that over 550 protesters were killed by security forces. Those deaths represent the highest death toll seen in any protests since the Islamic Republic’s founding in 1979, and are a stark reminder of the dangers faced by those who dare to voice dissent. Sadly, the plight of women in Iran is not limited to the enforcement of hijab laws, but extends to many aspects of daily life, rooted in systemic discrimination that is codified in law. The situation becomes even more alarming when we consider the lack of protection against domestic violence. Iran currently has no law to safeguard women from abuse or femicide, and between March 2021 and June 2023, at least 165 women were killed by male family members in honour killings. That remains an ongoing and disturbing tragedy. I am also deeply concerned by Iran’s treatment of followers of the Baha’i faith, which the UN has referred to as “the most egregious forms of repression, persecution and victimisation.” In February 2022, Iranian authorities allowed only recognised religions to be stated on the new national ID card. In doing so, they deprived unrecognised religious minorities of access to many basic services. Without that ID, Iranian nationals are unable to obtain credit cards, driver’s licences or passports; nor can they buy property, cash cheques or apply for loans. That is clear evidence of serious discrimination against minority groups. I am proud that, at the 78th UN General Assembly under the last Government, the UK co-sponsored the Iran human rights resolution calling for Iran to eliminate in law and in practice all forms of discrimination on the basis of thought, conscience, religion or belief. Although that was a strong message from international partners, it fell on deaf ears, but the UK Government, alongside allies such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, have made their stance clear. In September, our Foreign Secretary called on the Iranian Government to end human rights abuses and to cease the use of force to impose the hijab. We should continue to press the Iranian regime to respect the rights of its citizens, and we remain committed to holding it to account for violations through sanctions and international pressure. We must not turn a blind eye to human rights abuses in Iran. We stand in solidarity with the Iranian people, especially the women and other minority groups who are leading the fight for dignity, equality and justice. Our sanctions regime is an important part of how we stand up for our values and for the victims of the Iranian regime both in Iran and abroad, and I enthusiastically support the motion securing their continuation and expansion.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Police Accountability · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome much of what the Home Secretary has said. The police officers we are talking about, including Martyn Blake, are often deployed to protect local communities from violent criminal gang members, as he was doing. Does the Home Secretary agree that for a local MP to describe one such violent gang member as a “well-loved” member of the community, and for the Runnymede Trust to describe as unaccountable a police officer who was subject to a full court hearing and process undermines, rather than builds, community confidence?

• 9 Sept 2024 · Bus Franchising · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement. We on this side of the House are in full agreement that good local transport is something that everyone deserves access to, both for helping people to live their lives and for fulfilling the economic potential of all parts of the country. At the heart of our local transport services are buses. They are some of the most convenient, well-connected and accessible forms of public transport out there—crucially, not just in urban areas, but very often in under-connected rural areas. That is why, in government, we invested billions of pounds in the bus sector, including the vital support provided to maintain services during the pandemic. We rolled out thousands of new zero-emissions buses and introduced the “Get around for £2” scheme, saving millions of people money on their fares and helping to get passengers back on buses. Those interventions worked. Bus passenger journeys in England increased by nearly a fifth in the year ending March 2023, and we welcome this Government’s desire to build on our progress in order to improve services further, to get more routes running at better frequency, and to make sure that as many people as possible have reliable services that get them where they need to go. I am genuinely interested in understanding how the Government feel that this set of measures will achieve that. We are worried about some of the significant risks, which the Government do not seem to have considered. This legislation places greater responsibility in the hands of local authorities. We know that a number of local authorities face financial and organisational challenges, and although I do not doubt that there will be enthusiasm for making use of the new powers, running any form of public transport brings real challenges. Of course, as the Minister said in opposition, gaps in experience could be filled by support from the Department for Transport, but depending on the number of local authorities that choose to take up franchising, this could mean that significant central Government resources are required. Unless I have missed something, today’s announcement includes absolutely no funding to pay for increased capacity at the Department. What projections have the Government made of the costs, and how exactly do they expect them to be paid? It is the same story with local government finances. Make no mistake about it: this is going to cost money. Many bus routes, especially rural services, are loss making, even before we account for the additional resources that local authorities will presumably need to operate them. In his statement, the Minister did not recognise the enormous challenges that have been created by changing travel patterns post covid. If this Government are committed to providing services at 1985 levels, as he seemed to imply, they will need to commit to enormous levels of subsidy. I welcome the success stories in metropolitan areas that the Minister talked about, but such services operate in a fundamentally different space, because of the density of those areas’ populations. It means that if passenger numbers fall next year, the financial risk will be taken on not by a private company, but by the local council and, by definition, taxpayers. Again, given that there appears to be no funding attached to the policy, surely it can be funded only by increases to council tax or cuts to other local services. It is the same story when it comes to responsibility for capital expenditure. Will this now be the responsibility of local authorities? How exactly are they expected to fund it? As we recently made clear when debating the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, it might be the Labour party’s priority to undertake ideological reforms to bring the transport sector further into the control of the state, but passengers’ priorities are the price, performance and reliability of services, not who is running them. We want to hear how the reforms will make a difference to passengers’ journeys and their accessibility, frequency and cost, and how they will help to restore the number of rural services and make journeys cheaper for passengers—and not just through the generic pledges we have heard today, but through concrete commitments on which the public can hold the Government to account. The Minister made absolutely no commitment to increase levels of services or miles travelled as part of the Government’s “revolution”. There are some simple things that the Government could do for passengers, such as extending our “Get around for £2” scheme, which has been hugely positive for passengers and for the viability of services up and down the country. I am aware that the Chancellor is not Labour Members’ favourite person at the moment, but I encourage them to make the case for the cost-of-living benefits of the £2 scheme, as well as for the benefits of the winter fuel payment, in any hurriedly organised meetings today and tomorrow. The Government have got the wrong priorities yet again. At the end of the day, passengers care about the preservation of existing services, the extension of routes, improvements in frequency and reliability, and cost. We on this side of the House are all ears when it comes to what difference this policy will make for them and—not to be forgotten—who is going to pay for it.

• 23 Jul 2024 · Immigration and Home Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) on his maiden speech, in which he spoke about his constituency with passion. Having NHS experience myself, I welcome any Member with frontline experience of our public services, which I am sure he will put to very good use during his time in the House. I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on immigration and home affairs, which are two areas that are important to me. I believe that how we tackle illegal migration will be a totemic political issue in the coming decades, not just because of its probable global scale but because it will test whether Governments in the UK and elsewhere are willing to face down often well-meaning but misplaced ideas about how best to protect the rights and welfare of individuals while preserving community cohesion and overall fairness in society. Criminal justice was one of my primary reasons for wanting to come to this place because, despite recent good progress under the previous Government, I feel that our criminal justice system does not do enough to secure justice for the victims of serious crime. At the end of 2023, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the number of people who had been forced to flee their home stood at 117 million. Irregular migration to Europe is rising. According to the European Union’s border agency, Frontex, there was a significant increase in irregular border crossings last year, estimated at approximately 380,000 people, driven, it says, by economic, social and security instability in parts of Africa. Over the last 15 years, Frontex has detected 1.4 million irregular border crossings into the EU. The United States has seen even bigger increases of migrant flows from South America. The question is what to do about it. First, I do not demonise people who make the journey—that is something we should avoid. People naturally want to improve their lives and their family’s lives. For those arriving from conflict zones, their original motivation for leaving was, of course, to protect themselves, but Governments and politicians cannot afford the luxury of blind sympathy for people in difficult circumstances. We have to act rationally. What is sustainable? What are voters in democratic countries, who have to pay to provide refuge for people, willing to accept? I supported the Rwanda plan because I believed it was both fair and rational. Right now, who gets asylum in this country and who the British taxpayers pay to support is determined by the ability of people to make the journey into Europe and the UK. That is not fair. I believe that the agencies that placed people in Rwanda for re-homing were against the plan, because they failed to move with the times in understanding the changing nature of the issue. This is no longer the same problem that the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights and the refugee agencies were set up to address. The scale of the problem has, and will, continue to grow. There is a fear that if the UK implements such a policy, as Australia did, it will become more and more difficult for anyone to apply successfully for asylum in a western country. I understand that concern, but these agencies and well-meaning human rights advocates need to wake up to what will happen if we do not control these movements of people. We will see a surge in far right support and risk even more unpalatable solutions. Providing safe and legal routes is, by no means, an answer. Whatever safe and legal routes we set up will have criteria and, inevitably, not all people will be able to make it here on that basis. The fit and young will continue to make small boat crossings to overcome that barrier, so we will be right back to where we started. Labour may have some short-term successes, for example on some obvious thing we may not have done when it comes to tackling gangs, but let us look at Labour’s track record. Labour Members opposed all of our measures to increase sentences for people trafficking and the Prime Minister himself opposed the deportation of foreign criminals. That is not an encouraging track record. I wish them luck in the proposals they have put forward, but none represents a sustainable solution. As a number of EU countries have recognised, moving people and offshore processing are the way forward. I pay tribute to the good progress we made on crime and justice in the previous Government. We introduced a whole-life tariff for premediated child murder. We introduced Harper’s law, a mandatory life sentence for the manslaughter of emergency service workers. Importantly, we reformed Labour’s halfway release, bringing it up to two thirds for the most serious offenders. There is no doubt that the pandemic, the associated court backlog and the increase of thousands of prisoners being kept on remand have made other difficult decisions necessary. I take the Justice Secretary at her word when she says these are “temporary” solutions, although if she had sunsetted them she might have had more credibility. However, I send her my goodwill. More generally, there is an intellectual snobbery towards people who think the punishment of offenders is a public good, a positive thing that is necessary for the functioning of our society. In my experience, the Ministry of Justice is happy to focus on the experience of victims but not so much on whether they actually get justice. I will continue to campaign and push this Government, as I did the last Government, to move the whole-life sentence for child murder away from just significant premeditated child murder to all child murder. We will all have been horrified by stories of parents murdering their own children, very often not in premeditated circumstances. I think people like that deserve to face justice with a whole-life order. I will also campaign on the use of life sentences. The term is misleading, often reported as jail for life, when it almost never is, which is an insult to victims. Those are my priorities. I will welcome the new Government’s progress in those areas, but I will be there as a sceptical champion for victims of crime along the way.

• 18 Jul 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In one of her first acts, our new Deputy Prime Minister cut “Levelling Up” from her Department’s title. The Leader of the House will know that there are dozens of town boards up and down the country that are populated by community leaders, business leaders and charity leaders. Whether it was intended or otherwise, the change has genuinely caused anxiety among many of them about whether their funding might also be cut in future. Can we have an urgent statement in the House so that the new Deputy Prime Minister can reassure them that the levelling-up funding they are due to receive will still be delivered?