Kieran Mullan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2025 · Criminal Justice · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition to this estimates day debate on Ministry of Justice expenditure as it relates to criminal justice. I thank the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for securing and opening the debate. We are in Armed Forces Week, and those of us who have been involved in the criminal justice system in various guises over the years know that in our prison service, around a quarter of prison officers have an armed forces background. In that sector alone, we see the ongoing contribution that people from the armed forces community make to our public services in different ways. It is a pleasure to be able to pay tribute to them on the record today. Criminal justice is, of course, a very important topic for discussion. Our courts, prisons and probation services are the bedrock of our criminal justice system. This Government have been in charge of these key areas of public expenditure and activity for almost a year now, and we have heard from Members about the challenges that those who are in contact with the criminal justice system continue to face. We all know that, almost from day one, this Government have lurched from crisis to crisis, and sadly the Ministry of Justice has not been spared. As we consider the estimates for expenditure and the Government’s linked plans to overcome challenges in the criminal justice system, we can only have a meaningful debate if we consider the journey we have been on to reach this point. I will begin by responding to the points that have been raised about the inheritance that this Government had. Their inheritance can only be fairly considered in the light of what we inherited, what we delivered despite the challenges, and what challenges remain. Labour Members talk about challenging inheritances in the criminal justice system, but what did we face upon arriving in office? We have heard a lot in recent months about Labour being forced into early release schemes for prisoners as a sign of the pressures on the system, but what exactly was happening with early release at the end of Labour’s last period in government? Under the last Labour Government, an astonishing 80,000 prisoners were released early—a huge number—with those releases stopping just before the election for purely political reasons. We were left to pick up the pieces across the prison estate that we inherited. During our 14 years in office, we released just 6% of that figure. If the number of prisoners that Labour Members say they have been forced to release since they came into office is a barometer of failure, what exactly do they make of releasing 80,000 prisoners early after more than a decade in charge? Perhaps Labour had a good excuse for releasing that many prisoners early—maybe it happened because Labour had been spending its time in office rightly toughening up sentencing for the worst offenders. I am afraid not. In fact, in what I consider to be an enormous historical mistake—the consequences of which we are still battling today when it comes to delivering proper punishment through the justice system—Labour introduced automatic halfway release for essentially all offenders when it was last in government. Those offenders were not included in the figure of 80,000 released early under the emergency schemes I have spoken about. Essentially, all offenders were released early, yet Labour still managed to have a sustained crisis in prison capacity, so I do not take any lectures from Labour Members about the history of the Labour party and the criminal justice sector. Under the previous Conservative Government, we worked to restore public confidence that serious offenders would face the punishment that their crimes deserved, and worked hard to ensure that—unlike when Labour was in government—we did not have to release 80,000 prisoners early through emergency release schemes. We brought in serious reforms. We reduced automatic release from halfway through a sentence to two thirds of a sentence for the most serious offenders, which was a huge step forward in introducing a greater degree of proper punishment into the criminal justice system. Building on that, we introduced whole-life tariffs for the premeditated murder of children. We increased maximum sentences for the worst child abusers through Tony’s law; for killers of emergency service workers through Harper’s law; and for those who kill through driving in memory of victims such as Violet-Grace. I am proud of all those reforms, and make no apologies for them. Such measures do create challenges for prison capacity, but as I will go on to explain, those changes were necessary. More than any other factor, it was covid that created the challenges we now face. Of course, we had to tackle the enormous challenges presented by covid, which have left a long legacy in the criminal justice arena. We prioritised the right to jury trials in a way that the rest of the world struggled to; we had one of the shortest suspensions of sittings of trials, and did what we could to support the continuation of jury trials. We increased sitting days, allowing the courts to sit at maximum capacity for three years in a row; we invested £220 million in essential modernisation work for courts up to 2025; and we extended the use of 20 Nightingale courtrooms in 2024-25. That kept our justice system moving, despite what Labour now claims. Undoubtedly, the backlog still presents challenges, but again, I am happy to compare records. Labour MPs are now deeply concerned about the backlog, but how concerned about Crown court backlogs were Labour MPs when they were last in government? I can tell Members that pre-pandemic backlogs in the Crown court reached higher levels during Labour’s time in office than they did under us. The increase in the remand population of approximately 7,000 above the historical average, which is directly linked to covid, is a major factor in the prison capacity challenges we now face. What has Labour done to make a decisive difference since coming into office? Did the Government rush to maximise sitting days to get the backlog down? No, they did not—they have repeatedly dragged their feet. For almost six months, they did not take the Lady Chief Justice up on her offer of further sitting days, and even now, there are more days available to the Government that they have not funded. With each month that has passed, that has meant more lost court days, more people waiting and more pressure on the system than if they had just increased sitting days from the outset. What has been their biggest celebration when it comes to prison building? It is the opening of a new prison, HMP Millsike, which was planned, paid for and largely built under the previous Conservative Government. Despite what Labour says, we created 13,000 prison places during our time in office, including in two new prisons, HMP Five Wells and HMP Fosse Way. I am not aware that any of Labour’s projected plans for prison places use net figures, which Labour Members want to use when looking at our record. The Government have announced plans for 14,000 prison places by 2031, supported by £7 billion, but 6,500 of those places were already in the pipeline, having been announced by the previous Conservative Government. Four of their new prisons were already planned or under construction, so this announcement is less a bold new strategy than it is a tired re-announcement. Even more concerning is the funding gap. The Government have allocated £7 billion, but the National Audit Office reports that the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service expect the cost of expansion to be closer to £10 billion. That is a £3 billion shortfall, placing a serious question mark over how the promised places will be delivered. How are the Government building on their legacy of releasing over 16,000 prisoners early just in their first six months, which is 11,000 more than planned? In the name of what they call sustainability, they are embedding even greater levels of early release into the system, unpicking the positive steps we took in government to turn around Labour’s legacy of weaker punishment. The Government are doing this on the back of a sentencing review carried out by David Gauke, based on the premise that increasing prison populations were unsustainable. I am clear that that review was an insult to the views of victims and their families—many have told me so directly—and it is unfortunate that so many Members speak positively about it. Imagine launching what you describe as a “landmark review of sentencing”, and then giving almost no consideration in the pages of that report to what victims and their families actually want from sentencing. Worse, instead of a serious attempt to engage with what victims and their families might want, Mr Gauke chose to deploy the all-too-common patronising talking points of those who want us to believe that victims and their families simply do not understand sentencing, and that if they did, they would undoubtedly feel much better about it all. This might be of particular interest to the Chair of the current Select Committee, because Mr Gauke, in particular, cherry-picked quotes from our excellent report from a previous Session on public understanding and expectations of sentencing. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick might remember, that report very much engaged with what the public wanted and how to determine that more effectively. It takes a particular type of intellectual approach to go through a report full of rich detail and just pick out what suits you, hoping no one will notice. Well, I noticed, as did representatives of victims and their families such as Justice for Victims. That half-baked exercise in considering sentencing has now served as the launch point for the Government’s sentencing policy. If halfway release was not an appalling enough legacy from the last time Labour was in government, the Government are reducing release to a third of the sentence for most offenders, and turning our two-thirds release for the worst offenders back into halfway release. Let us be clear: prisoners will now be rewarded for doing what should be expected of them. Obeying prison rules and engaging in education or working are the basic behaviours of any law-abiding citizen. They should not qualify offenders for early release, and they certainly should not allow them to serve as little as one third of their sentence. That is not justice. Labour’s model rewards serious offenders, does little to protect the public, and is a dereliction of duty. All the while, our Crown court backlogs have increased by more than 10% and stand in excess of 70,000 cases. Our remand population sits at more than 17,000 people. Wherever we look, problems that Labour promised to fix in opposition are just getting worse. How does the Lord Chancellor now plan to tackle this challenge? The £450 million committed to the courts in the spending review is a perhaps useful, if not fully adequate, indication, but how will the money be spent? Unfortunately, that is where the Government fall short. The Government have no substantial ideas of their own, with 14 years apparently not long enough for them to think of their own innovations. While we await the findings of yet another independent review that they hope will solve all their issues, they have announced that custodial sentences of under 12 months will all but vanish, replaced by community sentences. The consequences are staggering. Up to 43,000 offenders, including burglars, shoplifters and knife carriers, will avoid jail altogether. I have met local businesses at their wits’ end. They tell me about the rise in shoplifting, staff who are afraid and customers who no longer feel safe. Removing custodial sentences for repeat offenders does not send a message of reform; it sends a message of impunity. Labour has chosen the easy way out. It is tackling the prison population not with long-term reform or capacity investment, but by quietly reducing sentences and downplaying criminal behaviour. It is short-term thinking that puts public safety at risk. In fact, just last week it was reported that the Government declined to move forward with building a new prison block. They say they are doing everything possible to avoid releasing prisoners early, but how does that square with that decision? We might think that the Government would grab opportunities that cost nothing, but we have seen them stand in the way of reforms we put forward as amendments to the Victims and Courts Bill this week. Labour did not support making sure victims are awarded compensation equivalent to their losses, or allowing victims the freedom to speak their minds in victim personal statements. Labour did not support increasing the time available to collect courts fines, or giving victims and families a better chance to appeal unduly lenient sentences. All their lofty spending plans will be of little use if this Government’s ongoing mismanagement of the economy leaves us with even less money to spend on the Ministry of Justice. Across nearly every single major economic metric, Labour has made things worse. Unemployment is up, inflation is up and all the projections of economic growth it inherited from us have been downgraded. Is it any wonder why? The Office for Budget Responsibility is clear about the damaging impact of the Government’s jobs tax, and businesses can see what is on the horizon with the Employment Rights Bill. The costs of borrowing are soaring. The MOJ’s expenditure pales in comparison to what we will be paying on interest in ballooning debt over the course of this Parliament. I will finish with three short questions. First, given the funding allocated to probation and the increasing reliance on it and given that, as the Justice Committee member, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) highlighted, the number of probation officers has gone down since Labour came into power, how do the Government plan to ensure that money is delivering effective services? Secondly, how do they plan to close the £3 billion gap in the prisons budget? Thirdly, given that so much of their own thinking is relying on it, when will Brian Leveson’s report be published? The British people deserve a justice system they can trust—one that protects victims, punishes offenders and keeps our communities safe. This Government’s approach fails on every single count.

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

  More

  I am pleased to say that I was a member of the Select Committee, and I sat on that inquiry and signed off its recommendations. The issue of costs was particularly pertinent to me at the time. I welcome the commitment to extensive consultation, because while the Select Committee absolutely recognised the growing disparity between costs restrictions in non-private prosecutions and private prosecutions, we heard that that was still an important route to justice for some people and we would not want to overly restrict it, so the rate at which costs restrictions are set and the process for that will be important. The rest of my remarks relate to what the Government are not doing. I note the Minister’s commitment to considering further changes, but she will know that opportunities to legislate do not always come along when we might want them to. Of course, the Government have committed to legislating later in the year on sentencing, and they will almost certainly be legislating on court reform, following Brian Leveson’s review. That is a hefty timetable of legislation in the increasingly short time available in this Parliament, so it may well be that there are not future opportunities to legislate in this important area. I am sure that all hon. Members are familiar with just how badly private prosecutions can go wrong for some people, particularly in relation to the Post Office Horizon scandal. While there was some CPS involvement in some of those prosecutions, the majority of them were private prosecutions, and we all know the devastating consequences of some of them. We are yet to see whether criminal proceedings might flow from the inquiry, and the extent to which misconduct may have taken place. That is why, as part of our report, the Committee called for regulation of private prosecutions to bring them in line with the ordinary expectations we have of the good practice of the CPS—they really should not be any different. I would like to hear from the Minister a clear commitment, rather than a generic assurance, and a timetable, during this Parliament, for when the Government expect to develop and publish proposals for the regulation of private prosecutors and when they hope to legislate to bring them into force. It is all well and good for the previous Government and this Government to speak powerfully about the Post Office and the impact that the scandal has had on people, but I think the public want to see steps taken to ensure that it cannot happen again. I am sure the inquiry will have recommendations about that, but the regulation of the private prosecutions sector will be important in ensuring that we do not see a repeat. I would welcome comments from the Minister in that regard.

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

  More

  The point I was trying to make is that regulation of the private prosecutions sector will not necessarily be in the scope of legislation on sentencing or court reform. The MOJ will already be bidding for parliamentary time to bring through two potentially big Bills. I ask again whether the Minister might want to reconsider whether this Bill, in which we are literally legislating on private prosecutions, is the right vehicle to address the sector’s regulation, because we may not get another opportunity in this Parliament.

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

  More

  As I said, it is on the statute book as a legally defined term. I struggle to understand why Members think it is on the statute book without any meaning. I have not heard any plans from the Government since the election to remove it.

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

  More

  Q Let me help you, Minister. It says that it should not change it. Its current proposals are that there should not be any changes to the ULS scheme from the perspective of victims and criminals. If the Government’s position is that we should not make any changes to it prior to the Law Commission completing its consultation, why have you chosen to make a change to the time you allocate to the Attorney General to make a referral? Alex Davies-Jones: I am happy to answer that question. To reiterate what we have heard throughout the evidence sessions today, there is a wide range of views, particularly on whether and how we could make an amendment to allow victims to appeal. It is important that that wide range of views is taken into consideration. With respect, we only have one Attorney General; therefore, there are not many people for us to consult with. The request has come directly from the Attorney General’s Office to allow it more time to review cases from this side of things. This is a measure that was in the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, which fell before the general election. There were no other measures in that Bill to change the unduly lenient sentence scheme. This Government have chosen to take that measure and put it in this Bill, while being aware that there is a range of views that need to be considered on the unduly lenient sentence scheme as a whole for victims.

• 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.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  What I said was that traditionally in this country the nature of how we oversee and protect sanctity of life questions and those who might extinguish life is through the criminal law. Of course, the hon. Member is right to point out that in other jurisdictions, including in Northern Ireland, they might do it differently, but that is the tradition, certainly in England and Wales and, in most regards, in Northern Ireland, too. I do not think that it is fair for her to use an example of doing things differently to suggest that arguments different from that are not valid. In fact, generally speaking I found her remarks during this debate to be quite insensitive to the complexities of the issues at hand. She was tempted to focus more of her time on talking about Trump than on the very delicate balancing act that many people bring to debates about this morally complex issue. I will now continue with my speech. We must also remember that ultimately any prosecution undertaken by the CPS must meet the test for being in the public interest. We must not confuse questions about the appropriateness of sentencing and the appropriateness of an individual decision to prosecute with an overall question about whether the criminal law itself is the right or wrong mechanism through which we regulate this activity. Proponents of decriminalisation often cite the World Health Organisation’s recommendation from 2022, which advocates removing barriers such as criminalisation. Although such recommendations should, of course, carry weight with many, it is essential to view them through the lens of our unique societal context here in the UK. The bulk of the World Health Organisation’s recommendations are very much focused on countries that have a much lower rate of access to abortion, in all sorts of different ways, and so they sit within a different context. Our abortion laws have evolved over time to reflect the delicate balance between the rights of pregnant women and the ethical considerations surrounding unborn life. I would caution against taking a universal recommendation from a global organisation as a litmus test for whether we are or are not doing things correctly. When prosecutions occur, they are no doubt distressing for those involved. However, we also should be wary of changing the law in response to individual cases without looking at the operation of the law as a whole and, as I have said, without considering other elements, such as the operation of the law by the CPS, that have a bigger role to play than the law in itself. Accountability is a cornerstone of ethical practice and criminal law serves as a mechanism through which accountability is ensured in many spaces. Without such safeguards, society is potentially less able to properly address situations where procedures are conducted wrongly. These are questions that demand careful consideration and proper parliamentary debate before any changes to existing laws are made. As I and others have already mentioned, debates about the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Gower and others will provide the opportunity for that. In their response to the petition, the Government have stated that they have no current plans to change the law on abortion and I am sure the Minister will say more about that in her closing remarks. Although discussions about potential refinements to current laws are valid and deserve proper consideration, I suspect that a number of MPs would argue that the removal of criminal penalties must be approached with caution. As I have said already, the hon. Member for Gower has tabled new clause 1 to the Crime and Policing Bill, and Members will know that debate on amendments tabled to the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill did not happen because of the timing of last year’s general election. Successive Governments have adopted a neutral stance on abortion and treated it as a free vote issue. However, I understand that the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention was unable to clearly restate that assurance on Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill. I would welcome it if the Minister who is here today confirmed in her remarks that the Government will continue to be neutral on abortion. Amnesty International has framed abortion as a human rights issue, advocating for its decriminalisation. However, all measures must be applied in a manner that respects the rights of all affected parties, including the unborn. The ethical and moral considerations surrounding abortion are multifaceted and these complexities cannot be overlooked. Before I conclude my remarks, I will say something about the tone of this debate. As we engage with this issue over the next few weeks and months, it is imperative that we consider the diverse perspectives and experiences that shape opinions on abortion law. I hope that we will all strive to find solutions that uphold dignity, fairness and justice for all. The legal framework governing abortion must maintain an emphasis on protecting both individual rights and societal values. As I said earlier, abortion is an issue that transcends simplistic policy analysis. It is a matter of ethics, justice and the principles that define who we are as a society. The Opposition believe that abortion law should remain robust, balanced and capable of addressing the complexities of these issues. It will be for individual MPs to decide how that balance is best struck.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate and the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening it. As shadow Justice Minister, I have spoken on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition in recent debates on assisted dying, and I do so again today on another complex issue that similarly draws on ethical, legal and moral questions. I do not think that today’s debate is a failure; it reflects the complexity of the issue at hand. Like assisted dying, calls to decriminalise abortion can trigger profound disagreement among families, friends and indeed, Members of Parliament of the same and different political parties. I deeply respect the perspectives of those advocating for this change and everyone who signed the petition, including 142 constituents of mine in Bexhill and Battle. I do not know the new hon. Members quite as well, but I have come to deeply respect the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on many issues, even if we do not see eye to eye on this. If there were to be a vote, the historical position has always been that it would be a free vote. There are a variety of views among Conservative MPs, councillors and members, and His Majesty’s Opposition would remain neutral. In my experience, the preponderance of Conservative thought, particularly among parliamentarians, has been caution about decriminalisation because, it is argued, it carries risks that could undermine the current balance of rights and protections enshrined in our legal framework. Let me be absolutely clear to people watching, especially women who might be worried that the UK is somehow rowing back on our abortion provision: in England, Scotland and Wales, abortion is lawful, provided that the usual criteria in the Abortion Act 1967 are met. There are different criteria in Northern Ireland, but the previous Government introduced a new legal framework for abortion services in Northern Ireland to that effect. As hon. Members have said, the Abortion Act 1967 provides grounds for an abortion, exempting women from prosecution under the Offences against the Person Act and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. The petitioners have asked us to consider whether abortion should be decriminalised completely, so that no woman, or potentially no individual who assists her, can be prosecuted for an abortion under any circumstances. When considering abortion, we are not just considering the wellbeing, autonomy and rights of the pregnant woman. Our society and legal system have also given consideration to the welfare of the unborn child. The phrase “unborn child” is, on the face of it, a clear and simple one, but in moral and legal terms it lacks the moral clarity we feel about the moral considerations due to a child after its birth. Religious thought of all kinds very often ascribes moral rights of a high magnitude to an unborn child at any stage. More scientifically focused viewpoints try to give consideration to the level of development, sensitivity to pain and suffering, or the point at which an unborn child might survive outside the womb. I think it is fair to say that there is a very widely held view that a human embryo at any stage is afforded moral consideration beyond that given to any other collection of equivalent cells. In the case of abortion, the law is designed to recognise that. Criminal law is the manner in which we safeguard the vulnerable and uphold the sanctity of life in our system. Abortion laws, as they stand, provide a structure to ensure the rights of everyone involved, including pregnant women and unborn children, are considered with a degree of fairness and that there is accountability.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I need to make progress. They will be daunted not least because, although we have international examples, we are considering a novel practice in this country in our particular circumstances. Members who are generally supportive or opposed in principle may choose to abstain on a number of amendments on which they feel that they are unable to give a definitive view and are content to vote on the final outcome on Third Reading. That would be understandable. I know that Members have considered how they will vote very carefully, and that they will continue to do so, by taking into account their views and experiences, as well as those of their constituents, other Members whom they respect, and experts and campaigning organisations. We will all be directly accountable to our constituents at the next election for all our votes throughout this Parliament. That brings me to the remarks that I said I would like to finish with on the responsibilities of the public and campaigners towards MPs as they consider our votes. As we are first and foremost public servants, the focus is quite rightly usually almost entirely on the responsibility of MPs to the public, but as with all meaningful relationships, this is, and should always be, a two-way street. I accept the very strong feelings and deeply personal experiences that are brought to bear for those people contacting their MPs, and nothing I say should be taken as diminishing the rights of campaigners to make their cases strongly and consistently, but I and others have experienced lobbying by campaigners whose passion for securing the outcome they want has led them to question the integrity, sincerity or understanding of those MPs seeking a different outcome to them. Some high-profile campaigners have made unhelpful remarks. Although I am not religious, I was concerned to see the clumsy criticism of those whose objections to the Bill are thought to be centred in their religious beliefs, as was mentioned by the hon. Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Lowestoft (Jess Asato).

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have expressed my views on that matter. I understand why Members are concerned, but it has been in order, and at your discretion, Mr Speaker. MPs who disagree with campaigners’ views for or against assisted dying are not uncaring or lacking in compassion. They have not failed to understand the arguments; they have just inevitably disagreed with at least some of their constituents. I urge campaigners to use their passion and commitment to the cause to fuel their campaigning, as is their right, but to pause and reach understanding before criticising an MP simply because they have reached a different view on a very challenging matter. In a democracy, the public are as important as politicians in determining the quality of our discourse. I hope that my remarks remind people of that, and encourage them to aspire to be the best example of the behaviour that they want to see from their elected representatives, just as we have seen again in the Chamber today.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I need to make progress. I say that not least because I suspect that a very large number of supporters of the Bill might draw on their Christian or other religious compassion to explain why they want to see it pass. There was widespread reporting of how powerful the Second Reading debate was in showcasing the best of Parliament, with thoughtful debate and a consideration of nuanced and varied viewpoints. If Parliament demonstrates itself at its best, that creates a call for the public to do the same.

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to be able speak in this Opposition day debate ahead of next week’s UK-EU summit. I campaigned for, believed in and continue to believe in the promise of Brexit. At its core, Brexit was a vote for the importance of national democracy, a vote for national sovereignty and a vote against regionalisation and government by bureaucrats. I believe strongly in international co-operation, but I do not believe in institutionalisation. I do not believe that decision making gets better in aggregate. My experience has taught me that it only gets worse. It gets more remote, less well informed and riddled with compromises that barely satisfy anyone and please no one. I continue to believe that the UK—its people and its Government—deciding its own future, not locked into continental bureaucracy, provides the best possible future for us. Behind all the carefully choreographed language from Ministers about resets, there is one inescapable truth: this Labour Government risk laying the groundwork and taking the first steps to betraying the full promise of Brexit. That should not be any surprise, given that they are led by a man who campaigned for the leadership of the Labour party on the basis of restoring freedom of movement. He supported a second referendum and he voted against Brexit 48 times. We on this side of the House are not prepared to watch this slow train wreck in silence. Many issues have been raised by many Members, but I want to raise just two that are of particular importance. First, on the youth mobility scheme, the fundamental issues that made freedom of movement so unpopular would remain at the core of any youth mobility scheme. The level of economic disparity across EU member states is fundamentally incompatible with the scheme becoming anything other than yet another route for mass low-skilled migration, at a time when the Government tell us they want to drive that down. Secondly, there can be no dynamic EU rule taking or ECJ oversight. Any agreement on food standards, services or carbon trading must not come at the price of automatic alignment. We did not leave the EU to find ourselves bound to it in everything but name. We must demand mutual recognition and independent dispute resolution, and that is the only thing we should accept. That would reflect a relationship of mutual respect. These are not unreasonable demands. They are the bare minimum that any sovereign state would expect when engaging in talks with a foreign bloc. The United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, whether the Prime Minister and his Ministers like it or not. Is it any wonder that they are looking for answers internationally when we look at their domestic picture? They are restricting winter fuel payments, inflation is still biting us, business confidence is shaken, working families are being hammered with job-destroying taxes, and growth is stalling. We must not allow this to serve as a diplomatic distraction from their domestic failure. We will not allow Labour to turn a reset into a roll-back, and any future Conservative Government will not be bound by any agreement that breaches these clear red lines. We will not allow Brussels to disguise control as co-operation, and we will not let the democratic choice of the British people be eroded by stealth. Brexit was not a pause; it was a pivot. It was a huge opportunity for our country, and I believe that the benefits will accrue for decades to come. The Government might be able to hide their true intentions this week but they will not be able to hide them forever, and we will be here to make sure that the British people know what they really believe in. It is not the freedom and sovereignty of Brexit.

• 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.

• 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.”

• 26 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  We are joined in Parliament today by Katie Brett, whose 16-year-old sister Sasha was raped and stabbed to death; by Ayse Hussain, whose cousin Jan was killed by a sex offender who stored her body in a freezer; by Paula Hudgell, whose adopted son Tony lost his lower legs as a result of childhood cruelty; and by Becky and Glenn Youens, whose daughter Violet-Grace was killed by a hit-and-run driver who spent barely more time in prison than she was alive. Supporting them are Jeremy and Susan Everard, who received justice for the murder of their daughter Sarah, but who know that too many others do not. They have come together to say with one voice that it is time for us to start ensuring that sentences truly deliver justice for victims and their families. Would the Prime Minister agree to meeting them to hear their stories at first hand?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Geothermal Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to have been granted this Adjournment debate, as it provides a welcome opportunity to put on the record in this new Parliament the benefits that deep geothermal could deliver for our country, in particular for parts of our country that most need investment, while making a contribution to the vital issue of energy security. Helping me in this effort is the all-party parliamentary group on deep geothermal, which the Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology helps to administer. I am delighted to spot the hon. Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and for Rushcliffe (James Naish) in the Chamber, who are all members of the APPG, which provides me with an opportunity to recognise and thank them for the work they are doing for the cause. Deep geothermal energy remains an underutilised resource in the UK, despite its potential to provide reliable renewable heat in particular, and also power. With growing pressure to secure our energy future and decarbonise heating, now is the time to give this technology the attention it deserves. As we work towards energy security and decarbonisation, we must explore every viable renewable energy source. Deep geothermal offers a stable and sustainable solution, yet it remains largely untapped in the UK. To unlock its potential, the Government must take the lead, providing the necessary support to get projects off the ground and demonstrate their long-term viability. One of the biggest challenges we face in the journey to net zero is the decarbonisation of heating, which must be treated as a priority. The UK has more than 28.5 million homes and 1.9 million other buildings—including offices, hospitals, shops and warehouses—the vast majority of which rely on gas boilers for both heating and hot water. These buildings alone account for nearly one fifth of the UK’s total emissions. The Climate Change Committee has identified decarbonising heat as one of the most difficult yet essential steps in reaching net zero. Achieving net zero by 2050 requires us to use every tool at our disposal. While much of the Government’s attention has been focused on air and ground source heat pumps, alongside other electrification methods, which have an important and certainly dominant role to play, converting the entire housing stock to those technologies will put immense pressure on our electricity grid and supply chains. That is where deep geothermal stands out. It offers a reliable, low-carbon solution for heating that is not dependent on sun or wind—it is there all year round, whatever the weather—and has been successfully deployed in other countries to great effect.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Arbitration Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to contribute to the Committee stage debate on the Arbitration Bill on behalf of the Opposition. I thank Lord Bellamy, the previous Conservative Minister who originally introduced the Bill in the Lords in the previous Parliament, and I recognise the work of the Law Commission. Much of this Bill is based on the excellent work that the Law Commission did in considering the original legal framework for arbitration. We fully support this Bill’s objective of modernising and strengthening the UK’s arbitration framework. Arbitration is a vital pillar of our legal system, supporting businesses, individuals and international commerce while reinforcing London’s position as a world-leading hub for dispute resolution. It is important that this legislation is as robust, effective and fair as possible. The Committee stage presents an opportunity to ensure that the Bill delivers on its promise, and we welcome the improvement that it introduces. I do not intend to go through all the Bill’s clauses, but I reassure the House that the necessary scrutiny that one would expect from the Opposition in Committee is taking place. I will just touch on some of the key clauses. First, clause 1 provides welcome clarity on the governing law of arbitration agreements, particularly in light of the Enka v. Chubb case in 2020. Defaulting to the law of the arbitration seat where no choice is specified increases certainty for businesses. Secondly, clauses 3 and 4 extend arbitrator immunity to protect them from liability unless bad faith is proven. This is an important step to ensure that arbitrators can act independently without undue fear of litigation. We must retain an effective safeguard to challenge an unreasonable resignation, and we welcome the Minister’s reassurance that parties affected by an arbitration resignation are not unfairly disadvantaged. Thirdly, clauses 5 and 6 streamline the process for jurisdictional challenges. Parties will either need to seek a preliminary ruling from the court under section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1996, or wait to challenge jurisdiction under section 67. Fourthly, on the procedural innovations covered in clauses 7 to 9, the introduction of summary disposal of claims is an important step towards greater efficiency, though we would welcome reassurances from the Government that they will monitor its use so that we can be sure that it is applied carefully and fairly, and does not have any unintended consequences. We believe that the recognition of emergency arbitrators is a positive step that enhances the availability of urgent relief, aligning the UK with international best practice. Also of note is the right of appeal in clause 13. As the Minister stated, there was an unusual previous drafting issue that suggested that appeals to the Court of Appeal were permitted only if expressly allowed under the 1996 Act. That was incorrect. Clause 13 corrects the error, ensuring that appeals are permitted unless specifically restricted. This is a vital change to uphold fairness and legal certainty. I want to acknowledge an important issue that was raised in the other place by Lord Hacking, whose contributions to the discussion on arbitration have been incredibly valuable. I know that other Members have also pressed for greater scrutiny of how confidential arbitration could be misused to conceal corruption. We welcome the Minister’s assurances that arbitral institutions are taking steps to mitigate those risks, and we believe that the Government must remain actively engaged in monitoring and addressing potential abuses, and not rule out taking further action at an appropriate time if it becomes necessary. Beyond the issue of corruption, other crucial areas were mentioned in the other place; these are important and warrant further Government attention. They include the need for expedited hearings to prevent undue delays in arbitration proceedings, the role of third-party funding, and ensuring transparency and accountability in funding arrangements, as well as the authority to mandate mediation between parties, where appropriate, to encourage resolution outside of arbitration. The Minister’s attention to these issues is essential, so I would welcome confirmation that they will be addressed in due course. In conclusion, the Arbitration Bill is a necessary and welcome step in ensuring that the UK remains a pre-eminent jurisdiction for arbitration. However, as with any legislation, its success depends on the details. The Opposition remain committed to ensuring that the Bill delivers legal clarity, procedural efficiency and fairness while upholding the integrity of our arbitration framework. I commend this Bill to the Committee and look forward to seeing its rapid progress through the House.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Arbitration Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise on behalf of the Opposition to support the Second Reading of the Arbitration Bill. As the Minister has laid out, arbitration is a cornerstone of the UK’s legal and economic landscape, contributing significantly to our reputation as a global hub for dispute resolution. The Bill seeks to amend the Arbitration Act 1996 to ensure our framework remains world leading and fit for purpose in a rapidly evolving global business environment. Arbitration plays a vital role across both the domestic and international spheres. It is employed in areas ranging from family law and rent reviews to commodity trading, shipping and investor claims against states. With over 5,000 arbitrations conducted annually in England and Wales, the process directly contributes more than £2.5 billion to our economy in arbitrator and legal fees, while also supporting wider sectors, such as banking, insurance and trade. The Minister used the opportunity of this debate to cover quite extensively the long and distinguished history of arbitration in our judicial system. We all agree that London stands proudly as one of the world’s most preferred seats for international arbitration, alongside Singapore. Maintaining this position is no accident. It reflects the strength of our legal system, the confidence of global businesses in our expertise and the robustness of the original 1996 Act. However, as other jurisdictions modernise their arbitration laws, we must ensure that ours remain cutting edge to safeguard our competitive lead. The previous Conservative Government rightly recognised that need, and in March 2021 tasked the Law Commission to review the Act. I thank all those involved at the Law Commission for their hard and excellent work. After extensive consultation and input from stakeholders, the Law Commission published its final report and a draft Bill in September 2023, identifying targeted reforms to enhance our arbitration framework. A Bill to deliver those reforms was introduced by the Conservative Government in November 2023; I thank the Minister for his acknowledgment of the previous Government’s work. The Bill’s progress was interrupted by the general election. The Opposition commend the Government for reintroducing the Bill swiftly in light of the broad support. Observers may have noticed that we have a quiet Chamber today, but in this the world’s first debating chamber, the lack of attendance is a reflection of the deep and considered consensus and lack of debate around the need for this important Bill and what it is seeking to achieve. I thank Lord Bellamy in particular for his contributions as the sponsoring Minister of the original Bill and for his continued and important contributions in the development and improvement of this Bill. I also thank Lord Hacking for his contribution to the debates in the other place, particularly on the issue of corruption. We appreciate such valuable input and agree that that matter warrants further consideration. Even if, ultimately, the need to get the Bill on to the statute book for all the benefits that it brings means that it would not be appropriate to do that through the current legislation, we should continue to monitor and revisit that issue. The Arbitration Bill introduces a range of reforms designed to improve clarity, efficiency and fairness in arbitration proceedings. Those reforms address practical changes while reinforcing the UK’s position as a global leader. I will highlight a few key provisions, as the Minister has explained in detail, which make the Bill significant. First, the Bill addresses long-standing uncertainties in the legal framework, particularly regarding arbitration agreements where no jurisdiction is specified. By defaulting to the law of the seat of arbitration, the Bill aligns with international norms, thereby enhancing predictability and clarity for parties involved. Secondly, it strengthens the integrity of arbitrators by codifying the duty of impartiality and disclosure. As clarified in the landmark Halliburton v. Chubb case, the Bill ensures greater transparency and fosters trust in the arbitration process. Finally, the Bill promotes procedural efficiency. Provisions such as allowing summary awards, recognising emergency arbitrators and streamlining jurisdictional challenges represent vital steps towards making arbitration more accessible and efficient for all stakeholders. Those are just some of the many commendable provisions in the Bill that aim to modernise the 1996 Act and ensure that arbitration remains an attractive and effective method of dispute resolution. The Opposition developed the original Bill and support this one to ensure the UK’s ongoing leadership in arbitration. However, we remain committed to scrutinising its provisions in Committee to ensure they achieve their intended goals without unintended consequences. I commend the Bill to the House and I look forward to hearing the contribution of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to the debate.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money) · Hansard source

  More

  I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate that the money resolution is narrow in scope—I will perhaps bring the attention of the House to some tangentially related issues when it comes to the role of the Government in these proceedings. As I said, proponents of the Bill will be glad of the progress that has been made, but this motion brings into sharp focus the fact that at some point the Government will need to fund, organise and provide assisted dying services to reflect any legislation that receives Royal Assent. As the Minister said, the money resolution will provide the legal basis for funding that service. I recognise that we are not yet at the stage when the Government can say with certainty what exactly those services and their associated funding will look like. There is time still for changes to be made, and we should not of course make an absolute assumption that any Bill will pass all its stages, as likely as that is, given the will of Parliament as expressed to date. As the Bill proceeds, it will become increasingly important, and helpful to Members voting on future stages, to begin to have some idea of how the civil service and Ministers are envisioning enacting the legislation, not least in relation to the matter of resources before us today. The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) estimated that up to 3% of adults may eventually choose assisted dying. In 2023 there were 577,620 adult deaths in England and Wales. If 3% of those were assisted dying cases, that would result in about 17,000 cases annually. Those are not insignificant numbers, and Members will recognise the considerable existing challenges with resources and personnel in the relevant areas of spending. Although this is not a Government Bill, the Lord Chancellor has ultimate responsibility for ensuring the effective functioning of our legal system and judiciary, as does the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for the delivery of this service, and how that will balance and interact with the other health services provided. I therefore have a small number of questions relating to resources, which I hope the Minister agrees will assist the House in better understanding how the Government are approaching such matters. If information is not forthcoming today, it is crucial that the Minister sets out, in slightly more detail than he did earlier, at what point the Government will engage more fully with the detail of how they intend to resource the Bill, and start sharing their considerations. First, have the Government produced at the very least internal estimates of a potential range of the costs of delivering an assisted dying service, for both the NHS and the judiciary? If they have, will they share that with the House today? If they have not produced internal estimates, when do they anticipate doing so, and when do they intend to publish such estimates? Secondly, have the Government identified potential sources of funding for the service? If they have, will that funding come from existing departmental budgets, or will it be allocated from outside currently allocated funding? In the latter case, where will those additional resources be drawn from? If the Government have not yet produced options for Ministers to consider on these questions, when will they do so, and when will they share them with the House? Questions of resources relate to the impact on existing services of any decisions that the money resolution enables. The closer we come to the closing stages of the Bill, particularly ahead of any final parliamentary vote on a settled set of proposals, the more important it will be that Members get the benefit of answers to those questions, which can only come from the Government. It is important to say that it is perfectly legitimate for Members to decide that a better understanding of these issues is not an absolute necessity, and it will be for Members to decide whether they are happy to support legislation purely on principle. That may well be the position for many Members of the House, but I think most would agree that it would be preferable to be able to vote with, at very least, possible approaches and assessments of these matters, even if not definitive answers. In conclusion, these are not merely procedural or technical issues. The Government’s tabling of this motion signals an acceptance that, should the Bill become law, the financial costs will need to be met, and that will not be a minor area of expenditure. This House has a duty to scrutinise every aspect of the Bill, and I urge the Government to provide a degree of clarity that only they can provide to assist Members in doing that. At this stage there has been a clearly expressed will of Parliament to introduce this service, and it is right for the Government to make legal provision for funding it in principle. However, the Government should enable Members to make decisions at future stages with as good an understanding as possible of how the legislation they may wish to support will translate into the real world.

• 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 share that disappointment, which relates to some of the remarks that I will go on to make about how those costs will go up with the delays, because of the inflationary pressures globally. To address the concerns about our role in the process, I remind the Minister that the Chancellor was specifically asked during the election campaign about commitments that were being made on tax and spend. She was also asked whether those commitments would have to change when Labour was in government, because of the fiscal challenges that she had not known about—

• 21 Nov 2024 · Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation · Hansard source

  More

  That is an important point and, notwithstanding my hope that the Government will introduce legislation, I expect that we will be able to support a Bill that is suitably similar to the one originally presented. Mr David’s Bill proposed a robust framework to combat SLAPPs, including a wider early dismissal mechanism, and a requirement on claimants to demonstrate a greater likelihood of success for a trial to proceed. Additionally, the Bill called for new civil procedure rules to protect defendants from adverse costs when SLAPP claims go to trial. Crucially, it would have empowered the Lord Chancellor to extend this framework to other courts or tribunals if SLAPPs were being used to circumvent these protections. The Conservative Government recognised the Bill’s value, supporting it as a complement to the steps we had already taken, and importantly, so did the then Labour Opposition. Unfortunately, despite its potential, the Bill fell away during the wash-up before the general election, as is sadly too often the case. The proposals had cross-party support. There was no call from the then Opposition for a review or for things to be considered further, which they have now decided is necessary. In a recent article, the co-chair of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, Susan Coughtrie, expressed her disappointment that Labour has not developed a clear plan for similar legislation: “This could have been a relatively ‘easy win’ not only for the new government, but for the protection of public interest speech and the democratic health of our society.” She is right, of course, and I cannot think of a new Government in more dire need of an easy win than this Labour Government. With all this in mind, I urge the Minister to address several pressing questions. Given the Government’s support in opposition for the private Member’s Bill and its measures, why have they now determined that a further, delaying review is needed? When will this review be complete? Even if the review recommends some changes to the approach outlined in that Bill, do the Government commit in principle to introducing comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation next year? If not, when will they bring forward legislation? Will the Government commit to further and ongoing work with the Solicitors Regulation Authority to see whether its work could be reformed to deter law firms from taking on SLAPP cases? Finally, will the Minister commit to supporting the ongoing work of the SLAPPs taskforce? Ahead of legislation that has been unnecessarily delayed, this would send a strong signal of the Government’s commitment on this issue. The balance we must strike is clear. Our legal framework must protect the right to defend one’s reputation while safeguarding freedom of speech and ensuring that public interest journalism can thrive. I urge the Government to pick up where we left off, as they have a detailed and comprehensive private Member’s Bill ready to go. The powerful must not be allowed to misuse the legal system to suppress scrutiny and silence critics. In opposition, Labour Members were clear on what they supported and what needed to be done. Somehow, entering government has brought uncertainty and hesitation to their thinking. At a time when too much of this House’s legislative capacity is left unused, and when this Government desperately need a positive story to tell, they have changed course. I encourage them to build on our work and deliver in this area so that we can reaffirm our commitment to justice, accountability and the public interest, and ensure that the UK remains a beacon of free speech and fairness under the law.

• 21 Nov 2024 · Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by sending my condolences to the family of Lord Prescott, who was the sort of political figure who cut across party lines. As a teenager with just a passing interest in politics, I fondly remember seeing that punch and thinking, “Good for him!” As a shadow Minister, I should clarify that by saying he was exercising his lawful right to self- defence. May he rest in peace. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of the Opposition. We are debating an issue that is always a challenge for any democracy: how do we ensure that bad actors do not exploit important protections that have been put in place for our benefit, and how do we prevent measures that are meant to act as a shield from being turned into a weapon? These tensions find sharp expression in the misuse of our legal system through SLAPPs. They are not just frivolous lawsuits or the expected robust exchange between solicitors and their clients; they are a serious, deliberate tactic used to stifle voices that expose wrongdoing or hold the powerful to account. They are designed to intimidate, drain resources and create a chilling effect that suppresses important public discourse. It has been positive to hear contributions from Members that demonstrate a deep understanding of this issue and its importance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) drew on his experience of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and of being a former Secretary of State in discussing all the key issues that we have considered today, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy). My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East reminded us of the importance of ensuring that the other side of the debate is remembered when it comes to allowing people to fairly protect their reputation. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk talked in helpful detail about what happened to the former Member Charlotte Leslie, reminding us how much politicians are in the firing line. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), who has joined me on the Opposition Front Bench, is concerned about how SLAPPs can be used to stifle debate both locally and nationally. Of course, all Back Benchers here today want to see action from the Government. Although the tone of the debate has been consensual, it is the job of the Opposition to hold this new Government to account. In what is becoming a familiar pattern, Labour Members, when in opposition earlier this year, supported legislation that would have built on our work in this area. Now that they are in government, however, reasons to delay have appeared. In the other place, the Government have said that they now think a further review is needed. Today, alongside an explanation for this change, I hope that we will hear a more concrete commitment and a clear plan from the Minister. SLAPPs extend their impact far beyond the courtroom. Investigative journalists, whistleblowers, campaigners and even grieving families raising safety concerns have found themselves silenced. SLAPPs do not defend reputations; they conceal misconduct, shield wrongdoing and erode public trust in our institutions. In the previous Parliament, as a member of the Justice Committee, I had the welcome opportunity to join a one-off session of the Foreign Affairs Committee that did an excellent job of putting SLAPPs in the parliamentary spotlight. I got to hear at first hand from witnesses working across journalism, many of whom have been mentioned today, including Catherine Belton, the author of “Putin’s People”; investigative journalist Tom Burgis; Susan Coughtrie from the Foreign Policy Centre, who is co-chair of the UK Anti-SLAPP coalition; and Arabella Pike, who is head of publishing at William Collins. I distinctly remember Catherine and Arabella talking powerfully about their experience of the sustained legal attack that “Putin’s People” came under, and it was clear that it took real courage to persevere with its publication. Tom described his experience across Africa, and the wider network of oligarchs and corrupt Governments working together to suppress journalism that would have held them to account. He has direct experience of successfully defeating SLAPPs relating to his own book, as others have mentioned. Susan described how individuals take advantage of good journalistic practices, whereby giving a right to reply is used to start to overwhelm journalists, and highlighted that this sort of activity is undertaken by not just legal professionals but other, unregulated individuals. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has documented numerous cases where SLAPPs have smothered stories of profound public interest—stories exposing safety failures, corruption and malpractice. Such cases deserved public scrutiny, yet they were buried beneath a mountain of legal threats. Of course, the right to defend one’s reputation is important. It ensures fairness, prevents the spread of harmful falsehoods, and protects individuals from malicious attacks. Like others who have spoken today, I have first-hand experience of that. A journalistic blogger decided that they had proof that my time spent volunteering as a policeman was made up, and that I had committed a criminal offence in lying about it. At the height of an election campaign, I saw that story spread across social media and reach tens of thousands of people. It was only through my taking the available legal steps that stopped it spreading further. Shoddy journalism should not find shelter in anti-SLAPPs legislation, but when SLAPPs turn the scales of justice into tools of suppression, they undermine the very principles that they claim to protect. Sadly, the UK legal system is seen by some people as a favourable domain to stifle debate. Although it is not a watertight source, a 2020 survey by the Foreign Policy Centre revealed that the UK was the most frequent single international origin of legal threats against journalists, accounting for 31% of cases. By comparison, 35% of SLAPP threats originated in the US and the EU combined. Recognising the threat of SLAPPs, the previous Conservative Government introduced important legislation that the current Government said represented a significant step forward in this area. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 defined SLAPPs in law for the first time, introduced swift dismissal mechanisms and implemented cost protections in claims relating to economic crime, reflecting the then Government’s belief that 70% of SLAPPs are linked to financial corruption and the scope of the original Bill. The last Government also established the SLAPPs taskforce, a group of legal and media professionals tasked with improving our understanding of SLAPPs and equipping stakeholders to combat them. As others have mentioned, during the previous Parliament the former Member for Caerphilly, Wayne David, introduced the strategic litigation against public participation Bill, a private Member’s Bill that presented further possible steps to address SLAPPs.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Early Release Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Wanting to see justice delivered more consistently for victims is the key reason I sought election to this place, so it is an enormous privilege to take up this role today. In response to concerns raised last month about offenders who have been released early not being promptly tagged, the Secretary of State assured the House that she will monitor performance daily. Can the Government now provide concrete assurance to the House and the public that all offenders are being tagged as they should on release?

• 29 Jul 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your new role. I want to begin by paying tribute to the previous Rail Minister, my constituency predecessor Huw Merriman. I saw at first hand how hard he worked with Members across the House to deal with their transport issues, and I have since come to learn how hard he also worked as a constituency MP. It is a pleasure to wind up this debate for the Opposition and to have sat and listened to another set of accomplished maiden speeches across the House. We heard speeches from the hon. Members for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean), for South Ribble (Mr Foster), for Taunton and Wellington (Mr Amos), for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), for High Peak (Jon Pearce), for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young), for Smethwick (Gurinder Josan), for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew), for Watford (Matt Turmaine), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith), for Shipley (Anna Dixon) and for Blackpool South (Chris Webb). There were excellent speakers all round, but I will leave it to the Minister to pay detailed tribute to Members of his party. A consistent theme was the importance of family, which I strongly agree with. It was slightly surreal to hear my successor in Crewe and Nantwich pay tribute to me, and I thank him for his kind words. Sadly, I am not sure what I got wrong because no one there ever asked me if I had finished school before I asked for their vote. To continue with the rail puns, I am sure that he will be a worthy successor to me in Crewe and Nantwich, rather than just a replacement service. On the Opposition Benches it was helpful to hear from the former Rail Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). She has first-hand experience of the recent changes to our railways, and she explained clearly how this ideological approach is ignoring the reality on the ground, where the franchises should be the focus of the Minister’s attention. She asked where this is leading, and I noted that the Secretary of State referred to the work that the Government will do on the supply chain. Other Members have related their concerns about rolling stock. This is the beginning of the end when it comes to a flourishing rail sector with all sorts of people playing their part. It is clear that we all want to secure better services for passengers alongside value for money for taxpayers. Whatever our differences, we agree on that. The question is how we do it. The catastrophic impact of the covid-19 pandemic has forced a rethink—a necessary and important one. During the pandemic, the previous Government demonstrated clearly their commitment to the railways and to railway staff, providing large amounts of public money to keep the railways running and keep railway staff in their jobs. But that period also hastened the decline of the traditional franchise model as we know it. Passenger journeys plummeted and while there has been a significant recovery travel patterns have changed. That is why we conducted a major review of our railway services and how they operate, and suggested a change of approach as outlined by the shadow Secretary of State during her opening speech. That change of approach, as we heard today, is one the new Government are taking forward in many areas, but what we also heard today is that they are bringing with them not a passenger-first policy, but an ideology-first policy. Their priority is to ban the private sector from operating our main train services. Of all the things they say need doing, and with 14 years of opposition to come up with a list of what needs doing first, they have nationalisation, even though, as the Secretary of State said, it will not make train tickets cheaper or end the strikes. In fact, it is worth reading out the complete non-commitment on rail fares that Labour makes in its plan. It says it wants prices “kept, wherever possible, at a point that works for both passengers and taxpayers”. I can imagine the civil service pen of Sue Gray hovering over that particular sentence. It really is an exemplar of Labour’s modus operandi: using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. Reformed ticket prices, reformed working practices and increased reliability—that is what all our constituents want, and the consequence of their rush to implement their ideology is that they brought forward this plan without any evidence for why it will deliver any of that.