Kieran Mullan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Jun 2026 · Primary Care: Non-digital Access · Hansard source

  More

  I understand why making use of the NHS app and online appointments is sensible and works well for many patients, but I cannot be the only MP to have heard from constituents—you may even have heard from your constituents, Mr Speaker—who struggle with that. They may not have a smartphone. I have met many elderly patients who simply cannot make use of online forms and too often GP practices do not make it easy for them to make appointments by telephone or by walking in. It is important that the Government make it crystal clear to all our GP providers, who I know are doing their best, that no matter how far we go with digital innovation, our patients must always be able to access primary care through traditional routes, such as making an appointment by telephone or by walking in.

• 21 May 2026 · Family Justice System: Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  It is all very well to send people on training. As a doctor, I have sat in on training sessions. People can be in a training seminar together, and some will pay attention and some will not. Some will take it seriously, and some will not. If there is not a system of accountability at the other end, training can become a tick-box exercise if we are not careful.

• 21 May 2026 · Family Justice System: Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this debate on domestic abuse and safeguarding within the family justice system. Members in the Chamber will not be alone in having regularly encountered this issue in constituency casework. I expect all MPs across the House have constituents who are struggling with these issues, and perhaps even they are in their private lives. This subject demands seriousness, sensitivity and honesty from all of us. Behind every statistic in this debate are children living in fear, survivors trying to rebuild their lives and families navigating court processes at moments of enormous stress and vulnerability. For too many people, the family justice system is not an abstract institution; it is the place they have to go to where decisions are made that will shape their safety, their relationships with their children and often the trajectory of their lives for years to come. That is why getting the system right matters so much. As we have heard, domestic abuse is present in 73% of active family court proceedings and 87% of closed cases. One in five children in the UK experience some form of domestic abuse, and 78% of those children are directly harmed by the perpetrator. Those are sobering figures, and they remind us that domestic abuse is not something that exists separately from family justice proceedings. We also know that children are too often affected directly by failures of the system. According to Women’s Aid, over the last 30 years 67 child deaths have been linked to unsafe contact arrangements, with 19 having occurred since 2016. When we discuss safeguarding in family courts, we are discussing not peripheral procedural matters, but the core responsibility of the state to protect vulnerable people—women, children and also men. I want to acknowledge the work of survivors, campaigners and charities who have driven progress in this area through their extraordinary courage and persistence. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wokingham for bringing representatives from Kaleidoscopic UK, who I understand are attending the debate. I would be grateful to catch up with them afterwards, if that is possible. Many other groups and individuals work in this area. For example, I recently worked with Paula and Tony Hudgell and their MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), to secure the establishment of the child cruelty register, so that parents and other individuals who commit child cruelty offences are monitored and tracked in the same way that child sex offenders are. The Opposition also supported the Government’s measures to restrict the parental responsibility of serious child sex offenders. During the passage of that legislation, we successfully argued, alongside others, that the provisions should go further than was originally proposed. They would only have applied to parents who perpetrated offences against their own children, but with Members across the House, we persuaded the Government to change that to those who commit offences against all children. We agreed that, on balance, a threshold of “serious offences” was the suitable way to go, but that if that worked well and was effective, we should consider lowering that threshold. Why should anyone who commits any sort of offence against a child not automatically have to argue for their own parental responsibility? It is important to recognise the work that was undertaken by the previous Government, which others have mentioned. In particular, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognised as victims in their own right children who see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse. Dame Nicole Jabobs and others long advocated for those changes, and the Act made victims automatically eligible for special measures in court. Those changes and others reflect society’s growing understanding in recent decades of the importance of confronting and tackling domestic abuse and abuse of children. The previous Government also commissioned the harm panel review in 2020, which was an expert-led review into how family courts handle domestic abuse and serious offences. We launched a review into the presumption of parental contact, and we piloted the pathfinder model, now the child-focused model, to improve information sharing, increase judicial continuity and ensure that children’s voices are heard more effectively throughout proceedings. Alongside that, we invested £3.3 million in the mediation voucher scheme, helping thousands of families to resolve disputes outside the courtroom where it is appropriate and safe to do so. There is still room for mediation and other measures to reduce the burden on our courts and save them for the most complicated and difficult cases. Last year, the independent “Everyday Business” review painted a deeply worrying picture of how survivors often experience family court proceedings. Survivors described feeling that their abuse was minimised or treated as secondary to maintaining contact arrangements. Judges and magistrates identified serious pressures on them arising from limited court time, delays and lack of continuity. Only 21% of cases reportedly had judicial continuity—a striking figure that shows that even when cases as complex as these go through the court process, we cannot rely on a single judge seeing them through from start to finish. The report also highlighted siloed working between different parts of the system. In many cases, there are overlapping criminal and family proceedings, yet delays and backlogs can mean that family courts proceed before criminal matters are resolved. That can have a huge impact. If an individual subsequently receives a criminal conviction, that may well unpick and call into question the original rulings. These are not easy issues to solve. I recognise all of the work done and the arguments made by campaigners, but legislating in this area is incredibly challenging because the dynamics of families, particularly those experiencing breakdown, are very complex. There are also strongly held views in different organisations on, for example, the presumption of parental involvement and how family courts should approach contact arrangements. Many campaigners argue that abuse has historically been minimised in decision making. In too many cases that is true, but whatever view people take, there should be broad agreement on one central principle: safeguarding and child welfare must come first. That includes ensuring that professionals throughout the system are properly trained to understand the dynamics of domestic abuse. Women’s Aid has argued that we need not just legislative reform but a wider cultural shift across the family justice system. There is real substance to that argument, because even the best legislation will fall short if victims feel that they are not listened to, believed, or welcomed and facilitated to participate. I will be grateful if the Minister says more about how the Government intend to deliver cultural change in practice. I also want to talk about accountability. We have heard discussion of the Sara Sharif case. I have mentioned in the House before that I first encountered these issues as an MP through an amazing lady, a constituent of mine, who was fostering a young girl who had been removed from her family on a temporary basis. The wider family did not want that young girl to be given back contact with her immediate family, the foster carer did not think it was a good idea, and social services did not think it was a good idea—but the judge awarded custody back to her parents. That young girl is now in a wheelchair. She is highly dependent and severely disabled. The exceptional individual I mentioned went on to adopt her in those circumstances, which is one of the most noble things I have ever seen anybody do. She approached me because she was aware of all the mechanisms of accountability that everybody else in the system has to go through, particularly teachers and social services. She simply wanted to know what accountability was available for the judge. I wrote to the Lady Chief Justice and said, “Obviously, you can’t comment on this case, but what are the systems, for a case like this where things have gone badly wrong, for a judge to have to account for the decisions they have taken?” There are none, outside of complaints about extreme behaviour, which none of us would consider to really test the issues, or if the judge makes a legal error, for which the threshold is, again, really high. I think we have a lot to do. Certainly, in the Conservative party we are working on how we can introduce much more accountability in the judiciary—not to make them accountable to the Government, because the separation of the judiciary and the Government is very important. I draw on my experience as a doctor; we have done loads to improve the accountability of highly trained, highly specialist medical professionals who we would not want the state interfering with. It is simply about ensuring they are not a law unto themselves when it comes to making poor decisions. Previously, the test was pretty much whether a doctor had made a decision that any other doctor thought was reasonable. Now, the test is much more about whether that decision was objectively reasonable. I also want to touch on the pathfinder courts. As we have heard, 10 of 43 courts have now been implemented. I would like to understand the Government’s timetable for the very welcome decision to roll them out more widely. The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), talked about the interdependencies around access to specialist services to make that a reality. I think requesting a timetable is not asking too much of the Minister. Those are important things that we are all in agreement on, but at the same time this Government are taking what I think are catastrophic decisions in relation to the justice system. The Government have legislated for perpetrators of domestic abuse as serious as rape, child abuse, stalking and harassment—very many offences—to get out of prison earlier. Right now, there are people in prison for the rape of their partner, or sexual offences against their own children, who will get out of prison earlier because of the steps that this Government have taken. I will continue to press that matter with them, whatever else they are doing that is positive. People go to the court system because they want justice, and seeing rapists being let out early is not justice. That is something the Government should continue to reflect on.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of amendments 59, 35 and 36 tabled in my name, and the amendments outlined by the hon. Member for Chichester, all of which enjoy our support. Our amendments seek to ensure that efficiencies and improvements to the system are made, increasing the maximum of sitting days to 130,000 and, in a different way, addressing the issue of sitting hours. We are debating the fundamental restructuring of our criminal justice system, and the Government’s central argument—the Minister has admitted that it is not the sole argument; even though most of the rest of the Government talk about this as a necessity, she thinks it should be done anyway—is that the Crown court is in a state of emergency with the backlog that we all agree is causing much distress to victims and innocent defendants alike. Amendment 59 asks the Government to take all reasonable steps to increase Crown court sitting days and address the other challenges in the system that are limiting our ability to tackle the backlog—the avoidable operational failures currently crippling our courts. We must remember that Sir Brian Leveson acknowledged that jury trials are the gold standard of our justice system. The Minister herself accepted that there was something special about them. Juries are not just a step in a trial; they are a democratic barrier between the individual and the overreach of authority. They are an important way in which citizens participate in our justice system. The Deputy Prime Minister has been one of the biggest cheerleaders of the value and importance of jury trials, describing them as a “success story” and comparing them less favourably with the magistrates courts—although I am sure he respects and understands the benefit of magistrates courts—because of the ability of 12 citizens to look at a case uniquely and without prejudice. Productivity in the Crown court has fallen significantly, and analysis shows that courts are hearing approximately 20% fewer hours per sitting day than they were less than a decade ago. In evidence to us, the Bar Council shared analysis showing that the average for which each Crown court judge sits in court each day has fallen to 3.2 hours. That is due to inefficiencies such as technological breakdown, prisoner transport delays and difficulties with interpreter services. Just getting back to the 2016-17 level of 3.8 hours would be an 18% improvement, far outstripping the much debated, but we think much fairer, figure of a 1% to 2% improvement in relation to the reforms to jury trials. If the Government were serious about efficiency, they would start by addressing the low-hanging fruit in respect of the logistical problems. Members will remember the evidence from the HMCTS civil servant tasked with running the system, asking for it to operate efficiently. He talked about listing, prison transport and sitting days as his priorities, and none of the things that he felt would make a significant impact required any changes to jury trials. Prisoner escort and custody services, as they are known, have been a strong theme of concern from a wide variety of witnesses. The figures that I have show that there were 713 ineffective trials in 2023 solely because the prison escort service failed to deliver a defendant to court on time. Reports from barristers indicate that, in a quarter of cases, their clients were brought to court more than five hours late, meaning that the trial day could not start on time or was lost entirely. That grit in the system causes thousands of hours of delays across our courts, yet the Government’s priority is to remove the jury trial rather than fix the transport contract. Another major drain on efficiency is the timing of guilty pleas. Sir Brian Leveson noted that defendants used to plead guilty at their first or second appearance, but we now see many examples of guilty pleas occurring at the fifth or sixth occasion. The Minister is right to raise that, and we accept that one element is delays in the court system that reduce the incentive for a guilty plea. We have heard evidence that defendants would say, “I just want to hold off my guilty plea until I have a last Christmas,” but that has now become, “I want another two Christmases.” So we understand the delays, but they are not the only reason and are not an insurmountable problem. Instead of removing the right to a jury, the Government should focus on improving access to early legal advice, which we know can make a big difference. We can also learn from courts such as Liverpool Crown court that have a laser focus on an approach to listing, which encourages early engagement by defendants and legal representatives alike. That has produced results with their Crown court backlogs that are nothing like the national figure. They are not alone in showing what can be done without the need to erode our jury trial rights. The Bar Council points to other successes in the system and says that blitz courts, established by Crown courts such as Preston, Liverpool, Nottingham and others, are effective. Preston Crown court’s listing of domestic abuse cases from the autumn of 2024 until this year has reduced the time between plea and trial preparation hearing, listing and trial by 16%. Ipswich Crown court’s backlog is down 28% since January 2024, and Derby Crown court’s fast-track courts are being run with a specific focus on cases with allegations of domestic abuse. That scheme has been successful, with those cases now being listed for trial sooner than when they might have been otherwise. We also received evidence that the circuit in Wales does not have a backlog that is anything like the rest of the country, which shows what can be done. The Government promise that judge-only trials will be 20% faster, but that figure is based on highly uncertain assumptions and anecdotal evidence. We have made the argument in Committee that there might be savings up front, but we could lose those savings in the time taken by judges to deliberate and provide their summation, which we should also weigh up. Amendment 59 relates to all the things that could be done to improve efficiency without necessarily having an increase in sitting days, but we cannot support the removal of constitutional rights while we have not even hit the maximum sitting days target that Sir Brian Leveson recommended. Amendment 35 would require the Government to demonstrate that they have funded at least 130,000 Crown court sitting days before they can commence their reforms. That figure is the target number that Sir Brian says the Government should seek to achieve if they want to bring down the backlog. Our amendment would require HMCTS to assess that those sitting days have, as far as possible, been fully utilised, and that ties in with amendment 59. It is no good the Government funding, in theory, a maximum number of sitting days if they are not able to utilise them for various reasons, some of which I have covered. Amendment 35 would also require the Lord Chancellor to make a statement to the House confirming that, even after those steps have been taken, the number of cases pending trial has not been reduced compared with the start of the financial year. We are essentially putting forward a litmus test. If the Government want to say that they have no other options and that there is no other way to do this, they should at least take the steps recommended by Sir Brian in terms of efficiencies, reforming how the system operates and having the maximum number of sitting days, which they have to get to at some point anyway if they want to argue in support of Sir Brian Leveson’s report as a litmus test for what is sufficient. If the Government are confident in their analysis, they should have no difficulty meeting that test. I know the Minister will talk about the time it will take to reach that point, but the dial can be pushed both ways. I do not think the Government are seriously suggesting that the jury trial element of the reforms will make a drastic difference to the backlog in the next one or two years. As we have discussed, the time saving of the jury trial element on its own is not that significant. Amendment 36 has a different approach, but seeks to make the same point as new clause 4, tabled the hon. Member for Chichester, which relates to having two court sittings a day. Our amendment 36 asks the Government to approach another possible alternative reform of the operating hours of our courts—specifically, the potential for extending court sitting hours and introducing weekend sittings. If we are in a state of emergency, as the Government claim, our response should focus on maximising the use of our existing infrastructure, rather than dismantling the rights of the citizen. At present, our Crown courts often operate typically between 10 am and 4.30 pm. It is difficult to justify a policy that removes the right to a jury trial—a move estimated to save perhaps as little as 1.5% to 2.5% of court time—when we are leaving so many hours of the working day and the entirety of the weekend completely unutilised. Working normal business hours such as 9 to 5, or even utilising Saturdays for specific types of hearings, could provide a far more substantial reduction in the backlog than the structural reforms proposed in the Bill. We recognise that a possible move towards extended or weekend hours must be handled with extreme care. That is why we proposed amendment 36, which would require the Lord Chancellor to undertake a comprehensive consultation on the potential introduction of extended sitting hours before the reforms can commence. Operational changes of this magnitude cannot be mandated from a desk in Whitehall without understanding the impact on the human beings who keep the system running. The consultation would address the practical realities that will determine whether such a system is viable and sustainable, including the availability and wellbeing of HMCTS staff, who are already under significant pressure; the level of fees and remuneration required for legal professionals and court staff to work non-standard hours; and the impact on legal aid practitioners, many of whom, as we have discussed, find the challenges of working in criminal legal aid difficult. We must ensure that those who would be asked to work in this way—judges, barristers, solicitors and court staff—believe that any such plans are appropriate and supported by proper resourcing. To impose extended hours without their consent and without addressing the current crisis in retention and recruitment would potentially be counterproductive, rather than a benefit. Where could we look for an example of how this can be done in a way that is welcomed by staff who want to increase their income in a fair way? I was glad that the Minister raised the example of the NHS, which has an equivalent issue with waiting lists as we do with Crown court waiting times. The NHS uses weekend operating as a core part of its elective recovery strategy. To be clear, the NHS has always been a 24 hours a day, seven days a week service for urgent and emergency care, but it specifically uses additional, elective, planned operations. By opening facilities 7 days a week, the health service aims to maximise the use of expensive equipment and theatre space that would otherwise sit idle. I am sure that every Committee member can see the direct read-across. The Crown court is an expensive space with expensive equipment that sits empty and unutilised in what the Government describes as a crisis. A national programme in 50 hospitals runs what is called a weekend hitlist once a month. That approach focuses on one type of procedure a day, such as 24 endometriosis surgeries in a single weekend. It was pioneered by Guy’s and St Thomas’ foundation trust—the trust that looks after many of us when we are not well—and it is now being scaled up nationwide. The approach uses high staffing levels, rigorous pre-op assessment and enhanced theatre utilisation. Again, the read-across could not be more direct. We could have courts with trained staff to consider particular types of cases that had been assessed in advance as suitable for such sessions. Those courts could be set up to make the most of that, whether it is a Saturday or an evening. It is not just in those approaches that we see the Government and the NHS thinking more innovatively about how to make use of resources. Many of us now have community diagnostic centres in our constituencies. I know from when I was a junior doctor that, previously, it was extremely difficult to organise certain types of scans out of hours. The NHS have reformed the whole approach so that such tests, which had typically been restricted to just the working day, can now take place seven days a week to maximise capacity.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source

  More

  Let me say at the outset that the Opposition continue to support the broad aims of the Bill, as we have done throughout its passage. We recognise the importance of candour, transparency and accountability in public life and recognise the long and determined work of those campaigners, including the Hillsborough families and others who have fought for many years to ensure that where public bodies fail, evade, conceal or mislead, there are proper consequences. That principle remains an important one, and it is not a partisan principle. It is not owned by any one party or Government; it is a basic requirement of good government and of public confidence in the institutions of the state. As has been recognised throughout the passage of the Bill, legislation on its own cannot guarantee the cultural change that is needed. We have already introduced duties of candour in parts of the public sector—for example, the NHS—and have taken steps in recent years in policing to improve accountability, as well as creating the office of the independent public advocate, but questions remain about whether the system works as it should when it really matters. The lesson from Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal, the Post Office scandal and other serious institutional failures is that, yes, the legal framework matters, but so do culture and practice. For that reason, we want the Bill to progress and the areas of consensus to move forward, so we do not intend to oppose this carry-over motion. We have consistently taken part in proceedings in that matter. What I say next is not a criticism of the approach of campaigners, or indeed of the many Labour MPs who have been sincere and consistent in their campaigning on this issue over many years, including the hon. Members for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). The Government have utterly mishandled this legislation from start to finish, which is why we are here today, six months on from Second Reading, with a Bill pulled at the last minute—and with broken promises. I do not expect Labour Members to relish joining me in that criticism. The Minister will, I am sure, say that the Government have at least brought a Bill forward, as if that were a blank cheque for the manner in which these proceedings have been conducted. I have some sympathy for her—she has been put into difficult situations—but trust has been damaged on all sides. Even though this Bill is about trust, candour and whether the public can believe what they are told by those who exercise power on their behalf, the process by which the Government have pursued the Bill has too often fallen short of the standards that Ministers say they want to impose on others through this legislation. The Prime Minister announced the Bill last September at party conference, and gave the clear impression that families and campaigners were content with the detail on the approach being taken. The House should remember that it had been widely reported several months earlier that a draft Bill had been rejected by campaigners. What else could we have reasonably assumed other than that those concerns had been addressed? It has since become crystal clear that campaigners were in fact not satisfied with the draft proposals, and that their support was conditional—as I understand it, they made that clear to the Government—but the Prime Minister wanted his big announcement and proceeded anyway. The Hillsborough Law Now campaign has explained its view: the delays since January have been caused not by the families or campaigners, but by disagreements within Government and by objections from the Cabinet Office, the security services and others. All that should surely have been dealt with prior to the drafting, publication and big announcement of the Bill, and the fact that it was not is why we are debating this carry-over motion. On more than one occasion, we were presented with a version of the Bill that the Government told us was the only possible approach to the inclusion of the intelligence services—until it was not. We were told that the balance had been struck, but then the Bill was withdrawn and there were reports of further changes. The issues relating to the security services could not be more serious. The Government cannot have it both ways; they cannot tell the House at one stage that the Bill they have published is the only responsible approach to the inclusion of the security services—and marshal the leaders of the security services to say the same thing—before moving away from that position without properly explaining what has changed, why, and whether the earlier assurances given to Members were sound. The Opposition have always accepted that national security raises real and serious issues; there will be material that cannot be handled in the same way as ordinary departmental papers, as well as operations, sources, methods and relationships with allies that require safeguards. Any responsible Government must take that seriously. It was a Conservative Member—my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty)—who asked how those provisions might apply to elements of the armed force, and those elements were then included in the Bill very late in the day. That is another issue that should have been properly thought through before the Government reached the point of withdrawing the Bill in January, which has led us to this carry-over motion. This is part of a broader pattern. We have seen a lack of candour from the Lord Chancellor when he has been asked about prisoner release, and tomorrow we will debate the candour and honesty of the Prime Minister. I have absolutely zero faith in this Government—zero. The Bill is literally about candour in public office, but this process has left campaigners, Members and the public unclear about the Government’s position from one month to the next. The Government should not be surprised, then, that we will not simply accept assurances about the Bill at face value. Assurances are not enough; the test will be the text of the Bill, whether Ministers can explain clearly and consistently how the Bill will operate in relation to our security and other services, and whether the Government can show that they have balanced transparency, accountability and national security in a workable, principled and robust way. I hugely respect the Hillsborough Law Now families and campaigners, but I am not afraid to say that they may well not be entirely satisfied by this law. A responsible Government must sometimes say that to campaigners, but this incredibly weak Prime Minister is not able to do so. The families and campaigners who have fought for this legislation deserve better than drift, confusion and mixed messages; they deserve frankness and candour. If the Government are not willing to do everything that the campaigners ask, they should just tell them so and get on with it. The public deserve legislation that is not merely well intentioned but clear, workable and effective. As I have explained, we will not oppose the carry-over motion, but we will scrutinise what comes next with the seriousness that the subject demands and the scepticism that the Government’s handling of the Bill has regrettably earned.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister was absolutely right to point to the enormous burden on those judges. I should have made a similar observation, and I am happy to do so now. Although I have been critical of some of their decisions, I cannot imagine the weight that sits with some of those people all the time, so I want to put on the record my thanks to those judges—on the whole, they do a very good job. However, we still come back to the issue of accountability. We can preload the system to ensure that judges are more likely to make suitable decisions but, if there are no accountability mechanisms at the other end, we will not necessarily get the results that we want. What thought has the Minister given as to how we better ensure accountability for decision making? In my practice as a doctor, for example, there are so many mechanisms in place to ensure that the decisions I make are not just technically justifiable, but good. The point my constituent made when she visited me was that there are no such mechanisms for judges. If they make a strict error in law, that can be tackled through the Court of Appeal, but outside of that, how can the judiciary better hold itself to account for poor-quality, even if legally defendable, decision making? I am not talking about the Government interfering with the judiciary.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have a background in healthcare. The Minister has talked about triage being led by healthcare professionals, but there is another side of healthcare where people can insist on choice. This Government have introduced Martha’s rule, where the family member can not only insist on choice, but override what the treating clinical team think is the right course of treatment. They are given a route to go around them, to call someone, to insist that they are wrong and that they fundamentally disagree with them, and to get somebody else in who will challenge what the consultant in charge of the patient thinks is right. The Minister points to one element of the healthcare system where the state has a greater degree of control, but does she accept that there are other aspects of the healthcare system where we allow people to override what the healthcare team want to do?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, absolutely. In the NHS, I worked on what we might call change and improvement programmes or quality improvement programmes. We worked hard to replicate the best clinical practice everywhere, but it is simply not possible to directly replicate everything that goes on in every unit, although that is not to say that we cannot do some of what goes on. As the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden pointed out, we are not talking about a single court; that is why I was clear about looking at this on a regional basis. I do not think that the data in any of these regions is getting better because of one court that has specific circumstances that cannot be replicated. That is why we have to show a high degree of interest in understanding what can be replicated and in trying those measures. As we heard from the representatives of the criminal Bar and the circuit, we should give them a chance to try some of these things before we do something so unprecedented that will lead to a curtailment of rights. Nobody thinks that the other, positive parts of the Bill, or the measures that do not even require legislation, take away from anything else; they are just exceptionally positive things we could be doing where we do not pay some kind of price. Surely, we should try those before taking the step proposed in the Bill. Whether or not we think this step is reasonable—Labour Members have made it clear that they do—I doubt they think it will not lead to a loss in relation to jury trial rights.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) on securing this important debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for the work that she has done in relation to her constituent. I pay tribute to Claire. She has taken what must have been a horrific experience and, rather than letting it overwhelm and subdue her, used it to empower herself to have a voice on this issue for the benefit of others. I record my thanks to prison officers and prison staff across the country. They go to work in difficult, dangerous conditions, doing a job that most of us would struggle to imagine. I come from a public service background—I was a doctor, I volunteered as a policeman, my mum was a nurse and my dad was a policeman—and I have always been struck by the contrast in our public discourse. It is interesting that we have an awareness of, and give our recognition to, those sorts of public emergency service workers but we do not do the same for prison officers. Prison officers do a job that is just as important, if not more important, and under more difficult circumstances. I know that multiple Secretaries of State for Justice have tried to address that with initiatives to change the public’s perception and help them recognise how important that work is. I absolutely recognise it, and I think that prison officers should be held in exactly the same esteem as other emergency service workers, because that is what they are. In discussing violence, to some extent this debate has focused on blades because of what happened to Claire, but we have seen violent assaults that have used whatever was to hand. Only two weeks ago, we had reports of an offender who attacked a prison officer with a plastic knife, so it does not matter what the particular weapon is. In recent months, we have seen assaults across the estate using boiling liquids and makeshift implements. There are much broader issues around the safety of officers. After the appalling attack in April last year on three officers at HMP Frankland—the same place where Claire was attacked—Ministers commissioned a snap review and announced, in June last year, that protective body armour, meaning stab-proof vests, will be mandatory for officers working in close supervision centres and separation centres, with segregation units in the high security estate also benefiting from the roll-out. I welcome any sensible steps to make it more likely that officers will go home safe. In September 2025, the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending told Parliament that “stab-and-slash-resistant” protective body armour “will be made and issued as quickly as possible” and that it was expected to be issued “by autumn 2025”. Later that month, the Government announced £15 million of investment, increasing the number of vests available to staff from 750 to 10,000, including 5,000 to equip every officer working in long-term and high security prisons. That announcement also stated that prisons had already begun to receive kit that week, “ready to be worn”. Those are great and welcome commitments. The problem is that when Parliament has asked very simple questions, namely how many of those vests have actually been issued, Ministers have not been able to answer. In October, the Government said that the roll-out across the long-term and high security estate was expected to begin during 2026. In February this year, when asked in the Lords specifically how many of the 5,000 stab-proof vests for high security prisons have been issued, Ministers again did not provide a number but just said they “expect to begin implementation across the estate” this year. My first set of questions to the Minister is straightforward and factual. How many stab-proof vests have been procured since September? How many have been delivered to prisons? How many have been individually fitted to officers? What proportion of the long-term and high security estate is now operating with every officer equipped as the Government promised? Secondly, will the Minister set out clearly what “mandatory” means? We know that protective body armour is mandated in close supervision centres, separation centres and high security segregation units. We also know, from a September 2025 written answer, that body armour is already issued for Operation Tornado deployments and for operational response and resilience unit deployments, and that it is required for planned use of force or high-risk prisoner management. We also know, however, that the question of routine issue across other prison categories is very much alive. In Justice questions, a Labour Member told the House, “Unlike in category A prisons, prison officers at HMP The Verne and HMP Portland are not routinely issued with protective body armour”, —[ Official Report , 17 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 750.] and they asked for appropriate armour for officers regardless of category. I ask the Minister: are the Government now considering the provision of appropriate body armour for all prison officers irrespective of the category of prison in which they serve? Will the Minister provide a clear and comprehensive statement following this debate—as I appreciate he will not be able to go through all the details now—on where body armour is mandated on a unit-by-unit basis, where it is mandated by activity, and where it is available to officers if they want it, but is not required? That level of transparency is essential for the House, given the promises and pledges that the Government are making. We welcome them, but they do not seem to be transparent about what they are actually delivering. The point was made that it is not about just saying, “Here’s some armour—get on with it.” We need detail on the weight of the armour, the heat burden, the cover design, and what in-life monitoring and replacement cycles are in place. Those are also important, as is how the Government ensure proper fitting and equality of provision, particularly in relation to female staff. I am afraid the Government have a lot of work to do. I know the Minister will be critical, as others have been, of our time in government, but if we look at their record in government when it comes to prison officer numbers, they are down. In March 2025 there were 22,737 full-time equivalent band 3 to 5 prison officers in post. As of December, that was down by around 700 to 22,067, and that builds on drops from their earlier time in government. Although the previous Government took steps to equip officers by rolling out body-worn cameras and introducing safety tools alongside a clear emphasis on training and de-escalation, I recognise we should have gone further on the provision of body armour and other equipment where officers in the POA felt it was in prison officers’ interest, and I regret that we were not able to. As the Minister knows, we have worked together on the change to the law for whole-life orders for people who murder prison officers on duty or off duty. We worked together on that successfully on a cross-party basis. We support the Government on measures that are helpful. I want to finish with Claire. The offender who attacked Claire is currently held in HMP Frankland in a separation centre and is subject to isolation. We have already discussed the attacks that took place at that centre where people were gravely injured. Sadly, we have seen the Government give thousands of pounds of compensation to people who have been responsible for vile crimes in isolation centres because of a breach of their human rights. That is on the record and we know that that has happened. The Mirror reports that the same person who attacked Claire—the person I am sure the Minister will get up and condemn; I am sure the Minister will pay tribute to Claire and say how fantastic her campaigning is—will get compensation from the Government for having been in an isolation unit. That would be a disgrace and deeply insulting to Claire and all the other prison officers who would see that as an insult after what Claire had gone through. I ask the Minister to write to Claire’s MP, the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South, to tell her very clearly—if he cannot tell us now—whether the Government have paid or are going to pay compensation to the man who so brutally attacked Claire? He does not deserve a penny of taxpayers’ money. When will the Government bring forward their promised plans to review the legal framework through which these vile people get taxpayers’ money because apparently we have breached their human rights? In the response to the independent review of the isolation units, the Government promised to bring forward a review of the framework. They still have not done that. Can the Minister tell us, following the cases in the public domain, whether there have been any further claims lodged by offenders because of the time they have spent in isolation? I think we deserve to know that, and we deserve to know for certain that the person who attacked Claire, who we are all here paying tribute to, will not get a penny of taxpayers’ money.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you very much. Morwenna? Morwenna Loughman: Thank you for having us all here. I waited two and a half years for my rape trial to go ahead. It was delayed twice—each time, the day before we were due in court. The second time it was delayed, it was actually confirmed, and then five hours later, on email, we were told that it was not going ahead. He had lied his way out on bail and breached his bail conditions 23 times. During those two and a half years, I lost my job, I lost my home and I developed acute PTSD, a side effect of which was a repeated vomiting syndrome, which meant that I had to go to hospital to have my oesophagus repaired. I am also here to speak about juries not being bastions of infallibility. The treatment of the jury that I experienced was one of attrition. In particular, the foreman came out at one point and asked the judge, “If she’d been raped so many times, why did she not leave earlier?” I would also like to talk about the treatment of victims while they are on the stand. During cross-examination, I experienced pervasive and repeated use of rape myths and stereotypes in a way to deliberately mislead the jury against me.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thanks ever so much for coming, and for your patience with the parliamentary procedure. I know that these things are really challenging sometimes, so I want to thank you in advance for talking about difficult things. Also, rather than being dependent on what we may ask you, I want to give you the opportunity to lay out two or three points that you really want to get across to us today. Claire Throssell: Thank you for the question, and I have four points that I really want to get across this afternoon. First, I want to make it clear that presumption has no place when it comes to children’s safety. Presumption has no place when it comes to children’s lives. Presumption has no place when it comes to our lives. What happened to Jack and Paul was based on a series of presumptions under practice direction 12J, and you have to ask the question: why did a professional working for CAFCASS, after being barricaded in her office, presume that Jack and Paul were safe to go on a visit? Why did she presume that I was exaggerating, despite me telling her and a court—let us be clear that I did—that he was capable of killing? Why was it presumed that it was okay to ignore my voice? Why did they presume that two children would be safe when they had clear evidence in front of them that they would not be? We are talking about presumption, and people say, “Yes, the practice direction is there in the Children Act 1989.” Let us be clear: there are 68 children who have died under that Act. There are 68 children who have died under practice direction 12J. I say again: presumption has no place when it comes to children’s safety. I am going to show some evidence now, and I show these pictures not to shock or upset people, but to show the reality of presumption of contact. I would like to show you two photographs, the first of which shows Jack and Paul. They were never child A and child B in a serious case review. They are child 18 and child 19 in a Women’s Aid report that looked into how many children have died at the hands of known perpetrators of domestic abuse. This 12-year-old boy, Jack, died believing that he had saved the life of his younger brother, because I never told him differently—I held both my sons in my arms as they died. Jack’s voice was never heard; the day he was supposed to have his interview with CAFCASS was the day that he died in my arms. The only time this boy’s voice was heard was on a landing, when he spoke to a fireman and a doctor. Although he was dying, he used as much of his strength as he could to tell as many people in that property, “My dad did this, and he did it on purpose.” This was taken by the police as a dying testimony. Why did they not take his words in life? Why did they take his words in death? This second photograph of Jack is again evidence of what happens with presumption of contact. The first photograph of Jack was taken in the July, and this second photograph shows Jack in the October. CAFCASS and a court presumed that this boy would be safe. Social services presumed that this boy would be safe. This boy died believing that he had saved the life of his brother, and more importantly, he thought of everybody else but himself. When people should have protected him, he went back for his brother. He gave his brother his hand. He gave his brother his strength. He was there for his brother, but who was there for him at 12 years old? Not the court that ordered contact because of the culture in the family courts that contact is in the best interests of the child—that they should see both parents. Jack had nobody, and he thought about me—he made sure that everybody in the property knew that I was not to blame. As a parent, I am ashamed of that, because it was my role to protect them. Let us be clear that I have to live with the fact that they died only because a domestic abuser wanted to punish me. A family court allowed him to do that, but these two beautiful boys only lost their lives because of me. When we talk about repealing presumption of contact, let us look at it: over 30 years, children have died. In 2014, Jack and Paul were child 18 and child 19. Let us face the fact that, in 2026, we are at 68 children. That is not good enough, because every child deserves to live. Every child deserves to have a childhood, and their childhood should not be allowed to be torn apart piece by piece by seeing a perpetrator of domestic abuse—by seeing a person who just wants to hurt them, humiliate them and punish an ex-partner. Children have one childhood. Children at risk of harm only have today; they do not have tomorrow. You have a chance—a lifesaving opportunity—right here, right now to make a difference to children’s lives, not just today, not just tomorrow, but for generations of children to come. It is no surprise that there are many people in their 20s with mental health issues. Mental health has never been as bad as it is right now in young people. And why is that? It is because they are made to see a parent who is hurting them. They are made to see a parent who is harming them. It might not be physical, and it might not be the ultimate act, like it was for Jack and Paul, but if a child comes back from a visit and they are different from how they were when they went on the visit, let us be clear: that is child abuse. Children are supposed to have a voice. Children are supposed to have opinions. But all too often there are too many other voices in this complex system that are louder than the child. We hear about parental rights all the time, but around children’s rights there is a deafening silence. We have an Act that protects them: the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. They are supposed to be seen as victims in their own right, and yet, up and down our country, their rights are still being walked over—not only their rights under the Domestic Abuse Act, but their human rights too. They have the same rights as we do. They are people; they are humans; they are themselves. Their basic rights—to live, to thrive, to live in privacy, to live in peace—are being broken in courts up and down the country. That is not good enough. They are the future of this country, and if we get this wrong, what does the future of our country look like? What have we got for the future? They are not being allowed to live as they want to live. They are not being allowed to be free. They are certainly not allowed to thrive. If you go to school, college or university and you have suffered that morning, how are you going to learn? How is that conducive to achieving in life and being who you could be? I used to tell the boys, “Be the best that you can be today.” They only had today. Right now, with this Bill repealing presumption of contact, we can give every child in this country the tomorrow that not just Jack and Paul, but 66 other children will never see. This issue is bigger than Jack and Paul, but they were my reality. They were my children. They were the better parts of me. But 66 children are anonymous. Successive Governments have made them a child A or a child B in a serious case review, to gather dust in a file in Whitehall or around here, just brushed under the carpet. Serious case reviews—lessons must be learnt. I can ask everybody in here, “What lessons have we learnt?”, because every year we are losing more children, and we are losing more children because of practice direction 12J, because of presumption of contact. There should never be presumption—not in law, not when it comes to safety, not when it comes to lives. You would not go in a court and presume that somebody is guilty.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Rural Roads · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot possibly do justice to the frustration of my residents about their local roads in one minute, but I will try my best. They contact me all the time to say how appalled they are at the quality of their local roads. The Labour Government fail to understand the challenges in rural communities, making the situation all the worse with their funding decisions since they came into office. First, since my constituency has a lot of older people, the Government’s cutting off of our plans to reform social care spending have left us with huge financial burdens. Secondly, they cut the amount of money that was due to be given to East Sussex county council to pay for road improvements. Thirdly, to make it all the worse, they changed the funding formula to make it much harder for rural counties such as East Sussex and so many of the rural constituencies represented by Members in this Chamber to make ends meet and repair their roads. Will the Government finally start listening to rural MPs, councillors and councils, and sort these issues out once and for all?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the purpose of this statutory instrument. Having reviewed it, the Opposition will not be opposing the instrument this evening. Each amendment is limited in scope and responds to specific gaps that have been clearly identified. One of the clearest areas where that is the case is the provision for self-employed individuals and those employed directly by private individuals. As the explanatory memorandum explains, the final report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse recommended enabling self-employed people working in sensitive roles with children to obtain checks against the DBS children’s barred list. I understand that the Government’s subsequent progress update confirmed that, by the end of 2025, self-employed people and those employed by private individuals will be able to access high-level DBS checks. We fully recognise the importance of those recommendations, and I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether they are still on track for that. Forgive me if those checks have already been made available, but if they have not, are we on track for the end of the year? At present, an individual carrying out a role within an organisation can be subject to the appropriate enhanced or barred list check, while a self-employed person doing identical work cannot. That inconsistency is neither sensible nor safe. It is also worth recognising that this direction of travel is not new; the previous Conservative Government accepted the principle of the IICSA recommendations and began the process of reviewing the supervision exemption and considering widening access to barred list checks. The changes relating to electronic monitoring contractors are justified and a proportionate response to risk. Staff working with monitoring technology occupy positions of trust, and allowing fuller disclosure checks will help to reassure the public that the system is robust and that those carrying out that important work meet the necessary standards of integrity. Likewise, enabling the Department for Work and Pensions and its contractors to require disclosure of spent convictions for registered healthcare professionals reflects the sensitive nature of the work that those professionals undertake. They are individuals who assess vulnerable claimants, often with access to personal and medical information; it is appropriate that they are subject to the same safeguarding standards expected in the NHS and other comparable roles. Taken together, these changes strike the right balance between supporting rehabilitation and ensuring public protection. They are targeted, proportionate and consistent with public expectations and existing safeguarding frameworks. My questions for the Minister are about the implications for the volume of checks that we might expect as a result of more people being suitable for them, and whether he can update us with important contextual information. In my local area, for example, some people experience significant delays and sometimes wait so long for checks to be completed that job offers fall through. We support these changes, but while they might be well intended and sensible, the Minister is introducing yet more checks into the system, so it is important that he outlines whether there are any issues in the current system—which I think there are—with people getting checks. If he is introducing more, he needs to keep them on a tighter rein. I know that the process is devolved to each local police force, but it would be good if the Minister gave an overview of how well he thinks it is currently performing.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This is one area of the Bill where we need some clarity about how exactly it will operate. Before becoming an MP, I worked for a patient advocacy organisation, so I saw at first hand just how challenging inquests can be for patients’ relatives. I spoke to so many families who had to sit and watch while a portrayal of events, which they had no ability to challenge, was given at an inquest. I am sure that many Members have dealt with individuals who have had an experience with a coroner, outside of the big national scandals, that was not as they would want it to be. There is an underlying challenge that coroners are very different from other public bodies, agencies and office holders, because to some extent they can just do their own thing. That makes it very hard to achieve a consistent approach. I have a number of questions. First, who exactly will decide whether the public authority’s costs are reasonable? The chief coroner was very clear that she felt that coroners were not equipped to do that, and even if they were, it would take time and resources. We all need to understand what the process will be. Importantly, will there be a mechanism for someone to challenge that? If the coroner is not personally engaged with everything that this Government are trying to do with the Bill—as we are sympathetic to—and they do not make any reasonable attempt to control a public body’s costs in line with what we are asking of them, what is the route for challenge? I have heard concerns from people who work on the frontline of a public body. Sometimes, the reputation of the organisation is defended, but conversely, the reputation of an individual can be at risk in these sorts of situations—I go back to my experience in healthcare. We would not want a perverse scenario where the organisation throws an individual under the bus and makes no particular effort to ensure that their role is adequately explained and defended—accepting that we do not necessarily agree technically that it would be defending, but rather inquisitorial. Complex family arrangements were raised in the evidence sessions. How exactly does it work if the parents are divorced? The Minister touched on that towards the end of her speech, and mentioned that another family member must not have applied for funding. Again, would there be a limit? Could every single individual family member get help? How would that be determined? The question that politicians always have to come back to is that of funding. Is this new funding that has been allocated to the Ministry of Justice outside of its existing budget, for what we imagine would be a significant increase in legal aid spending? Will the Minister reassure those people who have an interest in other areas of legal aid spending that they will not be reduced as a result of this new area of legal aid spending? I just want to understand where the money has come from.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Professor Fowler, does NHS England do anything to fulfil that function—look at all the reports in aggregate and summarise and share them? Professor Fowler: We certainly look at all the reports that are sent to us in a themed way, and look at the themes from that. In fact, I met the chief coroner this week, and we have regular discussions. You will know we have the medical examiner system now, and there is more we can do tie in the different processes and make sure that we learn from them. We look at what organisations report in quality accounts. We have prevention of future deaths reports and the “Learn from patient safety events” database, in which about 0.5% of the 3 million incidents are related to death. We bring the learning from those things together in a themed way with other data to ask, “What can we learn from all this together?” For example, medical examiners may require people to do a structured judgment review. We make sure that if that is requested, it is carried out, the learning is taken from it, actions are followed up and the cycle is completed, if you like.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am the shadow Minister. It may well be that others asked for you to be here, but I asked in particular because the NHS already has experience with the legal duty of candour, so it is important to understand what you have learned from its operation. Even though you have had a legal duty of candour in the NHS for quite some time, I do not think any of you would claim that has meant the NHS has been candid with people in every single circumstance in which we would want it to be. If you accept that premise—you may not agree—why do you think it has not done what it needed to do for everybody? Do you think the Bill will make a difference? Let us go down the line, starting with Dr Chopra.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Professor Waters, first I want to acknowledge the circumstances that bring you here today, which is not something that any of us would want to experience. Condolences on your loss. What was your experience of applying for legal aid, and what difference did it make to you that you did not get representation? Professor Waters: It was two years ago exactly on this day that the inquest into my sister’s death started. We found out four days before the commencement of the inquest that our application for legal aid had been refused—four days. In preparation for that and the possibility that we might have to go into the inquest not represented or foot the bill ourselves, or the lawyers have to do it pro bono—why should they?—I read over 2,000 pages of disclosure evidence. It was very traumatic, as you can imagine, to read some of the details of what my sister went through and some of the medical reports and so on. That alone was traumatising. A freedom of information request recently found out that Ofsted, which is one of three public bodies—interested parties—that our family were up against, spent £68,000 on external counsel alone and could not provide us with the figures for how much it had spent in its internal legal department. Ofsted has its own legal department—but it still spent £68,000 of taxpayers’ money on external counsel. Presumably, the other interested parties, Reading borough council and Berkshire NHS trust, will have spent similar amounts of money and also have their own internal legal departments. My family, as taxpayers, were indirectly paying the legal fees of the three bodies that had done harm to my sister. That just speaks volumes on the imbalance of power in this system. It is really retraumatising that at your absolute lowest—and I really hope that no one in this room has been where I was—it is at that point that you suddenly have to navigate this entirely alien system. You do not have lessons at school on what an inquest is, where you find an inquest lawyer, what a prevention of future deaths report is, what kind of coroner you want or what kind of inquest you are going to get. But suddenly, when you are absolutely traumatised by a terrible and preventable death of a loved one, you have to find this stuff out. I am here speaking to you. I have been speaking publicly about what our family has been through and continues to go through—but for every person like me and the other witness, how many hundreds of people are there who are crushed by that system and are unable, for whatever quite legitimate reason, to stick up for themselves and inform themselves? Parity of arms is absolutely crucial and it cannot come soon enough.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Access to GPs · Hansard source

  More

  There are a number of exciting opportunities for extended GP premises in my constituency—in places like Martins Oak in Battle, Little Common and Old Town, and Oldwood in Robertsbridge. One major challenge is the rates that the NHS district valuer is willing to offer for construction sites; they have just not kept up with the inflation we have seen across all sectors of construction. I did have a meeting with the Minister for Care and it was helpful to start those discussions, but we have not made the progress that we need to. Can we have a further meeting, and will the Secretary of State outline what he will do to ensure that district valuers are offering rates that can allow construction to go ahead?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Today is the day that, first and foremost, at the front of our minds will be one group of people, some of whom join us in the Gallery: those harmed by the state, those misled by the state, those lied to by the state. But those same people refused to accept that and would not take no for an answer. Those people knew the truth—the truth of what happened to them and to their relatives—and fought on to make sure everybody else knew it as well. The movement towards greater accountability and transparency in public life owes everything to them. The Hillsborough disaster stands as the example that many of our constituents will perhaps think of first. Ninety-seven lives were lost on 15 April 1989, and many others were profoundly affected, as the Prime Minister so powerfully articulated. As the Prime Minister also pointed out, among them was a Member of this very House. The hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) was 16 years old at the time and was a spectator at the match. He has been an unrelenting advocate for those who shared with him the horror of that day and what happened afterwards. As if the tragedy of those events was not enough, what followed served only to compound it over generations. In the decades that followed, despite multiple inquiries, reviews and inquests, the truth of what happened remained obscured by lies—by a cover-up. We would all wish to be able to say that this is the only example of institutional defensiveness, of covers-ups and of the reputation of organisations being prioritised over doing what was right, but as this House sadly knows, it is not. Between the 1970s and early 1990s, thousands of UK patients contracted HIV and hepatitis after receiving contaminated blood, blood products and tissues. Reflecting on the findings of his inquiry into the matter, Sir Brian Langstaff said quite simply that: “People put their faith in doctors and in the government to keep them safe and their trust was betrayed.” Experimentation, deception, cover-up. And there are more examples. We have all been shocked to hear about the trauma and experiences of our postmasters and their families, as they were ruthlessly pursued by the Post Office and the Crown Prosecution Service over many years, with the failure of successive Governments to exercise their oversight to protect them. We have seen other failures in healthcare, policing and housing, some well known and others not so well known. But whether 97 lives are lost or just one, the impact on families is lifelong and severe. The themes have been consistent: the resistance of the state to accept its wrongdoing; the aggressiveness of the state in responding to challenge; and the willingness of individuals working for the state to put themselves first over the people they are expected to serve. Again and again, David and Goliath battles are played out as the resources of the state, in all its forms, have been deployed against innocent people, innocent victims. As we reflect on the proposed measures before us, it is sensible to consider the changes that have been made in this area. On legal representation, the means test for legal help and representation at inquests for applications to the exceptional case funding scheme has been removed and we have seen a steady number of applications over recent years. Measures were introduced to promote candour in policing, when the offence of police corruption was created in 2017. In the health service, the duty of candour was introduced following the Francis inquiry into catastrophic failings in health at Stafford hospital. Through part 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, we legislated for the creation of an Independent Public Advocate, whose role is to ensure victims and bereaved families are properly supported and represented after major incidents. However, a desire to do more has remained. Bishop James Jones’s report, “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”, reflected on the experiences of the Hillsborough families and set out key lessons for public bodies. It called for the bereaved to have “proper participation” at inquests where public authorities are represented, and identified other key areas for reform; alongside work by the Law Commission, it provided a key basis for the Bill before us. It should be noted, however, that Bishop James emphasised that legislation alone is insufficient. As mentioned, a statutory duty of candour already exists in parts of the public sector, particularly in the NHS, but question marks remain over the success of its implementation. The lesson is clear: legal change must be accompanied by cultural change. In principle, we welcome the aims that underpin the Bill and which we are asked to consider on Second Reading. It is, however, always incumbent on this House to reflect on and consider whether the legislation we pass is as good as it can be, no matter how laudable the aim, and to ensure that we avoid any unintended consequences. It is no secret that despite a very long-standing commitment on the Labour Benches to bring legislation of this nature forward, the Government themselves wrestled with how to do so appropriately. This Bill should be one that Members scrutinise closely. Members and our staff are quite rightly on the extensive list of public servants who will be in scope, under schedule 4. We will be able to look at the implications of the Bill and reflect on how it might interact with our work, where contention and disagreement are often at the heart of our decisions. As such, there are a number of questions and points for consideration that I would like to raise with the Government. First, are we sure that the language in the Bill will provide the necessary legal clarity to underpin its successful operation? The Bill makes use of terms like “reckless” and “seriously improper”. It also states, for example, that the Act is designed to “ensure that public authorities and public officials at all times perform their functions…in the public interest”. How often do we disagree in this House on what constitutes the public interest? How often do we question the truth of what is being said? Although superficially it might seem obvious—in the examples we have considered today, which are at the forefront of our minds, the failure to act in the public interest is clear and unquestionable—in other situations, we might be left with conflicting views as to what the public interest is. How will we differentiate between interpretations of the public interest in a way that does not allow individuals to escape the measures being proposed in the Bill? We have seen Government decisions that the Government consider to be in the public interest challenged repeatedly, and often successfully, in the courts. Individual public servants will also have their own views on what is or is not in the public interest; we will need to consider that, too. Further, how will the Bill be utilised by campaign groups that wish to legally challenge the Government in support of what they consider to be in the public interest? That is not to say that we cannot make the Bill work, but we need to consider its terminology carefully. Part of the Bill deals with misconduct in public office. This represents one of the most significant changes to the way in which we hold public officials to account. Under the proposals, the common law offence of misconduct in public office will be replaced with two new statutory offences: seriously improper acts, and breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. This follows recommendations by the Law Commission, which suggested that the current offence be replaced with a clearer statutory provision that is both less broad and easier to interpret. The Opposition fully recognise that this is an area of the law in need of clarity, but, for all its many imperfections, the common law offence has at least provided flexibility as a means of addressing serious misconduct that might not fit clearly into an approach based on specific statutory offences. I would be grateful for the Government’s reassurance on that point. Will the Government also share their view on the reduction in the maximum penalty from life imprisonment, as available under the current common law offence, to between 10 and 14 years’ imprisonment under the statutory offence? Misconduct in public office strikes at the heart of public trust in Government and the rule of law, and we must ensure that the penalties available to the courts reflect that seriousness. The area where I would most welcome assurance is in considering whether the measures in the Bill will fall most squarely and most strongly on the right shoulders. In its critique of the existing legal framework for misconduct in public office, the Law Commission said there was “a concern that it tends to be used primarily against relatively junior officials, rather than more senior decision-makers that members of the public might more readily expect to be held criminally accountable.” Of course, public servants, no matter how junior, are accountable for their actions, but how can we be sure that these measures will ensure that accountability goes all the way to the top? We all know that influence and power can be exercised over junior staff without there ever being an email, written instruction or any other proof. Junior staff in an organisation with the wrong culture can come to understand what is expected of them and that there are consequences if they do not comply, regardless of what we might be able to readily prove in court. I know that this Bill will be deeply welcomed by campaigners and Members who have long called for its measures. I mentioned one particular Member at the start—the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby—but I know that Members across the House, across different causes and across different constituencies have challenged these issues. The principle of what the Government are trying to do—to stop the voice of the state and public bodies drowning out the voices of our constituents, whether through use of resources or misconduct—is the right one. We all know the fallibility of the state and the ways in which the wrong people take the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons: for their self-interest, to protect themselves or to protect their organisations. No Bill alone can guarantee against that, and perhaps there are ways in which this Bill can be improved. However, the Opposition welcome the start of its consideration, and we stand ready to play a constructive role.