Kieran Mullan MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  We return to consider the measures on parental responsibility. There was significant debate in our earlier sitting on the need to balance the measures, and the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats both moved amendments to widen the Bill’s scope in ways that I think would have been proportionate and necessary to secure the maximum possible benefit from a novel measure to protect children from people who would not ordinarily be able to exercise their parental responsibility. The debate was about the need for balance, which is why, at the same time as seeking to widen the scope of the measure, we want to secure balance by making amendments to ensure that the family court has a bigger role to play where we introduce automatic powers for taking this through the family court. Under the Bill as drafted, a review by the family court is required only if an offender is acquitted or if their sentence is reduced to below a life sentence or a term of four years or more. The amendment deletes those conditions by removing proposed new section 10D(1)(b), which limits review to the specific appellant outcomes I have described. We believe that automaticity, while preferable to the risk of inaction in relation to children, should be enhanced with a considered approach—when time allows—to taking the necessary protective steps. The amendment would ultimately require such orders to be reviewed on their own merit, in a family court, with children’s welfare as the guiding principle. Our amendments would ensure that the safeguarding lens of the family court is engaged in all cases, not just in those that meet certain technical thresholds. This morning, the Minister was keen to emphasise the novelty of these measures, as well as the importance of the family court in considering these issues more widely. Our amendment would help to ensure that those correctly put points are enacted more consistently than they currently will be. An automatic power, while important, will inevitably have limitations in understanding the specific circumstances of each case. I have spoken to experts in this area, and they highlighted the rare but compelling cases where, despite one parent being convicted of a very serious offence, there may be similar safeguarding concerns about the other parent. Where parental responsibility is removed in one case, it might be left to a single person whom the family court might also consider inappropriate, in isolation, to be exercising parental responsibility. As unusual as they might sound, I understand that those scenarios sometimes occur. That is why family court practitioners are concerned about the automatic suspension of parental responsibility. Our amendments are designed to counterbalance those concerns and give greater strength to the desire of both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats in broadening the scope of automaticity with a stronger safeguard for those exceptional circumstances where, at times, it might not be considered the best approach.

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

  More

  As we have come to the conclusion of the clauses relating to these powers, I thought I might bring Baroness Newlove into the room and quote her view overall on the measures that we are passing. She says: “These important and welcome reforms give the Victims’ Commissioner the statutory powers needed to deliver on the role’s promise: championing victims’ rights, scrutinising compliance with the Victims code, holding agencies to account, and spotlighting the true victim experience to drive meaningful change. This marks a step towards a more accountable system that puts victims first.” The measures have also been welcomed by SafeLives, Green & Burton ASB Associates and Victim Support, which we heard from during evidence sessions earlier in the week. Therefore we do not intend to oppose this final measure of the three; as I say, they all reflect our long-standing commitment over 14 years in government to the role of the Victims’ Commissioner, which we sought to enhance over time. Of course, as I said, it is right for this Government to think further about other changes that can be made for the benefit of victims. Question put and agreed to . Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 Appointment of Crown Prosecutors

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

  More

  If the hon. Member wants to suggest where else such restraint might benefit victims and their families, I will absolutely support his case if I think it is legitimate. As I have said, my focus and the balance I want to strike is, as far as possible, in favour of victims and their families, and it is not about overly concerning ourselves, outside of clear medical reasons, with the rights and wellbeing of the criminal, who at this point has been convicted. This is not rocket science. Putting a bit of tape over someone’s mouth is effective. It is done in other countries. I really do not see why Members find it so difficult to understand. Earlier, I touched on the matter of victims’ and their families’ views about this measure. I have heard directly from family members of victims who accept that this sort of approach could be disruptive but still support it. I mentioned Ayse Hussein from Justice for Victims. Another member of Justice for Victims, Katie Brett, suffered the loss of her sister Sasha, who was raped, stabbed more than 100 times and had her body set on fire by her killer. Katie would have wanted him to be restrained and gagged, if that was what it took. I could go on, but I think that the point is made. I am, of course, mindful that not everyone will feel that the way that we have included in our amendment the requirement to consult victims and their families is appropriate, given earlier votes against that approach. However, I think that our amendments, in combination, will provide an effective measure that balances what some victims will want against what other victims may not want. Members will have to decide who they want to get behind: the kind of people who seem to feel uncomfortable about restraining and putting tape over the mouths of rapists, child abusers and murderers; or victims and their families who want to see that done. The choice is clear, and we on the Opposition Benches are clear what measure we will support.

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

  More

  I direct the hon. Lady to the statute book and to the case law that has evolved around that phrase. If the courts, this Government or our previous Government did not think it was a meaningful distinction, I do not know why we would have it on the statute book. It was introduced to provide the greatest possible benefit to those using force, in terms of legal protection and understanding that they would not be unfairly or unduly judged as a result. As I said, it has been on the statute book for quite some time. It is a legally recognised phrase, as distinguished from “reasonable force”.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  Q I also want to ask you about the new power that is being introduced in the Bill to compel offenders to attend sentencing hearings. We are tabling an amendment to suggest that victims and their families should be consulted as part of that process. Again, based on your experience of being in the courtroom and of working with victims and families, do you think there is benefit in ensuring that victims and families are part of the discussion about what happens with attendance at hearings? Genna Telfer: Absolutely. That was one of the points that we were going to raise today. I think victims should be considered and consulted as part of that process. Having read about the way that this is going to work—the different options such as potentially adding time to the sentence, or physically removing a suspect into court— the second option is “reasonable force” and I can imagine there are lots of issues with that, in terms of practicality. If someone really does not want to be in court, it will be difficult to achieve that. There is then the potential disruption that could be faced, such as delays for the victim because the trial takes longer to go ahead as a result of that issue. So I think some victims will absolutely want that, but others would probably prefer not to have it.

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

  More

  Q Okay. I would like to ask you next about sentencing remarks. Again, you work with victims; you see at first hand, through your victim care work, the trauma of a court process. Very often—outside some very limited trials—victims do not get to see sentencing remarks. A week later, it is all just what their memory tells them and what might be reported in the press. Again, based on your experience of working directly with victims through the criminal justice process, do you think there is any benefit in having sentencing remarks published, so that people can actually see what was said in court at the point of sentencing? Clare, do you want to start with this one? Clare Moody: I absolutely can see the benefit in that. When you are in the moment, with so many emotions, and are in a high state of emotional experience, we do not retain information—none of us does. So we are talking about being able to refer back to that. I am not clear, to be honest, on the reasons why the remarks are not already published, so I cannot argue to the specific points about why this does not exist right now. But my instinctive response, if that is fair, is that, yes, it would seem sensible to publish those remarks. Genna Telfer: I think this came up recently. I am not sure whether it came out from one of the surveys, but there was a question about victims being present at sentencing, and I know that some work was going on about that with the CPS as well. So if they want to be in the room, rather than just reading the remarks, obviously, that might be beneficial to some victims.

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

  More

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

• 2 Jun 2025 · Decriminalising Abortion · Hansard source

  More

  Although my right hon. Friend and I might not agree on where we draw the line on each of those very complex issues in different circumstances, I absolutely sympathise with the view that individuals sit within society and we have a wider obligation. Sometimes, laws and our customs are not there just for the benefit of individuals; they are there because of wider considerations.

• 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.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. On a recent visit, I saw the benefit of the SEN unit in All Saints school in Sidley. Does the Minister think that SEN units have a bigger role to play, and will Ministers meet me to discuss the funding challenges such units face?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Draft Home Detention Curfew and Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods (Amendment) Order 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. The Minister’s remarks were to be expected; they are in keeping with the trend across Government of defending decision after decision taken by them by reference to the Conservatives’ record and actions in office. That is the nature of politics, and I imagine it will continue for some time, but I am certainly not going to write any blank cheque to the Minister and the Government, nor abdicate our duty to hold them responsible and accountable for whatever they might say about their inheritance. It is our role to deliver scrutiny—of not just the overall outcome they are seeking but how they are going about it. Although the Government’s intent to address prison capacity pressures is clear, we must critically assess: whether these measures have been properly considered; that we can expect them to be delivered competently; and that, when looked at in detail, they match up to the Government’s pledges. Our prison system faces unprecedented strain, and all the evidence suggests that that strain has become the challenge we see today primarily because of covid. If the remand population that has spiked directly because of covid were at historical levels, we would not be here; we have been left with 7,000 more people in our prisons, compared to the historical average. Members will know that this sum is greater than the numbers that the Government have released and will be going on to release to reduce the steady-state prison population. The previous Labour Government, like this one, sought ways to manage the challenge, including through use of the end of custody licence scheme—a scheme that, as they have criticised it, Government Members should be aware was actually created by the last Labour Government. The previous Government also had a plan to change legislation to allow us to accommodate prisoners overseas and to discourage use of shorter sentences. This Government have, of course, decided to take their own measures, beginning, as we have heard, with the SDS40 scheme, and now they proposes to extend home detention curfew eligibility from 180 to 365 days. We are told that both measures are short-term, that the impact of the steps has been fully understood and that there should be some acceptance that the Government will deliver the mechanisms effectively. Let me begin with the proposition that these are short-term measures, or, as the Minister likes to call them, “urgent”. I make the same point I made to the Lord Chancellor in the Chamber on SDS40. If these measures are expected to be short-term, why have they not been sunsetted? If the Minister is confident that they are only short-term, he should make them short-term in the legislation. The Government have not even gone so far as to tell us the threshold for when they will review possible withdrawal. To be fair to the last Labour Government, even they did that. When they introduced the end of custody licence scheme, they set a prison capacity target—a fixed figure—at which they would review its use, and that is what happened. This Government have not even done that. As is so often the case, the devil is in the detail, or to be more precise in this instance, in the impact assessment. Why, if this is a short-term measure, is the period measuring its benefit over 10 years? It is there in black and white on page 7 of the impact assessment. The Government cannot expect the Opposition to support measures that they say are short-term when all the evidence suggests that they are not. Next, I turn to the question of whether we have the necessary assurance that the Government have properly considered the impact of their policy. I am afraid, again, that the Minister and Committee members will need to reflect on the Government’s own impact assessment to assist them with this. Page 4 helpfully lays out those who will be affected by the policy. Quite rightly, paragraph 13 lays out that “Victims of those released from custody” should be included in this group. I am sure that everyone here can agree that female victims of male violence, and people who have been burgled or mugged, are impacted when they see the perpetrator walk away from prison early. Paragraph 56, on page 10, summarises the impact assessment, stating: “We have taken into account the potential impact of the earlier release of some offenders on the public and, particularly, victims of the offenders released.” I am afraid that the Minister will need to help me here. Forgive me, but where exactly between pages 4 and 10 have the Government done that? Extraordinarily, the document talks about how much better it will be for the perpetrators and their families to be reunited, but what about victims and their families? Besides a cursory mention of notifying them that this will be happening and of the impact on them, it says absolutely nothing. Finally, we come to effective delivery. Where might we look to make an assessment of that? Of course, we did not look any further than this legislation, because as well as expanding the HDC scheme, as the Minister has said, today’s legislation is also correcting errors in the SDS40 scheme. This amendment rightly excludes six additional offences that were missing from the SDS40 scheme, ensuring that those convicted serve at least half their sentence. How did the Government initially overlook offences such as breaching restraining orders, sexual harm prevention orders and serious harassment? Those are not minor offences; they carry significant harm, particularly for victims.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Draft Judicial Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. As the Minister explained, this legislation is somewhat technical, so I do not intend to add anything beyond the minimum necessary to the time that colleagues are required to be here. I know that the Prime Minister is a particular fan of pensions law and is lucky enough to have his own one, but I do not think he expects his colleagues to be equally enthusiastic about it. As the Minister said, the Judicial Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2024 make essential updates to our judicial pension schemes. Those changes originate from the previous Government and were always expected to garner cross-party support. The regulations are a crucial part of the ongoing reform process and are aimed at ensuring not only fairness, clarity and efficiency in the pension system for judges, but compliance with legislative and actuarial recommendations. The regulations address several key areas in the judicial pension schemes. To reiterate, the first is the introduction of an employer cost cap, which is a critical measure required under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013. Importantly, that mechanism will trigger adjustments only in response to significant and unpredictable changes, ensuring that alterations to the pension scheme are made cautiously and only when absolutely necessary. The second is the extension of eligibility for pension benefits to additional judicial officers within the FPJPS. That ensures that judges in newly clarified or newly created judicial roles can now access pension benefits in a way that properly reflects their service. The regulations also address the complex issue of the transfer of service between different pension schemes, ensuring that judges receive their full and correct pension entitlements. In addition, the regulations extend the deadlines for member elections within the FPJPS. The additional time provided will allow judges to make informed choices about their pension options, ensuring that no one is rushed into a decision without understanding the full implications. There are further measures, but I need not repeat them as the Minister has outlined them. In conclusion, the regulations represent a significant step forward in the reform of judicial pensions. The judiciary plays an absolutely vital role in the functioning of our justice system, and it is imperative that we continue to support and incentivise talented individuals to join and remain in the judiciary. The regulations will ensure that our pension system remains attractive, fair and sustainable, offering security to judges in their retirement, while also protecting taxpayers. I am conscious of my pledge to be brief, so I can confirm that the Opposition support these changes. I have nothing further to add.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), who showed real courage in talking with emotion, pride and passion, which is not always easy in this place. Today we are debating a number of amendments related to the strategic priorities of Great British Energy, and that will be the focus of my remarks today. I rise to ask the Government to assure the House that, given that this is not specifically mentioned in the Bill, they understand that one of the biggest challenges we face when it comes to decarbonisation is in relation to heating, and to make that a strategic priority. The UK has more than 28.5 million homes, and another 1.9 million buildings, offices, hospitals, shops, warehouses and more, the majority of which are heated by gas boilers, which also provide hot water. Nearly one fifth of all the UK’s emissions come from these buildings. The Climate Change Committee considers decarbonising heat to be one of the greatest challenges we face in getting to net zero, but that is not specified in the Bill. Getting to net zero by 2050 will require us to pull every possible lever available. GB Energy needs to encompass the full thermodynamic meaning of the term energy, rather than focusing just on electricity. Although there is much to be said for the current plan to use air source and ground source heat pumps alongside other methods of using electric to heat buildings, attempting to convert our entire housing stock to this approach will place enormous strain on our electricity grid and supply chains. When we consider this issue, there is one stand-out technology that will help us: geothermal energy, both shallow and deep. I am pleased to tell the House that there is cross-party consensus on this topic, and I have been able to work with a number of Members across the House, including the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), for Rushcliffe (James Naish) and others to form the deep geothermal all-party parliamentary group. Although I have mentioned shallow geothermal, which includes technology such as coal mine water, promoted by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), my remarks will focus on deep geothermal. When I was first introduced to deep geothermal technology, my reaction was that it must be too good to be true: an environmentally friendly, dependable and cost-effective source of heat and power that can be found right under out feet—surely not. But over the past few years I have been pleasantly surprised to learn that deep geothermal is, in fact, just as good as it sounds. This technology uses the heat from naturally occurring sources of hot water deep underground to generate a large amount of usable heat and energy. In the UK, heat, rather than electricity, is the key benefit of deep geothermal, as that best matches the resources in counties such as East Sussex. This naturally occurring heat is a real resource—just as wind and sunlight are for other technologies, but unlike them it is there all year round whatever the weather.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to express my strong opposition to the Government’s decision to remove the winter fuel payment from millions of pensioners, a move that will strip vital financial support from thousands of my constituents—people who have contributed to our country and helped to build it. The impact in Bexhill and Battle will be profound: Age UK estimates that more than 25,000 pensioners will lose their winter fuel payment as a result of this decision. I hope the Government understand just how significant their decision is in constituencies such as mine. The Government say that they are focused on increasing the uptake of pension credit. If all those who are eligible to claim pension credit do so, though, the £1.4 billion that the Treasury is expected to save by means-testing the winter fuel payment will be dwarfed by the increase in the cost of pension credit, so the Government have to admit that, ultimately, they do not actually want all those pensioners to take up pension credit. Our pensioners deserve better. The fall-back of this Government since they took office is to blame the previous Government for all the unpopular actions they have decided to take. They claim the state of the economy is a reason to remove this vital lifeline for pensioners, but let us be clear about the facts. On a broad range of indicators, the situation they have inherited is significantly less challenging than the one we inherited in 2010. We inherited an economy just out of the deepest recession since 1955. Labour left us with public sector net borrowing at 10.3% of GDP; today it is at 4.4%. Unemployment in 2010 was 7.9%; unemployment now stands at 4.1%. However, from 2010 onwards, through all these difficult times, we made decisions to protect pensioners, and we made sure to keep the winter fuel payment. It was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do now. I ask the Government to listen to MPs from across the House, including some on their own Benches, and think again.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that it is deeply disingenuous for him and other Labour Members to talk about the drive to increase the uptake of pension credit? He knows full well that if the Government were able to do that, it would wipe out the saving that they are claiming to make. They do not actually want people to increase their uptake of pension credit, because the Government would not save any money.

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

  More

  The challenge that Labour now has to face is whether they choose taxpayers or fare payers to meet the burden of the cost of the railways. In fact, in recent years we kept rail fare rises below inflation, and we have yet to hear a similar commitment from the Government. The impact assessment on the policy is very clear about what the Government have committed to achieve: absolutely nothing. It says it in black and white, on page 3: “specific quantified targets for each objective have not been set”. So clearly that leaves us on the Conservative Benches to hold them to account. I have a number of questions that I hope the Minister can address in his closing remarks. First, what will be the exact timetable for renationalisation? We might assume that the Government are rushing to do this so that they can begin with Greater Anglia and West Midlands Trains in September, but all they have said is that they want all the contracts nationalised by October 2027. The Minister will understand the uncertainty that will create for the sector, so can he confirm a more detailed plan to the House for making use of the powers they are asking for? Secondly, what will be the approach on nationalising terms and conditions? The Minister will know there are a variety of working practices across the railway network, many of them clearly not in the best interests of passengers and taxpayers—for example, the varied approach on mandatory Sunday working, where clearly passengers would be better served by that becoming standard; or annual leave, where again passengers would experience less delays and cancellations if drivers were required to give a reasonable amount of notice. Will the Government introduce a standard contract that prioritises the terms and conditions across the industry that will benefit passengers and taxpayers, or will they be letting the unions dictate a standardised contract that puts the unions first and passengers last? Thirdly, what plans does the Minister have to secure increased passenger numbers, by how much and by when? We have seen a huge increase in passenger growth since the introduction of the train operating companies. What will take the place of contract incentives to secure that growth in future? Fourthly, on modernisation, people up and down the country have seen the explosion of technology into our workplaces, but all across the network modernisation is blocked and frustrated with demands of more money from the unions for the introduction of technology. What plans do the Government have, as they directly take over running the railways, to ensure that technological innovation can be implemented across the network without undue barriers or union demands getting in the way? Fifthly, when it comes to funding, how will they be reallocating the theoretical money saved? They argue they will save £150 million from management fees. Reinvesting that across track and train would mean, in total, a 0.5% to 0.75% increase in the overall annual budget. They need to tell us what exactly it is they will be doing with that money that is apparently going to radically improve our railways. Sixthly, what are the balance sheet implications? The franchising model allowed the purchase of new trains and other investments to be made with no impact on public debt. Will Labour be adding those costs to public debt in future as yet another excuse for their inevitable tax rises? Finally, what are the Bill’s implications, direct or indirect, for open-access operators? Whatever the Government may say, I am afraid that the implication of their words and actions is that they do not want the private sector running train services, so are they going to turn their sights on those operators next? If they truly believe in what they are doing—if it is not just designed to appease the left wing of their party—they will have to justify their own inconsistency. It seems pretty clear that this, the Government’s political priority, is the wrong approach at the wrong time. They should be focusing on getting their union backers to stop frustrating reform of our railways. They should be focusing on taking forward our plans for Great British Railways. They should, at the very least, be transparent with the public about the implications of this rushed plan for fares, punctuality and reliability. There is consensus in the House that a new way of working was needed, and we had begun the process of bringing that forward, but Labour Members are more concerned with re-fighting the political battles of the 1970s and 1980s. Whatever they may say, these are the same old ideas, this is the same old ideology, and this is the same old Labour party.