Kieran Mullan MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I intervened when the Minister said she thought that extending sitting hours would make things worse. When I asked her to explain that, she then said that she thought the benefit would be minimal. That is a different point. Given that we have said there should be an extensive consultation to figure out all those things, so that it appeals to people, such that that they will want to take part in these extended sitting hours, why would it make things worse? If people are willing to do it, I just do not see the logic of that point.

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

  More

  I want to begin by acknowledging the gravity of what we heard in evidence in Committee. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester, pointed to, the evidence from Claire in relation to her children will stay with all of us. It was so moving and so upsetting for anyone thinking about how they would feel in that scenario. There was also the testimony of other parents who have lost children, and survivors of domestic abuse, who felt let down by a system that prioritised contact over their safety. That testimony matters. The Committee has a duty to take it incredibly seriously and give it the maximum possible weight. We also have a duty to legislate carefully, however, and when it comes to legislating I do not think there are many areas of human frailty and human complexity that are more complicated than this. As anyone with any experience of the family court—and of life generally and the interactions between families who split up—will agree, all these things are incredibly complicated. When we seek to be prescriptive about how exactly a court should or should not seek to do things, that is fraught with risk and potential unintended consequences, just as today we are discussing the unintended consequences of a measure that may have been brought in for good reasons. We must think very carefully, therefore, when it comes to the repeal of section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989, and particularly about whether we think that will achieve what it promises. I make no apologies for saying that I want to consider this in some detail and that we will want to follow the discussions on it in some detail as the Bill progresses. Although we are not seeking to oppose the repeal at this stage, it is certainly not something—as opposed to some other measures—that is without the need for further scrutiny. I want to say plainly that the courts, social services and CAFCASS have made serious mistakes in the past—importantly, both before that provision was inserted in 2014 and since—and those serious mistakes have cost children their lives. However, the question before us today is whether repealing the presumption will fix the mistakes or whether it might distract from the need for much deeper reforms and more complex and difficult work than can be achieved by a simple measure in a Bill. Let me deal with the most important point: the presumption introduced in 2014 does not give any parent an automatic right to contact. It is important that we recognise that. It does not override the paramount principle in the law. I think we probably all remember the evidence given by one of the barristers in Committee, who was clear that while they thought the presumption could be repealed, the law as it stands does not allow the desire for a parent to have contact to override the welfare of a child. It also does not override the welfare checklist, or require courts to make an order that places children at risk. The presumption establishes a starting point that, where it is safe to do so, children should generally benefit from the involvement of both parents. That starting point can be rebutted, but it expressly does not apply where a parent’s involvement would put the child at risk. In its written evidence, Both Parents Matter describe it as a “statutory benchmark”, not a straitjacket.

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

  More

  Clause 12 addresses an important aspect of protection: the use of screens in the courtroom. We must start from the position that special measures are not a luxury or optional administrative add-on; they are often essential to ensuring that the justice system remains capable of hearing evidence properly. We want to enable people to give evidence in the proper way, and victims and vulnerable witnesses must be able to give their best evidence—we always want people to be able to give their best evidence in court—without avoidable distress, intimidation or re-traumatisation. For many, the prospect of being in the same physical space as the person who harmed them is a primary barrier to their participating in the justice system at all. Clause 12 will strengthen and clarify current provisions by creating a clearer statutory footing for the use of screens. Specifically, when a witness is providing testimony via live link or through a pre-recorded cross-examination, the clause will require the court to consider whether a screen should be provided. Crucially, the clause clarifies that that protection should operate in both directions: not just preventing the witness from seeing the accused, but shielding the witness from the accused’s gaze as well. That increased clarity is intended to support consistency in practice across the country. For many victims, particularly those of sexual violence or domestic abuse, the physical presence of the accused is a source of profound distress that can affect their memory and the clarity of their evidence. The current application of these measures can be inconsistent, leading to what practitioners describe as a postcode lottery. By establishing a presumption in favour of screens unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice, the law recognises the practical reality. However, we must ensure that that presumption is not merely a tick-box exercise, but achieved effectively through things such as either-way screens. We must recognise, as we have at several points in Committee, the challenge presented by the fabric of some of our courtroom buildings and their facilities. Evidence provided to the Committee—this is also highlighted by Sir Brian Leveson—suggests that malfunctioning equipment and poor infrastructure continue to create problems, specifically in relation to using special measures. A stronger use of screens can be mandated but, if the physical layout of the court and its facilities are insufficient, that will hamper the clause’s benefit. What survey or review have the Government undertaken, or do they plan to undertake, to ensure that there are no physical barriers to the use of screens in this way? I suspect that, on a physical basis, it is easier to have screens just in one direction rather than two, and it probably involves different equipment and facilities. It would be good to get the Minister’s view on any barriers that might practically limit the intention of this measure.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  To reiterate, as in clause 3, we risk creating an unfair dual standard for defendants. The Government accept that such defendants should have rights to a jury trial, but they will potentially be denied one unnecessarily because of the circumstances changing throughout their trial, rather than at the outset. Can we create two identical legal tests for the outset versus in the trial? No, but we can certainly make a better effort than we have. This issue ties back into the question of appeals. If we do not make the process fairer, there is a greater likelihood that defendants who experience failure to reallocate when the circumstances change—who sit there knowing that, if they had been in those circumstances at the outset of the trial, they would have had access to a jury trial—will be encouraged to appeal, post conviction, against the decision not to allocate them to a jury trial. Therefore, again, on the Government’s own test in relation to efficiency, there is a benefit to having a more effective and more balanced test for reallocation during trials. On that basis, we will push our amendments to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The only point I would add is that, as the Minister has accepted, this is a relatively small number of cases, so the test of what is justifiable is actually disproportionately weighted against the Minister in these cases, in comparison with the earlier cases on clause 3. People’s rights and expectations remain the same, and from their perspective will be undermined by these measures, yet the benefit that the Government will actually secure from them is relatively minor, as the Minister accepts. I refer to the fact that 11% of Crown courts are sat empty today, and for a very minimal gain we are putting forward measures that make it difficult for people to exercise their rights in the legal system in a fair and reasonable way. On that basis, we will press the amendment to a Division. Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

  More

  I draw the Committee’s attention to my remarks at the outset of our proceedings: our judicial system, victims and defendants and how we manage crime in this country are my personal priorities. That is primarily the reason why I sought to be elected to this place, so I will never disagree that justice should get a higher priority than it has historically. I also pointed out that Labour Members more broadly have accepted that justice getting insufficient priority in our political system has gone on for many decades. The hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington is right in pointing out the backlogs that existed prior to the pandemic, and they were actually lower than those we inherited from the previous Government. If we are talking purely about what happened with the backlogs, our record prior to the pandemic was an improvement on that of the previous Labour Government. That does not mean it is okay; that does not mean we say, “We did a great job,” but it is important, in balancing and understanding the debate, to know that. In terms of what we did in relation to the covid pandemic and all the challenges it posed, we had uncapped sitting days and Nightingale courts, and we took steps to try to address the backlog. I served on the Justice Committee, scrutinising what the Government were doing at that time. I was very frustrated, because we would visit Nightingale courts and one of the biggest challenges they faced was the lack of certainty about whether they would be renewed in the future. I questioned Ministers at the time about that. To all of us on the Committee, on a cross-party basis, it was obvious that those courts would need to carry on for longer—why not just get on and agree that and let them run in that sustained way? There were many things we could and should have done better. That is not to say that we did not do anything or that, prior to the pandemic, our record did not compare favourably to that of the previous Labour Government. As I said, in that particular example we introduced the innovation of making the provisional data available earlier. In June, given the challenges with that data being wrong on occasion, a decision was taken to temporarily stop publication, to see if we could close that gap. If that data is significantly different from the revised published data, there is sense in looking again at the methodology and seeing whether the gap between the provisional and final data can be closed. But here we are, almost a year later, and the Government have not chosen to reinstitute the publication of that provisional data. I think everyone on the Committee would benefit from seeing that data, so I would be interested to know whether that is the basis on which the Minister has said the backlogs in some regions are not going down, when in fact, from the evidence and data I have seen, they are. Our amendments are aimed at delivering a fairer system. Amendment 23 also seeks to achieve that outcome, in a more specific but equally valid way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, human beings in criminal cases are not neat, so we need a degree of flexibility. There is not flexibility in all parts of the system at the moment, but allowing a judge, on their own, in these types of cases, to allocate, hear the case, determine guilt and issue a sentence is unprecedented in our judicial system—

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

  More

  This is a great opportunity for me to learn and understand an element of the system that I did not understand—I know about it, rather than understand it. I will go back to the point that we have made repeatedly. We are designing a system from scratch here. We have the opportunity to do things exactly as we want to. We do not have to be forced into replicating other elements of the wider system; we can design this system as we best think it should operate. I think that the best thing in this scenario, in which we are starting from scratch, would be to say to somebody that they should be able to derive the benefit of having a jury trial if the case is of a nature that the Government themselves agree would typically enjoy the benefits of a jury trial. This is just inherently a fairness question. That is why we have replicated the process—in a positive way—in a magistrates court. The decision is the decision that has been made; the court cannot go above it. That is because we say that in a magistrates court, if someone seeks to go above that court, that is not the right place to do that; it would not be fair and reasonable. We are making a similar point here in relation to mode of trial, for jury trial. We think that the amendment is sensible, reasonable, balanced and does not prevent the Government from undertaking their reforms; it is not what could possibly be described as a wrecking amendment. I hope that the Government will reflect on that and accept the amendment.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That potential benefit has to be weighed against what we discussed earlier. For a very good reason, our system explicitly prevents the jury’s inner working from being subject to scrutiny. The system was deliberately designed in that way, and we will be taking that away in some cases. Of course, at a cursory glance, we would probably all welcome being able to better understand why decisions are being taken, but if we start doing that, we would lose the ability for the jury to decide something that we are not comfortable with, and which a prosecution barrister might have a field day with. As I said, I get frustrated with those sorts of decisions. I was very frustrated when a jury did not convict the Colston four. I did not get to know why they did not do that, but the system is deliberately designed that way. The Minister has to accept that. That is almost proving the point that others have made—in particular, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East has said this both publicly and privately. Judges are forced to be much more constricted in their decision making. If the facts are a, b and c, they just have to go along with those facts.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Reflecting on what has been said, I think that confusion remains. I welcome the further remarks from the Minister, but I am still not clear on whether there will be any impact in the real world for people as a result of the change. Earlier, I read out a sentence from the explanatory notes that talks about how the clause relates to sentencing, but the sentence before that says it relates to a “written indication of a guilty plea”. The legislation says that a written plea is not actually a guilty plea, so there could still be a trial—someone might change their mind. The difference that the legislation talks about is that if someone gives an in-person plea, that is their plea. This reform introduces the idea of a written plea, and, probably quite sensibly, it was decided that that should not be seen as the final example. Decisions are being made at that point, but then the plea could be changed and there could be a trial. It could have a real-world impact; it is not a technical change. If the Government are clear that they are not enacting this measure, why not? There must have been a reason why they thought that written guilty pleas were of use. I suspect it probably was an efficiency measure at the time and they thought, “If we allow people to more easily give an early indication, that might encourage them to do so, and we can get all the benefits that flow from that.” If the Government are on an efficiency drive, why are they not enacting the measure? I would have asked the same of my Government if they had the ability to enact it. I do not know what the timeline was—was there a natural lag or a deliberate decision not to enact it? We need it laid out in black and white: will this change have any real-world impact—yes or no? What exactly will that impact be? Because of the quite open possibility that it will have a real-world impact in terms of reducing someone’s ability to go to the Crown court—that is what we are talking about—all the concerns that Members have about clause 1 apply to clause 2. I want to pick up on some of the changes. The Minister mentioned how we have listened to Canada. The point I made quite clearly in our evidence session with the Attorney General of Ontario was that they brought their backlog down without making any changes to jury trials whatsoever, so I am not sure how helpful that is as an example of why we need to change the system. Members mentioned a sunset clause. If the Bill were just about bringing the backlog down, there would be a sunset clause in it. That again demonstrates that the Government actually think this is a better way of doing things. If that is the case, they should make that argument. They should just say, “We are making these reforms because they are the better way to do things. There will be an additional benefit in terms of bringing down the backlog,” but they have not said that. I certainly would not use the language that the Minister used, but I am absolutely clear that we need to improve judicial accountability. We had a whole panel in the evidence sessions in relation to the family courts, for example, and whether they are making the right sorts of judgments about the interests of the child. We heard quite clearly that judges should not place too much weight on the idea that there is a good relationship with both parents when making decisions. The reason the Government are proposing changes on this issue is that they clearly do not think that judicial decisions are consistently doing the right thing. My first encounter with this lack of accountability in judicial decision making—this is very important if people will be subject to individual judicial decisions—was the case of a constituent who had fostered a young girl in difficult circumstances. The young girl was physically fit and healthy, but struggling. The family—the original parents—had applied to get custody back. The foster mother did not want the girl to go back to the family, and nor did the local authority or the wider family, but the judge decided—again, we are giving more power to judges by removing the power to elect—that the girl should go back. That girl is now in an almost vegetative state—it is not quite like that, but she is extremely disabled. The wonderful lady who fostered that young girl, even though the girl was then in a very difficult physical state and was going to be extremely dependent for the rest of her life, adopted her, which was an extraordinary thing to do. She approached me to say, “Social services have to account for what has happened. The police, if they had been involved, would have had to account for what happened. Can you tell me what happens to the judge who made that decision, which led to these consequences?” I wrote the Lady Chief Justice asking whether she could explain to my constituent what the consequences were. If there is a legal matter, it goes to the Court of Appeal; other than that, there is no issue for the judge. That has really driven my view about a need for more judicial accountability. I recognise the Minister’s right to say that we have to be careful about the language we use when talking about these things, but there is nothing wrong with saying that we need a more accountable judiciary. On the need to increase sitting days, the Government like to claim that there are record levels of sitting days. I do not know whether the Minister knows that that is not a fair reflection of what is going on, but we changed the way in which we measure sitting days. There used to be two separate counts of sitting days—trial days and judge days—and we then combined them. If we look at the figures fairly, the counts are at some points pretty similar, if not higher previously. The figure is higher now because there is just one figure. I am not seeking to take away from the Government’s efforts in that regard, but we should be fair and accurate in how we describe the historical record. We discussed whether it was fair to use the term “abolition”, which has come up repeatedly. I am very careful about the language I use, and I do not say that, but I will not take any lectures on the issue from a party that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) was Prime Minister, put out a Facebook campaign saying that he did not think that paedophiles should go to prison—a disgusting misrepresentation of the reality. The Labour party was happy to do that, so I will not take any lectures from Labour Members.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As I said, it is about weighing the benefits that the Minister has rightly articulated against the loss of the benefit of safeguarding individual people who are perhaps erring from a strict interpretation of the law. Again, this is not happenstance. The idea that a jury might do that has been tested repeatedly in appeals and judgments. It has been repeatedly affirmed that it is for a jury to go away and make up their own minds, having heard all the evidence.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Bayeux Tapestry Exhibition · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing the debate. For those—perhaps our constituents—who do not know the etiquette of the House, an Adjournment debate is typically a debate for a single Member, so it is gracious of her to make time for me to speak briefly in this debate on something that we have worked on together. I want to thank her for the work that she has done to date. When we talk about the Bayeux tapestry, we are talking about history that is deeply interwoven in the culture and history of my constituency of Bexhill and Battle. William landed in Pevensey, which is in the west of the constituency. People can visit the ruins of Pevensey castle there, and we have a museum in Pevensey that exhibits the important local history from that perspective. Almost pinpointing the middle of my constituency is Battle abbey, which is perhaps the biggest tourist attraction in my constituency and is visited by thousands of people every year. It was built by William as penance for the bloodshed and violence that local people had experienced as part of the battle of Hastings. As the hon. Member indicated, there is some dispute about whether the battle took place there. As the Member for Bexhill and Battle, I will plant my flag firmly on the argument that it took place where Battle abbey is built. Every year there is a re-enactment of the battle, which is increasingly popular. It had one of its best ever years last year, and it is a major tourist attraction. Both the ruins of Pevensey castle and Battle abbey are important English Heritage sites. I thank them for meeting me recently to talk about the opportunities that the Bayeux tapestry presents and for all the work they do all year round on those sites and other important historical sites in my constituency. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye did an excellent job of going into the detail of all the different things that we want to gain from the exhibit visiting the UK, so I will just re-emphasise a couple of really important points. Of course, the exhibition will benefit many different places, but we should expect the greatest attention and effort to be put into 1066 country to ensure its success. First, we must ensure that the benefits of the visit are felt outside London. As the hon. Lady said, the visit is being organised by the British Museum, so while it is important that London gets its share of the tourism spend that will come with the tapestry’s visit, that spend is vitally needed in our constituencies. The British Museum and other organisations must set up a clear programme to ensure that visits to the tapestry secure visits to our constituencies, and vice versa, so that people who would normally have just visited the historical sites in 1066 country will be encouraged to visit the exhibition of the tapestry. Secondly, how often do schoolchildren get to feel that their local history is as important as this? The tapestry is a major exhibit and its visit is a major historical event, so it is really important that local schoolchildren get to visit the tapestry, and that the exhibition is made affordable and accessible to them. There will be opportunities for schoolchildren from across the country to visit the exhibition, but let us ensure that the programme is really supportive of our local schoolchildren. To finish, I will mention a fantastic community project, the La Mora tapestry project, that demonstrates that our history is an ongoing part of our local culture, not something newly discovered. Christina Greene and her team are replicating elements of the tapestry that relate to the La Mora, the ship in which William sailed. For some time now, residents in my constituency have been able to visit Battle library and take time to carefully stitch parts of the replica tapestry, under the watchful eye of Christina, who ensures they are using the right techniques. They have done an amazing job researching wools, so the wools that they use are the same or as close as we can get to the wools that were originally used. Even more incredibly, she noticed, as I am sure other historians will have done, the absence of the female voice in the historical documents, including the tapestry, which tells a very male-centric story. William’s wife, the queen, is thought to be a major player and to have helped to commission the boat, so new bits of the story are being added to the tapestry that focus on her role, which is great for the schoolgirls who come to take part in the sewing of the tapestry. The tapestry is already part of our history locally, and we make day-to-day use of it culturally and historically. Let us ensure that the Bayeux tapestry’s visit helps to weave some new stories, projects and ideas. It is great opportunity to do that. I really want the Government to work with the British Museum, which is co-operating and with which we are having more productive discussions, but the efforts of the Minister to keep that all on track would be greatly appreciated.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Court Reporting Data · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We obviously benefit from enormous privilege in this House, because we are able to say things without any worry about what might happen legally. The Minister said several times in her statement that Courtsdesk has admitted that it breached the data-sharing agreement. Courtsdesk has been absolutely clear with me that it has never admitted that it breached the agreement. I wonder if the Minister might want to take the chance at least to caveat what she said in the Chamber.

• 2 Feb 2026 · China and Japan · Hansard source

  More

  The whole House can see with its own eyes what is happening here. The Prime Minister, on paper, has the support of more than 400 MPs. If they want to show their support, they can fill every single seat on the Government Benches, as far as the double doors, but they are all drifting away as these exchanges proceed. Even at the start of his statement, the Prime Minister did not have the authority to command that they fill two or three Benches behind him. He is clearly on his way out. The problem is that in his desperation to shore up his position, he is trading away our national interests. Can he name a single tangible benefit that he has secured in respect of the rights of Hongkongers?

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend highlights the lessons that the rest of the world will be drawing from this decision. A submissive approach to third party calls on these issues displays an incredible naiveté about the world we live in and the direction we are travelling. Our previous positive disposition towards the role that these institutions could play was in a different era, when we expected a converging uniformity of basic values and democracy. That convergence is not happening; instead, our enemies are using our desire to stick to it as a weakness to exploit. They do not even recognise basic legal norms and institutions in their own countries; their own citizens do not benefit from legal protections and rights, and they do not believe in the rule of law full stop. Do the Government really think that our enemies will put international legal obligations ahead of pursuing their own strategic interests? Of course not, yet we are expected to undertake a strategic surrender in the name of the rule of law in a way that advantages them, and on what basis—that they might look at what we have done and change their ways in the future, as they failed to do in Hong Kong? That is incredible naiveté.

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  It is not just the WTO; the Chinese are supposed to follow the jurisdiction of international maritime courts, for example. The Government point to that as a reason why we should comply with them, but the Chinese break those rulings all the time, as we discussed in relation to the South China sea. They could not care less; they are restrained only by their strict self-interest. They pretend and play up the idea that they might follow the rules—when it does not suit, they do not follow them—yet we are supposed to follow the rules, because the aim is to get the Chinese on side. That is never going to happen. Let us look at the membership of the ICJ and the people who made the ruling. The vice-president was Xue Hanqin, who ruled that the UK should give the islands over to Mauritius. She is a former Chinese Communist party official who served as the director-general of the department of treaty and law in China’s foreign ministry—the same ministry that is overseeing the violation of the agreement in Hong Kong. It makes absolutely no sense to see it as a neutral arbiter. In 2022, she was one of two judges who voted against an ICJ ruling that Russia should suspend its invasion of Ukraine. Would our country slavishly adhering to those rulings, against our own national interest, bring onside wavering countries that are making their own strategic calculations about who they want to support when it comes to challenges such as Ukraine and, if it happens, Taiwan? Of course it will not. The historical argument for that approach has been to suggest that we will bring other countries over to our way of doing things—the rules-based order—but I am afraid that that is not happening. Countries across the world are actually looking at which bloc and which sphere of influence would be best at defending their interests if they seek to align with it. This surrender deal will make it very clear that they should think twice about supporting the western democracies and instead point their finger towards the autocratic states that will benefit so enormously from the deal. Surrendering the Chagos islands will simply strengthen those countries that want a more disorderly world. We should seek to use the rules-based order—we should not abandon that long-term goal, and we should continue to make it clear that that is our preference for how we run the world—but not with our eyes and ears closed to what is actually happening, and not at huge cost to our own interests. This is not diplomacy or pragmatism; it is weakness, and weakness has consequences. Britain is not just losing a territory; we are losing credibility. Our allies are watching as Labour surrenders key strategic ground without so much as a fight. Our adversaries are taking note and seeing a Government who lack the resolve to defend their own interests. This deal is a sell-out and a catastrophic misjudgment, and it must not go ahead. I urge every Member of this House to stand firm for Britain’s interests, our national security and our place in the world. We must reject this reckless agreement and demand that our Government defend British sovereign territory, rather than bargaining it away behind closed doors.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Asylum Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  Happy new year, Mr Speaker. I am not surprised that the Home Office thought that Wealden, a Green and Lib Dem-run council, would be a soft target to move asylum seekers to, considering that the co-leaders previously seemed more concerned with Calais than they did about Crowborough, but moving asylum seekers into Crowborough training camp in Madam Deputy Speaker’s neighbouring constituency will displace the cadets who are making good use of that facility and, as I understand it, will not save any money. Given that it will not save any money, what is the benefit of moving asylum seekers there?

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

  More

  Q 42 I am the shadow Minister. Thank you for coming along to assist us with our proceedings. I have a question for you, Deborah, on the work of INQUEST. Will you illustrate the practical effect at inquests of public bodies usually being heavily legally represented, while affected families do not necessarily have any legal representation? Deborah Coles: Thank you for the question. It has been a long-standing campaign of ours to try and sort out what we perceive is a real inequality of arms. The best way to describe it is that it is a traumatic and distressing process to go through an inquest into the death of your loved one in any event, but to try and navigate those processes without your own individual legal representation, and even be expected to ask questions yourself or rely on the coroner to do so on your behalf, is not only extremely unfair but I think perpetuates the sense that the system is not working to get to the truth and to deliver the answers that you want as a bereaved person about how your loved one died. I can think of so many examples since INQUEST was set up where families still today talk about the retraumatising nature of the inquest process. What legal representation can do as well is enhance the really important preventive function that an inquest can play in safeguarding lives in the future, but that is only where you have a family with the benefit of a lawyer to explore the areas of concern. In our experience, too often the default of state and corporate lawyers is to try and defend their reputations, to try and narrow the scope of the inquest process, and try and prevent consideration of the very serious issues that need exploring, particularly when we are talking here about how our work is predominantly around state-related deaths, where the state had a duty of care towards somebody. In our experience, it is only through legal representation and where families feel that they can play a meaningful and effective part in the process that the truth can come out.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise simply to put on the record my thanks, particularly to the Bill Committee and to the Law Commission for its diligence. Yet again we see the great benefit that our state machinery and apparatus as whole derive from having the Law Commission. I have nothing further to add.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister shakes his head. If he wants to intervene and explain why that is not the case, he can. No, he is not going to do so. Let us be clear: earlier releases will not be done on a retrospective basis. When the measure is enacted, every criminal in prison at that point in time will be able to benefit from these measures, including thousands of serious criminals. It is very clear to me that what is being said by Ministers—I anticipate that they will say the same later in defence of these plans—is in danger of misleading MPs. As it stands, Labour MPs will have to vote in support of the Government’s position that the most serious offenders are excluded. I invite MPs to reflect on how the Justice Secretary can possibly say that any rape—let alone hundreds of them—is not one of the most serious offences. Will Labour MPs who vote against amendment 24 tonight be able to say to survivors of child sex abuse that they supported a Government who wanted to classify thousands of child sex offences as not being the most serious offences? The Government have said that earlier releases will have to be earned through good behaviour, but that is simply not true. I appreciate that it can be difficult to always believe what MPs from Opposition parties are saying, but MPs do not need to take my word for it. The House of Commons Library briefing note on this Bill is there in black and white for everyone to read. It says: “As currently drafted, the provisions of the bill do not bring in any new criteria for people to adhere to prior to being released at the one third or halfway point, or any discretionary elements to release.” I will repeat that: the Bill’s provisions do not bring in any new criteria. Labour MPs need not look any further than emergency release measures and contrast them with this permanent, long-term change to find evidence that the Government’s approach is totally unprecedented. The SDS40 scheme and other schemes that have come before and sat alongside it have many more exclusions—for example, sex offenders—yet this permanent, non-emergency approach does not. What Ministers have been telling Labour MPs to secure their support is not accurate, which should always make Back-Bench MPs wary. If the Government are making inaccurate statements about a measure in a Bill that they want MPs to support because they cannot face the reality of what it does, then MPs should think very carefully about voting for it, because there is no going back. They will have to defend that decision. This morning, I emailed every single Labour MP the Library briefing note so that they could see it for themselves, regardless of whether they listen to this debate. Ignorance will be no excuse, because today will not be the end of it. I guarantee Members that the harsh reality is that history tells us that some of the criminals whom Labour MPs are being asked to vote to release will almost certainly commit further serious offences, at a time when they would otherwise have been locked up. MPs will then have to explain why they voted for non-emergency changes that let such people out earlier. I would not be surprised if one of these cases is sufficiently serious that the Government amend the Bill’s measures in future, in response to a public backlash. There is every chance that they will make Labour MPs go through the Lobby tonight and vote for the indefensible, and then at some point pull the rug from under them. I appreciate that a lot of Labour Members are new to this place, and they can speak to longer-serving Members about how it will make them look when they are forced to follow a line that is later withdrawn. I have made our position clear, and I have set out the consequences. MPs voting against our amendment 24 this evening will be voting to reduce jail time for extremely violent criminals, paedophiles, child groomers and rapists. I have done as much as I can to stop that happening. Ministers are resorting to saying things about the Bill’s measures that are inaccurate to secure support from their Back Benchers, and MPs should not let them get away with it. We have set out clearly how our amendment would ensure that appalling criminals do not see their punishment cut. I know it is difficult for Back Benchers to stand up to the Government and say no, but if we do not, thousands of the worst criminals will get out of prison earlier. Labour MPs now have to decide whether to vote for what victims of child abuse, family members of people killed by dangerous drivers, victims of rape and others want—victims whom many of them care about—or for what the Prime Minister and his Whips want. Tell the Prime Minister no, tell the Whips no, and vote for our amendment tonight.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Prison Safety · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

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

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

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

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

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

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

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