Kieran Mullan MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

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

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

  More

  Q I am Kieran. Just for transparency, as with some of the other witnesses this morning, I want to say that we have had the opportunity to meet previously and discuss some of these issues. I want to begin by asking you about victim impact statements—or victim personal statements, as they are technically known. We have heard that people do not always get the chance to say what they want in their statements, and that they are told that they have to alter or edit them. Have either of you experienced that, and could you perhaps share that experience? As you are not here physically, I will direct things to you, Glenn, so that you know when it is your opportunity to speak. Glenn Youens: We were led to believe that our victim impact statement was a way of saying how the crime and what had happened had impacted our family. We had to write it two or three times before we even went to court, to make sure that it was right and put in the right process. When we got to court, we were told that we had to edit it as there were certain things in it that we were not allowed to say. For instance, my wife Becky called Aidan McAteer a “child killer”, and we were told that we couldn’t say that because he had not been convicted of it. Even though he had pleaded guilty to it, we were not allowed to call him that. There were quite a few things that Becky wanted to be quite graphic about. She wanted to talk about all Violet’s injuries, exactly what had happened to her and how she had died of brainstem death. We were told that we could not do that because it would not be fair on him. From our point of view, if this is supposed to be a victim impact statement, we are supposed to be telling the judge, the court and—in our case—the perpetrators exactly how what they had done has impacted our family. To then be told, “You can’t say that, you can’t say this”, does not feel like a true representation of the impact on our family. For us, it was quite a negative experience. Also, on the day, Becky’s mother, my mother-in-law, was also hit. She was crossing the road with Violet, and she never got the chance even to put across an impact statement, because she was in hospital fighting for her life. We tried to put those things in there, but we were told that we were not allowed to, because it would not be fair on him. For us, we feel that it should have been a chance for us to say to him how he had affected our family, but it was not done that way, so for us and a few other families we have spoken to, it was not as we feel it should have been. It was not a true impact statement. Paula Hudgell: Most of the people I have spoken to have had an experience like Glenn’s, but it just shows that there is a way of having a positive victim impact statement. We were very lucky that the barrister on our case was very experienced. She read out the impact statement in such a way that it captured everything. She got across everything that needed to be said, but in those two weeks of the trial, the jury had aged about 20 years. It had been very difficult, and they still did not know whether Tony was alive or dead. In that, she put a photo of Tony under the Christmas tree with my other children, which the whole courtroom just applauded, because they realised that he was alive and living as good a life as he possibly could. That impact was, we felt, absolutely right. It was right for the situation and for us. Everything had got through. The perpetrators were there, and for us, it was seeing their faces of sheer shock—they did not know he had had his legs amputated by that time, but we felt it was a very positive experience. It just shows that it can be done that way, but I know of so many people who had their victim impact statements changed. It was the same for the Everards; they were told to delete part of theirs. It is not everywhere that people have that experience to be able to do it properly. Glenn Youens: Having spoken with Paula last night and had a conversation about this, hearing how impactive and how positive it was for Paula—if that is the right word in the situation—really highlighted for us the inconsistencies in the information that people are given and the way things can be done. I am grateful that Paula got that, but for us it was completely the opposite. It just shows, even within our small group, how inconsistent that is from one court to another court. That is what we need to look at.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

  I can point to a number of things that we would not have done. We would not have invested the same level of money in settling public sector strikes at above-inflation pay rises. We would not have given train drivers what I think was a £7,000 pay rise. There are many different ways we would have spent the money. Police numbers ebb and flow, but the hon. Lady talks about the narrative of what we achieved in government; we achieved the highest ever number of police officers. With the potential of fewer officers, we inevitably create greater risk, making it easier for the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour to avoid detection and confrontation. If the Government are serious about reducing antisocial behaviour, they must ensure that their choices do not result in further cuts to police numbers. If they do not, their pilots and plans will not make the difference that our approaches were making and all our residents will be let down as a result.

• 22 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme · Hansard source

  More

  Governments make choices. I have just laid out the economic situation that we inherited, which was worse than the one Labour has inherited, and yet we prioritised NHS spending. Nobody forced Labour to give above-inflation pay increases to a number of public sector workers and enormous pay increases to train drivers, or to make a significant but unwise investment in the green investment plan.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Old Oak Common Station Construction: South-west Travel Disruption · Hansard source

  More

  One of the ways in which we could improve the reliability of all our train services is through reform of working practices such as annual leave and weekend working. Agreeing a no-strings deal with ASLEF forced the Secretary of State into agreeing a no-strings deal with the RMT. How does she plan to recover from such a weak negotiating position for future rounds? What progress has she made on proposals—our proposals, I should say—for a pay review body for public rail workers?

• 9 Sept 2024 · Bus Franchising · Hansard source

  More

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

• 3 Sept 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to conclude the Committee of the whole House for the Opposition, and it has been a pleasure to sit and listen to another set of distinguished maiden speeches from Members on both sides. I join the Minister in the tributes he paid to the speeches made from the Government Benches. I pay tribute in particular to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for her moving remarks about her commitment to her daughter and to the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) for his powerful remarks about how his life is inspired by the bravery of the woman who saved his father’s life. On the Opposition side of the House, we had maiden speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) and for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds did a fantastic job of selling the tourist credentials of his constituency and proudly declared himself the Member for both pigs and lobsters. I am sure that his passion for the place where he grew up will serve his constituents well. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon spoke proudly of the history and beauty of her constituency. The House will be richer for her experience working for the War Graves Commission and her interest in foster caring. We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who used her previous experience as a rail Minister to explain clearly the changes that we need and have sought. She also highlighted the lack of evidence and arbitrary nature of the Government’s approach as well as the lack of thinking about the Bill’s implications at a local level for projects such as the west midlands rail hub. That brings me to the matter before us, where I am afraid my ability to find words of praise dries up. As my hon. Friend the shadow Transport Secretary outlined, we have been asked today to rush through a major change to the operation of our railways on the back of a rushed Second Reading and without all the benefits of a full Bill Committee. What exactly was it about giving stakeholders in the railway industry the chance to share their views in Bill evidence sessions that the Secretary of State was so afraid of? I wonder what witnesses might have raised—perhaps the fact that the facade of a simple solution to the challenges on the railway presented by the Secretary of State has already fallen away in the intervening weeks since Second Reading. On Second Reading, she praised the already nationalised LNER service while chastising private sector operators, warning them that they needed to get their house in order. I cannot decide whether the ASLEF leadership are just being unkind to her or have a mischievous sense of humour, because the day after crudely championing the no-strings deal they had secured from the Government, where did union bosses announce they intended their next round of industrial action to be? Not in one of the private sector operators that the Secretary of State is rushing to wrest back into public control, but in the publicly owned and run LNER. There could be no more definitive answer to the question of whether the Bill will make any real difference. If public sector operators are the answer, the Secretary of State might want to ask ASLEF why it described its public sector managers as brutal, bullying, promise-breakers. The risks for passengers and taxpayers are in stark headlights. Thankfully, the industrial action has been called off, though passengers’ travel plans were disrupted this weekend. It seems that we will avoid a protracted strike, but what concessions were made to ASLEF, and what involvement did Ministers have? We have no idea, and we will have a similar lack of transparency in future, if the Bill passes unamended. What of the private sector operators that the Secretary of State has been so critical of, and critical of us for allowing to continue? What can we learn from her dealings with them? Despite all her warm words to her Back Benchers, what has she done since Second Reading, using her existing contractual powers, to bring operators such as Avanti back into public ownership, if she really believes that will make a difference? She has quite literally spent years repeatedly describing it as failing. She has had almost two months to remove the franchise from it, which she could legally do if it were in breach of contract and not delivering, as she has repeatedly implied. I am sure that some of her Back Benchers will have noticed that she has not done that. It is yet further proof that she knows that the question of who runs the railways will not make a material difference. The Secretary of State knows that bringing Avanti and others into public ownership will not miraculously solve anything. In fact, the seven most punctual operators last year were private sector operators. Of the seven worst performing operators for cancellations in 2023-24, four were publicly run. At the start of the Committee, the shadow Transport Secretary outlined a number of important questions, which I hoped the Minister would answer in support of his argument that we should vote with him tonight. How will accountability for improving performance be achieved? How will costs be controlled? How will innovation and reform be driven forward? How will pay negotiations be conducted fairly for taxpayers? Those are basic questions that, after 14 years, Labour should be able to answer, but we will vote tonight with them unanswered. I want services to improve—in that respect, we all want the same thing—but the Bill as is has little chance of making that happen. It will just result in back-room deals that will, more likely, put union bosses first and bring no guarantees of improved performance for passengers. I respect and value railway staff, but Governments have wider responsibilities to taxpayers. The Government have the right to proceed anyway, but our amendments aim to at least ensure accountability and transparency, and would make passengers, not union bosses, the focus. We seek to ensure the best use of the Committee’s time, so we will not press amendment 18 to a Division, but with permission of the Chair, we will press amendments 14 and 17 to a vote, as the ones most able to secure the best version of the Bill. Amendment 14 makes it crystal clear that the primary duty of public sector operators is to passengers. Whatever ideological change this Government make to the ownership of the railways, that should never change. Amendment 17 aims to prevent a repetition of the no-strings deal given by Labour to its union boss donors, and to ensure independence in the process. Time and again, Labour Ministers have supported the importance of independent advice in determining the pay of public sector workers. Every single Labour MP voting against this amendment lays bare the stranglehold that the rail union bosses have over their Prime Minister and Secretary of State. If they single them out for special treatment, they will need to justify to other public sector workers in their constituencies why rail union bosses are exempt from the processes that to apply to teachers, soldiers, nurses and millions of other staff. To reiterate, we on the Opposition Benches are in agreement that change is needed, but practicality and what works should come first, not this rushed, ideological approach. Members in all parts of the Chamber can see that our amendments simply create safeguards for passengers and taxpayers, and ensure transparency and fairness. I hope that Government Members can see the benefit of that, and agree, even if they are convinced of the benefits of nationalisation, that there are better ways to do it. In that spirit, I call on them and all Members to support our amendments, and to deliver a better Bill in the Division Lobbies this evening. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 Future provision of services Amendment proposed : 14, page 2, line 17, at end insert— “(1BA) Every contract made in accordance with subsection (1A) shall place a duty on the public sector company to consider the needs of— (a) passengers; (b) residents of rural areas; (c) residents of areas underserved by the rail network; and (d) the wider rail network when considering making changes to existing service levels.” — (Helen Whately.) Question put, That the amendment be made. The Committee proceeded to a Division .

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

  More

  Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that we also saw an increase of more than 89% in passenger numbers on our railways, and a record level of investment. If taxpayers in other countries want to invest in our railway services, I welcome that. As the shadow Secretary of State said in her opening remarks, we have proved our lack of adherence to ideology by running, when necessary, a number of private sector operators. The point that the Labour Government have to answer is this: if they are so concerned about Avanti and other private sector operators, they have the necessary powers and could do that tomorrow. If they are so convinced of their ability to sort all this out simply through nationalisation—if they are so convinced that Avanti’s performance is one that requires them to step in—let them do it tomorrow. They are not in opposition any more, so they can take steps to do things that they criticise us for not doing. However, I am afraid that this is the same old Labour: more government good, private sector bad; unions first, passengers last. We on this side of the House have seen it and heard it all before, and we will make sure that everyone knows what Labour has spent its time focusing on and what it has put first when legislating here, politics and ideology, instead of focusing on what will actually make a difference to passengers.

• 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.

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

  More

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