Kieran Mullan MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 3, page 7, line 4, leave out from “and” to end of line 9. This amendment is linked to Amendment 22.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave out from “force,” to end of line, and insert— “so long as it is not grossly disproportionate.”

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

  More

  Can the Minister give me any other example in our legal system where someone who has suffered a consequence directly as a result of a conviction that is then overturned is required to take further steps to unpick a consequence that flows from that overturned conviction? I cannot think of any. If someone is exonerated, everything falls away. This measure is specifically linked to someone being found guilty; if they are then essentially found not guilty, they will have to take further steps. Nobody else who is essentially found innocent has to do other things to get things removed from them.

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

  More

  We all recognise that this is a novel measure. I do not think that anyone is suggesting introducing a blanket measure. For example, we have used the custodial threshold as a narrowing measure and the Liberal Democrats have used a serious sexual offence as a narrowing measure. The Minister is talking about the balance that needs to be struck, but surely the balance is not being struck correctly when the decision is that only a child for whom someone has parental responsibility brings this measure into scope. Surely that is not the right balance, despite the weighing exercise that I appreciate the Minister has to undertake.

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

  More

  I absolutely accept that it will not always be the case, but does the Minister accept that some people will not be bothered by those measures and will be able simply to use noise to escape accountability?

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

  More

  Absolutely, and it would be for the judge to decide in all circumstances whether it is appropriate. I will be happy after this sitting to send the footage from that case, and the evidence of someone successfully being gagged by having tape placed over their mouth. This is really simple stuff that is being done in other parts of the world and I do not understand why Members find it so difficult to understand.

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for that feedback. Perhaps we need to consider how the amendment is drafted, but does she accept the principle? There is no other example I can think of where someone is acquitted of an offence, because they are innocent, but they remain subject to any provisions whatever that were related to the conviction. Perhaps the amendment needs to be redrafted, but surely the Minister agrees in principle that someone should not be subjected to a consequence of a conviction that has been overturned.

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

  More

  The Minister has a wealth of colleagues around her who are covering these issues, including—as I understand it—the Home Office Minister responsible for safeguarding, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). What does this Minister say to the Home Office Minister about her previous position that a provision of the kind that the Government have drafted was too narrow? Has this Minister spoken to her colleague about that, and does her colleague personally agree with the measure as currently drafted by the Government?

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

  More

  The Minister made heroic efforts to explain the logic and context of how we ordinarily deal with these matters. We think the prohibited steps orders are an important enhancement for the safeguarding of children, but I cannot imagine a scenario, even in circumstances in which the offence has not been found proven, in which the children the Minister talks about will not have had the involvement of social services and other steps taken to ensure their wellbeing more generally. This measure is specifically about parental responsibility, and I find it difficult to understand why the Government are setting a precedent that an innocent party should be required to take further steps to unpick a consequence that flows specifically from their conviction. I appreciate the feedback on the drafting of the amendment, and I will not press it to a vote, but the Government need to think very carefully about the precedent they are setting in relation to what happens to innocent people. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Samantha Dixon.)

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

  More

  The hon. Member for Gloucester is chuntering; would he like to intervene? Did I say something that was factually incorrect?

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

  More

  Q The overwhelming weight of the evidence that we heard from witnesses today—it was almost universal—was in support of an extension of the scheme, but that was not enough to convince you that we can move ahead with this regardless of what the Law Commission says. Alex Davies-Jones: I agree that the vast majority of witnesses we heard from think that the scheme needs to be amended. There was a huge discrepancy in how they thought that should take place and what the time length should be. There were also a lot of views on the communication around the ULS and other victims’ rights, which need to be considered. That is why I think it should be carefully considered by an independent body such as the Law Commission rather than hastily changed in this Bill. It should all be considered as a whole.

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

  More

  Q Would you accept that Mr Jennings and Deputy Chief Constable Telfer, as they described, have expertise in the use of force and the physical management of offenders? Alex Davies-Jones: I would not want to speak for them. You heard their evidence today.

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

  More

  Q If you accept in principle that it can be done, and that it is done in other countries, why— Alex Davies-Jones: In the same way that anything can be done, but it is not as simple as that.

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

  More

  Finally, I just point out again that our amendment addresses the issue of making threats, for example. Those are things that you cannot do anyway, in terms of free speech, so our amendment covers that issue also. I encourage the Minister to look at our amendment again more closely, to see whether she can support it.

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

  More

  Q I am Kieran Mullan, the shadow Minister. Forgive me, but I want to understand your capacity to give evidence as civil servants. Would I be correct in saying that, if you were asked to comment on something that is not Government policy, you are restrained in giving a view, or is that a misunderstanding from my side? Chris Jennings: That sounds well described from our perspective. It is obviously for Ministers to set policy, rather than us.

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

  More

  Q I think they said on the record that they consider themselves to have expertise in that area. Would you accept that they both agreed that it would be possible in principle to implement measures such as the restraining or gagging of an offender, even if they did not necessarily comment on the policy area? Alex Davies-Jones: In principle, along with extensive training and resource, I believe is what they said.

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

  More

  Q If I may interrupt—sorry—do you think 28 days is enough? Clare Moody: I would want to come back to you on that point specifically and separately, because I do not feel right now I could give you an informed response.

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

  More

  Sarcasm!

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

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

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

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Horizon Redress and Post Office Update · Hansard source

  More

  More than 4,000 residents have signed my cross-party petition opposing the closure of the Bexhill Crown branch. It is fair to say that this whole situation has been made worse, because the Minister has allowed the Post Office to put the cart before the horse, with the decision taken on closures ahead of a clear guarantee on what will come next for all of our constituents. I notice that in his answers, the Minister has talked about “should”, “expectations” and “starting points”, but those are not cast-iron guarantees. Can he give a cast-iron guarantee that he will veto any replacement of the Crown service in Bexhill if it does not provide exactly the same services as the current branch is providing?

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

  More

  I think memories are definitely being scrambled. The Government have talked a lot about the supposed £20 billion deficit in day-to-day expenditure. I remind the Minister that it was around £100 billion when we came in in 2010. The Government talk about difficult decisions they had to take; we had five times as many difficult decisions to take as they have.

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

  More

  I am doing my best.

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

  More

  I do not know whether this is coming up in the Minister’s speech, but will she set a target for the reduction in antisocial behaviour that the Government are going to achieve in their time in office, as I asked in my speech?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?