Kieran Mullan MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 12 Dec 2024 · Prison Capacity Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  No—you cannot give way on a statement. In fact, prior to covid, we had got the Crown court backlog down to a lower level than it had been under the last Labour Government, another record of which we can be proud. To try to tackle the problem, we increased sitting days and introduced Nightingale courts, and contrary to what the Government have said, we were clear that we would carry on doing everything possible to bring that number down. We did not refuse the judiciary extra sitting days, as this Government have done, nor would we have refused them. We had agreed a floor on sitting days, not a cap, and negotiations were ongoing. If the judiciary had come to us and asked for more sitting days, we would have responded to that—and not by saying no, which is what this Labour Government have done. In the prison population estimates that sit alongside this plan is the proof that the Government truly have already given up on fixing this problem. Not only do their projections not target the remand population being brought down, but they show it going up, which means more victims waiting for trials and more prisoners released early. We should be building more prison spaces, and under our leadership we actually increased prison capacity at the fastest rate in living memory. That was not so we could accommodate more people on remand, but so we could go even further in ensuring that offenders are properly punished and victims get justice. The Government want to talk about the last 14 years, but I am afraid this plan leaves me asking what they were doing for those 14 years. They came into office telling the British public they had it all worked out. What have they done on sentencing? They have asked someone else to do a review. What have they done on how we prosecute murder? They have asked someone else to do a review. What ideas have they come into office with for tackling the court backlog? Absolutely none. Today, as the Minister knows, we have simply had a reannouncement of our planned prison building programme, with four new prisons, all of which were already announced or under way before Labour took office. This is not a bold new strategy; it is a continuation of work started under the Conservative Government. There are of course some important questions for the Minister. First, given that we did not do so, why have the Government refused additional Crown court sitting days to the judiciary? Secondly, why do their prison population figures project an increase in the remand population? Thirdly, given that they are committed to building more prison spaces whatever the sentencing review says—they will have to decide that; they cannot park responsibility with an independent review—will she commit to continuing our programme of increasing the amount of time that the most serious offenders stay in prison? Fourthly, missing from the prison population figures is any transparency at all about the number of foreign offenders, so what are their estimates for the foreign offender population in our prisons in future years? The Government blame us for their early releases, but the situation was nothing compared with the scale of the early releases they themselves oversaw when they were last in office. They released prisoners they should not have done, they botched the legislation and had to come back to this House to correct it, they let people out without tags who should have been tagged, and they have given up on fixing the fundamental issue of the remand population. The Leader of the Opposition has said that “we did not get everything right in government”, and she knows there are no easy answers to these challenges, only trade-offs. However, this Government are making it clearer and clearer how not to do it, and we on these Benches will be there every step of the way so that the British public know exactly that.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Prison Capacity Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her remarks. I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling out what was quite obviously an attempt to avoid scrutiny this week. I also thank the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for his efforts to ensure that we had a proper statement today. I begin by making one thing absolutely clear: if Labour MPs think that spending the next few years talking about our record in government is going to stop this Opposition from holding them to account, they are dead wrong. There will be no free passes for them on these Benches. It is already clear to the British public why the Government desperately want them: they are floundering and they know it. I say to the Minister that I will happily spend all day comparing records of Governments and inheritances. Labour MPs and the Minister decry our record of having had to release 5,500 prisoners early, but the last Labour Government released not just 5,500 or even 10,000 prisoners early. By the end of their time in office, they had released 80,000 prisoners early. That was the state of the system when Labour was in charge, and that does not even include the systematic erosion of the punishment element of our justice system brought about by Labour’s introduction of blanket halfway release for essentially the entire prison population. Labour did not call it early release, but that is what the British public know it to be. That was the record of the Labour Government that we had to try to turn around. I am proud of the fact that we began to unpick that record by reducing early release for the most serious offenders from halfway to two thirds, and that we introduced a whole-life tariff for premeditated child murder and increased maximum sentences for child abusers and others. Let us be absolutely clear: the root cause of the problem that we now face is a spike in the remand population. We have approximately 7,000 more people in prison on remand than we normally would. That unprecedented spike has occurred as a direct result of covid, and the Government know that.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support new clause 8 in the name of the shadow Chancellor, because it will help ensure accountability on this policy, and ensure that its impacts are fully understood. I want that because of the policy itself, but perhaps more because of how the Labour party has framed it, which I have found deeply concerning. I know all parties in this place are sometimes less than accurate in how we describe tax and spending, and about how it works for political advantage at different times, but the one thing out of all the things that the new Labour Government have done that I find genuinely appalling is the vindictive way in which they have rolled the ground for this measure by pitching schoolchild against schoolchild and parent against parent. I have genuinely found it really deplorable. We do not have hypothecated tax or spending in this country. Money from road taxes goes on things other than roads, and our national insurance payments do not get put into a pension pot. The Government know that, so to suggest that someone spending money on their own child without being taxed is taking money away from other children is completely and utterly wrong. The UK Government spend more than £1 trillion a year, and the Government can choose what they spend that money on. The suggestion that this money is going into a legally defined pot of money for education, and that if it was not there, there would be less money available for education, is completely without merit, not least because if there was such a pot, the parents we are talking about would for many years have been contributing to it, not taking money out of it. They would already have been subsidising mainstream education, according to the Government’s own arguments. The idea that schoolchildren in mainstream education are going without directly because we did not have VAT on private schools—that all sorts of parents for all sorts of reasons are choosing to invest some of their money in their own children’s education, but because we have not been taxing that, children elsewhere are missing out on their education—is a deeply unpleasant and unnecessary way to frame this argument. Imagine being a parent who—like people I know—had a modest start in life but then perhaps went on to medical school and became a GP. They are honest, hard-working people, and the fact that they were not being taxed on that spend means that they are now being made to feel that somehow that has been taking away from the education of other children. That is completely wrong. It really is the worst sort of politics. It was exemplified by the despicable tweet from the Education Secretary, which was rightly and roundly criticised. A private school having a swimming pool does not in any way affect the availability of mental health support in other schools, any more than spending extra money on potholes or defence or healthcare does. I reiterate that the Government have more than £1 trillion to spend every year on what they want, and ways in which to raise that.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I did not talk about motivation in my speech; I spoke about how the Minister has framed it. Does he accept that with a general taxation pot, where all the money goes into one amount that is doled out as the Government see fit, there is absolutely no basis for saying that children in the state sector have less because of the exemption of VAT for private schools? The two things are totally unconnected in the Budget and the financing of the Government.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Prolific Offenders · Hansard source

  More

  The House will have heard that the Secretary of State did not answer my question. I acknowledge that the problems with the early release scheme have been tackled, but I am told by many people working in the criminal justice sector that there are many other delays with the thousands of other prisoners who are due to be tagged. Again, can she assure the House that the thousands of prisoners who are due to be tagged are being tagged on time?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Prolific Offenders · Hansard source

  More

  We know that one of the key ways in which we manage prolific offenders is through tagging—both GPS tagging and home detention tagging. The Secretary of State has assured us that the problems with early release tagging have now been resolved, but I understand that problems persist for thousands of other prisoners who are due to be tagged. Can she assure the public that everyone who is being released, and who should be getting a tag, is being tagged on time?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

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

• 9 Dec 2024 · Planning Committees: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  May I say gently to the Minister that he has been passed a bit of a dud here? I think that experienced Labour Members know that, which is why not a single long-standing Member on the Minister’s Benches has stood up to defend this specific policy this afternoon. Is that because Labour Members, like most MPs, know that the local planning committees they have been involved in and seen make important decisions on a regular basis? They cannot be replaced by planning officers, because those officers are not embedded in local communities. Does the Minister really think that planning officers can replace local councillors on important matters such as this?

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

  More

  The Minister frowns, but he can look it up. Pre-pandemic, the backlog was lower than the backlog that Labour left us at the end of its previous time in government. The Government criticise, saying that we forced them to release several thousand prisoners early. Perhaps Government Members do not know that they released more than 80,000 prisoners early when they were last in charge. There is no doubt that there are challenges in our criminal justice system, but the Government should not expect and will not receive a free pass when it comes to fulfilling their responsibilities to tackle that challenge with professionalism and due diligence. The public expect better than this and we will be voting against this order on their behalf.

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

  More

  The Minister may shake his head and say that in some ways they were captured, but ultimately, as he has admitted, offenders have been released who should not have been. Ultimately, this provision will also significantly change the number of electronic monitoring tags required. The framework acknowledges this, but fails to detail how the Government will ensure readiness. We have seen what happens when these systems fail. Under the SDS40 early release scheme, offenders were released without tags, posing a clear danger to the public. We are told that the Government are now up to date with the SDS40 scheme. Can the Minister tell us the situation with the wider backlog? I am afraid that the Government have not done enough to reassure us that yet further extensions to the use of tagging at this stage will be suitably managed. The Lord Chancellor has also committed to funding at least 1,000 additional probation officers by March 2025. The recruitment and training of probation officers takes time. What evidence do we have that that target will be met? I am afraid that, on the three sensible tests against which we might view this policy, the result is wanting. The Government want to talk about our record. I remind them that they steered the Crown Court to a higher backlog, after we had reduced the backlog pre-pandemic.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  I think the Minister has only answered one of my questions. Will he address the 10-year timescale and the lack of any discussion of victims in the impact assessment? I think there were two other points he could usefully try to reply to.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q14. Members across this House are deeply concerned that the Post Office is considering closing more than 100 branches across our communities. More than 3,000 people have signed a petition opposing the closure of Bexhill post office. Does the Prime Minister agree that the Government must ensure that we protect vital post office services for all our constituents?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Labour’s housing targets desperately need reform to take into account land availability around protected landscapes. The Government have said that the answer is the costly planning appeals system. Does the Minister think that is a good use of taxpayers’ money?

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Today the focus is rightly on Back Benchers, so I will limit my remarks and—mindful of your advice on time, Mr Speaker—I will not be taking any interventions. It is not for me to make the case for His Majesty’s Opposition, because we have not taken a collective view, and, like many other Members, I have struggled greatly with this decision. I do not believe there is a perfect choice to be made today, just different versions of imperfection, and my time working as a doctor in A&E has made me sympathetic to both sides of the argument. I have seen the pain in the eyes of relatives who want to ease the suffering of their dying loved ones, but I have also held the hand of frail elderly people, forgotten by their families, feeling themselves to be nothing but a burden. When we reduce it to its core, we are facing a difficult dilemma. Access to assisted dying could reduce suffering for the terminally ill. That is a choice that some people would like to have, and some people would make that choice without any undue pressure. If we vote against this Bill today, they will not have that choice. I caution against avoiding facing up to this hard moral reality by arguing that whatever people may fear about dying can always be managed by modern medicine. For all that it can achieve, modern medicine cannot achieve everything. We have heard examples today of the worst illnesses that do more than cause pain. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) and my hon. Friend the. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) described dying from a catastrophic bleed that takes a person’s life in a panicked final moment. Of course, the treatments we may use to help people with pain often rob them of what they may sincerely feel to be their own independence and dignity. Some people may not want to spend their final days in a drug-induced state of semi-consciousness to manage their pain. Those minded to vote against the Bill should give that the greatest possible consideration. I do not think that the Bill’s opponents can deny it, any more than its proponents can deny that if this law is passed, it will represent the crossing of a significant legal, societal and moral Rubicon. Every other expectation that we have of the state is for it to help to extend and protect life, but we will instead be asking the state to procure the medicines, provide the staff, and sign off through the courts a process that is designed to lead—and will lead—to someone’s death. A deep respect for the sanctity of life is not the preserve only of religious thinkers. Opponents of the Bill place great weight on that consideration. They argue that once we accept that the state and its citizens can play a proactive role in causing death, the debate will shift from whether it should do that at all to how and when it should. It may be that we pass this legislation and no other in future, but those who have the utmost concern about even the possibility of an expanded Bill may vote against this one as the surest way for them personally to prevent that from happening. The Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), argued that coercion is not limited to the selfishly motivated relative directly pressuring a vulnerable person. It can be as simple as knowing that people in the same position as oneself could and did choose to die. Some Members worry that people will then ask themselves not just “Do I want to die?”, but “Should I want to die?” So where does this leave us? All of us can make a sensible and reasonable case for our positions, and even point to care and compassion, as we see it, in support of our view. Taking all this together, I think it means that one thing more than anything else should be our guiding principle today: we should, above all else, vote with great humility, and with respect for each and every vote cast in whichever direction. I want to direct that sentiment to the country at large. There are passionate campaigners on both sides of the debate, with their own perspectives, who fear greatly the outcome today if it turns out not to be the one that they want. I say to them that as well as being MPs, those voting today are also sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, parents and grandparents. Each Member will have in mind what they would want for their families and themselves. Our final decisions will come at the end of a great deal of thought and careful consideration. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) said, if people listened closely enough today they will have heard us all speaking with one voice—the voice of passion, for those people and causes that we are trying to aid with our vote, even if those people and causes are different. That passion represents this House at its very best. That should not be forgotten. I hope that it is something on which we can all agree.

• 21 Nov 2024 · Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation · Hansard source

  More

  That is an important point and, notwithstanding my hope that the Government will introduce legislation, I expect that we will be able to support a Bill that is suitably similar to the one originally presented. Mr David’s Bill proposed a robust framework to combat SLAPPs, including a wider early dismissal mechanism, and a requirement on claimants to demonstrate a greater likelihood of success for a trial to proceed. Additionally, the Bill called for new civil procedure rules to protect defendants from adverse costs when SLAPP claims go to trial. Crucially, it would have empowered the Lord Chancellor to extend this framework to other courts or tribunals if SLAPPs were being used to circumvent these protections. The Conservative Government recognised the Bill’s value, supporting it as a complement to the steps we had already taken, and importantly, so did the then Labour Opposition. Unfortunately, despite its potential, the Bill fell away during the wash-up before the general election, as is sadly too often the case. The proposals had cross-party support. There was no call from the then Opposition for a review or for things to be considered further, which they have now decided is necessary. In a recent article, the co-chair of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, Susan Coughtrie, expressed her disappointment that Labour has not developed a clear plan for similar legislation: “This could have been a relatively ‘easy win’ not only for the new government, but for the protection of public interest speech and the democratic health of our society.” She is right, of course, and I cannot think of a new Government in more dire need of an easy win than this Labour Government. With all this in mind, I urge the Minister to address several pressing questions. Given the Government’s support in opposition for the private Member’s Bill and its measures, why have they now determined that a further, delaying review is needed? When will this review be complete? Even if the review recommends some changes to the approach outlined in that Bill, do the Government commit in principle to introducing comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation next year? If not, when will they bring forward legislation? Will the Government commit to further and ongoing work with the Solicitors Regulation Authority to see whether its work could be reformed to deter law firms from taking on SLAPP cases? Finally, will the Minister commit to supporting the ongoing work of the SLAPPs taskforce? Ahead of legislation that has been unnecessarily delayed, this would send a strong signal of the Government’s commitment on this issue. The balance we must strike is clear. Our legal framework must protect the right to defend one’s reputation while safeguarding freedom of speech and ensuring that public interest journalism can thrive. I urge the Government to pick up where we left off, as they have a detailed and comprehensive private Member’s Bill ready to go. The powerful must not be allowed to misuse the legal system to suppress scrutiny and silence critics. In opposition, Labour Members were clear on what they supported and what needed to be done. Somehow, entering government has brought uncertainty and hesitation to their thinking. At a time when too much of this House’s legislative capacity is left unused, and when this Government desperately need a positive story to tell, they have changed course. I encourage them to build on our work and deliver in this area so that we can reaffirm our commitment to justice, accountability and the public interest, and ensure that the UK remains a beacon of free speech and fairness under the law.

• 21 Nov 2024 · Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by sending my condolences to the family of Lord Prescott, who was the sort of political figure who cut across party lines. As a teenager with just a passing interest in politics, I fondly remember seeing that punch and thinking, “Good for him!” As a shadow Minister, I should clarify that by saying he was exercising his lawful right to self- defence. May he rest in peace. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of the Opposition. We are debating an issue that is always a challenge for any democracy: how do we ensure that bad actors do not exploit important protections that have been put in place for our benefit, and how do we prevent measures that are meant to act as a shield from being turned into a weapon? These tensions find sharp expression in the misuse of our legal system through SLAPPs. They are not just frivolous lawsuits or the expected robust exchange between solicitors and their clients; they are a serious, deliberate tactic used to stifle voices that expose wrongdoing or hold the powerful to account. They are designed to intimidate, drain resources and create a chilling effect that suppresses important public discourse. It has been positive to hear contributions from Members that demonstrate a deep understanding of this issue and its importance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) drew on his experience of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and of being a former Secretary of State in discussing all the key issues that we have considered today, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy). My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East reminded us of the importance of ensuring that the other side of the debate is remembered when it comes to allowing people to fairly protect their reputation. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk talked in helpful detail about what happened to the former Member Charlotte Leslie, reminding us how much politicians are in the firing line. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), who has joined me on the Opposition Front Bench, is concerned about how SLAPPs can be used to stifle debate both locally and nationally. Of course, all Back Benchers here today want to see action from the Government. Although the tone of the debate has been consensual, it is the job of the Opposition to hold this new Government to account. In what is becoming a familiar pattern, Labour Members, when in opposition earlier this year, supported legislation that would have built on our work in this area. Now that they are in government, however, reasons to delay have appeared. In the other place, the Government have said that they now think a further review is needed. Today, alongside an explanation for this change, I hope that we will hear a more concrete commitment and a clear plan from the Minister. SLAPPs extend their impact far beyond the courtroom. Investigative journalists, whistleblowers, campaigners and even grieving families raising safety concerns have found themselves silenced. SLAPPs do not defend reputations; they conceal misconduct, shield wrongdoing and erode public trust in our institutions. In the previous Parliament, as a member of the Justice Committee, I had the welcome opportunity to join a one-off session of the Foreign Affairs Committee that did an excellent job of putting SLAPPs in the parliamentary spotlight. I got to hear at first hand from witnesses working across journalism, many of whom have been mentioned today, including Catherine Belton, the author of “Putin’s People”; investigative journalist Tom Burgis; Susan Coughtrie from the Foreign Policy Centre, who is co-chair of the UK Anti-SLAPP coalition; and Arabella Pike, who is head of publishing at William Collins. I distinctly remember Catherine and Arabella talking powerfully about their experience of the sustained legal attack that “Putin’s People” came under, and it was clear that it took real courage to persevere with its publication. Tom described his experience across Africa, and the wider network of oligarchs and corrupt Governments working together to suppress journalism that would have held them to account. He has direct experience of successfully defeating SLAPPs relating to his own book, as others have mentioned. Susan described how individuals take advantage of good journalistic practices, whereby giving a right to reply is used to start to overwhelm journalists, and highlighted that this sort of activity is undertaken by not just legal professionals but other, unregulated individuals. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has documented numerous cases where SLAPPs have smothered stories of profound public interest—stories exposing safety failures, corruption and malpractice. Such cases deserved public scrutiny, yet they were buried beneath a mountain of legal threats. Of course, the right to defend one’s reputation is important. It ensures fairness, prevents the spread of harmful falsehoods, and protects individuals from malicious attacks. Like others who have spoken today, I have first-hand experience of that. A journalistic blogger decided that they had proof that my time spent volunteering as a policeman was made up, and that I had committed a criminal offence in lying about it. At the height of an election campaign, I saw that story spread across social media and reach tens of thousands of people. It was only through my taking the available legal steps that stopped it spreading further. Shoddy journalism should not find shelter in anti-SLAPPs legislation, but when SLAPPs turn the scales of justice into tools of suppression, they undermine the very principles that they claim to protect. Sadly, the UK legal system is seen by some people as a favourable domain to stifle debate. Although it is not a watertight source, a 2020 survey by the Foreign Policy Centre revealed that the UK was the most frequent single international origin of legal threats against journalists, accounting for 31% of cases. By comparison, 35% of SLAPP threats originated in the US and the EU combined. Recognising the threat of SLAPPs, the previous Conservative Government introduced important legislation that the current Government said represented a significant step forward in this area. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 defined SLAPPs in law for the first time, introduced swift dismissal mechanisms and implemented cost protections in claims relating to economic crime, reflecting the then Government’s belief that 70% of SLAPPs are linked to financial corruption and the scope of the original Bill. The last Government also established the SLAPPs taskforce, a group of legal and media professionals tasked with improving our understanding of SLAPPs and equipping stakeholders to combat them. As others have mentioned, during the previous Parliament the former Member for Caerphilly, Wayne David, introduced the strategic litigation against public participation Bill, a private Member’s Bill that presented further possible steps to address SLAPPs.

• 21 Nov 2024 · Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome that general commitment. Apologies if the Minister was going to come on to it, but could she explain why, when Labour was content with the legislation drawn up in the private Member’s Bill, it now feels it is too complicated and unbalanced, and cannot be implemented?

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

  More

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

• 14 Nov 2024 · Government Support for Farmers · Hansard source

  More

  6. What recent discussions he has had with the National Farmers Union on the adequacy of Government support for farmers.

• 14 Nov 2024 · Government Support for Farmers · Hansard source

  More

  My local NFU representative, Gillian van der Meer, makes clear her concerns and those of many other local farmers about the impact of Labour’s family farm tax. I find it extraordinary that the Minister seems to think that, even if we accept his figures, it is okay that hundreds of farms will be affected. I appreciate that a U-turn can be difficult in the Westminster bubble, but I find the public are much more understanding and would welcome the Government realising that they have got this wrong. Does he agree that they have got this policy wrong and that it is time for a rethink?

• 13 Nov 2024 · Future of the Post Office · Hansard source

  More

  The post office in Bexhill provides vital banking and other services to my constituents, and I have already been contacted by people concerned about its possible closure. Can the Minister ensure that the consultations he keeps mentioning include local communities and service users, and can he guarantee, given Labour’s manifesto commitment to strengthen the post office network, that nothing will be done to reduce the scope of post office services available to my constituents, or the time when they are available?

• 5 Nov 2024 · Early Release Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Of course, tagging will protect the public only if curfew breaches are addressed swiftly. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether there have been any breaches of tag-monitored curfews? On average, how quickly are those who commit a breach brought back into custody?

• 5 Nov 2024 · Early Release Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Wanting to see justice delivered more consistently for victims is the key reason I sought election to this place, so it is an enormous privilege to take up this role today. In response to concerns raised last month about offenders who have been released early not being promptly tagged, the Secretary of State assured the House that she will monitor performance daily. Can the Government now provide concrete assurance to the House and the public that all offenders are being tagged as they should on release?

• 4 Nov 2024 · Budget: Implications for Farming Communities · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent.