Kieran Mullan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 May 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank Members from all parts of the House for their contributions to the debate. We have heard powerful speeches that reflect the deep importance of the Bill, and the heavy responsibility that we all carry for delivering justice not just in name, but in practice. Like others, I pay tribute to the campaigners who have joined us, whom I was privileged to meet briefly earlier, and who are in the Gallery. They have all campaigned on behalf of their loved ones—Sabina Nessa, Zara Aleena, Jan Mustafa and Olivia Pratt-Korbel. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for her incredibly powerful contribution. To see Cheryl hear those words, knowing that they were going on the record, will have impacted so many Members today. I am sure that it will be something that Cheryl will never forget. We must not forget how difficult the campaigning has been. All campaigners have had to relive experiences and deal with the most unimaginable memories. They pay a very heavy price every time they have had to do that, and I thank them for it, and I know that other Members will do the same. The Opposition welcome the intent behind this legislation. Measures to compel offenders to attend sentencing hearings and to remove parental responsibility from serious child sex offenders were committed to, and work was begun on them, by the previous Government. The provisions to compel offenders to attend their sentencing hearings come after we have seen one too many disgraceful examples in recent years of the most serious and violent criminals hiding from justice, and from the pain that they have caused. That must end. We welcome cross-party support on this matter, but at present, the Bill leaves out an important principle. The decision to require an offender’s attendance should fundamentally be driven by the wishes of the victims and their families. It is they who must live with the consequences of the crime, and they who should be at the centre of deciding whether the person who harmed them should be made to face them in court. Justice must not just be seen to be done, but should be shaped by those it seeks to serve. We will push for changes to this legislation during its future stages to ensure that is the case. We also want to make sure that the correct balance is struck on the use of force. The Prison Officers’ Association is clear: notwithstanding concerns about prison officers’ equipment, they will not resile from taking offenders to court. The legislation needs to ensure that only in the most exceptional circumstances does that not happen. We have heard concerning stories about parents having to spend tens of thousands of pounds in court to remove parental rights from serious sexual offenders, and I welcome the fact that the previous Government planned legislation to begin addressing that. We welcome our shared desire to act on this issue, but the Minister will have heard campaigners’ concerns that the approach in the Bill does not cut it. I welcome the Minister’s public commitment to considering how to strengthen it. Last year, when in opposition, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is sitting in the Gallery, supported an amendment for a much broader measure than the Government are proposing today. I encourage her to speak to her colleague on the Front Bench about how this measure falls short. The debate then was around whether the measure should apply to offenders perpetrating offences against any children, and about where to set the threshold. Our proposed measure was not perfect, but this measure is the worst of both worlds. It relates only those who have offended against their own children, and there is quite a high bar, in that they have to have been sentenced to at least four years. I think that we can do better than that. We also welcome improvements to victims’ information rights and the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. That role, which has been maintained by Governments of all parties for a significant time now, is incredibly important. Baroness Newlove, the commissioner, will look closely at the Bill, and will support victims and campaigners in their efforts to ensure that it delivers. She has also consistently raised a possible source of funding—funding is always a challenge for every Government Department: unpaid victim surcharges. The £1 billion-plus might help fund some of the work that we want to do. Although there are measures that we welcome, there are changes that are being trailed as measures for victims, but that are nothing of the sort, such as the changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which have caused confusion even in the Chamber among Labour Members; for example, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) seemed to think that these are measures for victims. The measure on the unduly lenient sentence scheme is nothing to do with victims. A total of 14,000 people signed the petition for Sasha’s law, which was set up by campaigner Katie Brett, who is on the Justice for Victims group, in memory of her sister Sasha. If the House will forgive me, I will detail what happened to her sister. She was murdered in 2013. Aged just 16, she was raped and stabbed more than 100 times, and her body was set on fire. Katie and her family believe that her killer met the criteria for a whole-life order, but he was only given a minimum sentence of 35 years. Katie and her family did not know anything about the right of appeal, and even if they did, who really thinks most people are in the right state of mind to think about that sort of thing within 28 days of the sentence being passed? Katie is not alone. Ayse Hussein, another member of the campaign group who was also in the Gallery today, campaigns in memory of her cousin, Jan. Jan’s killer had raped, tortured and imprisoned various girls and young women, and also murdered Henriett Szucs and hid the bodies of both women in a freezer. He did not receive a whole-life sentence, and would probably leave prison one day. Again, her family knew nothing of the right to appeal. When they saw that changes were to be made to the scheme, campaigners reasonably thought that the changes would extend the 28-day time limit for victims, but no: the Government want to give more time not to victims and families but to themselves. More time for Government means that they have longer to think about and reflect on these deeply personal and sensitive matters than victims will have. That is bordering on insulting, and I think the Minister will share my concerns. In Committee we will put forward amendments that require victims, not just the Government, to be given more time. I hope we will have the support of Labour Members who have committed today to supporting that measure, such as the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal). We welcome the creation of a statutory right for victims to have information about an offender’s release, but we want to know how this will be delivered, who will staff the helplines, how victims will know their rights, and what exactly they will be told. For some time, the Victims’ Commissioner has raised the question of whether victims should get to know the specific release date.

• 19 May 2025 · Legal Aid Agency: Cyber-security Incident · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, although it was pretty disappointing to hear her deliver it as written. Before I had seen her statement, I drafted one of my own. In it, I was clear that I would limit my party political remarks, and thinking that the Minister would devote a significant part of her statement to condemning the immoral, malicious, criminal actors who are responsible for this attack, I intended to begin with strong words of support for what she said. However, if Members listened closely, they would have heard that she devoted most of her time to party political attacks, and managed barely one sentence of condemnation. I suggest that she looks at her statement when she leaves the Chamber, and reflects on that. I will say what the Minister should have said to all those worried by what has happened, including those who may be victims of fraud as a result, and taxpayers who will pick up the bill: we should never lose sight of the fact that whatever the role of any Government, past or present, in unsuccessfully defending against such attacks, the primary responsibility for this lies with the despicable criminals who carried it out. This was not just an attack on a digital system; it was an attack on some of the most vulnerable in our society. Their data is deeply personal in some cases, given that sensitive medical records have been exposed. It is utterly appalling. We welcome the fact that the National Crime Agency and the National Cyber Security Centre are involved, and I hope that the Minister will agree that those behind this breach must be brought to justice. Nothing should stand in the way of full accountability for this crime. Addressing the actions of those behind the attack is paramount. The Minister may seek to focus blame on a previous Government, but I have questions about this Government’s response. First, why was the decision taken not to inform the House and the public about the breach when it was first discovered on 23 April? We now learn that the impact may extend to those who made applications as far back as 2010, and that more than 2 million pieces of information have been accessed. The delay of nearly a month in notifying the public and/or understanding the nature of the attack could have hindered individuals from taking necessary steps to protect themselves from potential harm, such as fraud or harassment. Secondly, the Minister mentioned taking systems offline that are crucial for legal professional payments. Can she provide a clear update on the operational status of those systems? If they are not yet fully functional, what is the estimated timeline for their restoration? She mentioned contingency plans; could she tell us more about their nature? Thirdly, can she share any information about the origin of this attack? Is it believed to be a state-linked criminal enterprise? Fourthly, has the Ministry of Justice initiated a thorough risk assessment of its other digital systems, and digital systems across Government more widely? She says that the Government believe that the attack is contained, but on what basis has she reached that conclusion? Fifthly, the Minister talked about the £20 million set aside for delivering improved systems. She will know the challenges that previous Governments faced in attempting to upgrade those systems. What specific improvements will be achieved by this funding, and when? Finally, will the Minister give a commitment to full transparency for the House, through regular updates as the investigations progress? She mentioned seeking to make the public more aware of the issue, so that people know if they might be affected. Will she ensure that those affected by this breach are directly contacted and offered appropriate support? Will she reiterate the Government’s commitment to ensuring that those responsible are brought to justice? The security of our justice system, public confidence and the wellbeing of vulnerable individuals depend on a robust and transparent response to this serious incident.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I need to make progress. They will be daunted not least because, although we have international examples, we are considering a novel practice in this country in our particular circumstances. Members who are generally supportive or opposed in principle may choose to abstain on a number of amendments on which they feel that they are unable to give a definitive view and are content to vote on the final outcome on Third Reading. That would be understandable. I know that Members have considered how they will vote very carefully, and that they will continue to do so, by taking into account their views and experiences, as well as those of their constituents, other Members whom they respect, and experts and campaigning organisations. We will all be directly accountable to our constituents at the next election for all our votes throughout this Parliament. That brings me to the remarks that I said I would like to finish with on the responsibilities of the public and campaigners towards MPs as they consider our votes. As we are first and foremost public servants, the focus is quite rightly usually almost entirely on the responsibility of MPs to the public, but as with all meaningful relationships, this is, and should always be, a two-way street. I accept the very strong feelings and deeply personal experiences that are brought to bear for those people contacting their MPs, and nothing I say should be taken as diminishing the rights of campaigners to make their cases strongly and consistently, but I and others have experienced lobbying by campaigners whose passion for securing the outcome they want has led them to question the integrity, sincerity or understanding of those MPs seeking a different outcome to them. Some high-profile campaigners have made unhelpful remarks. Although I am not religious, I was concerned to see the clumsy criticism of those whose objections to the Bill are thought to be centred in their religious beliefs, as was mentioned by the hon. Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Lowestoft (Jess Asato).

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As has been the case throughout the Bill’s consideration, His Majesty’s Opposition have not taken a position on the principle of the Bill, and nor do we take a position on any of the amendments before the House. It is not for me to justify or argue against particular amendments. The arguments for and against have been well ventilated by hon. Members today. As we might expect—I know this from my own email inbox—many constituents are considerably more interested in our proceedings than might ordinarily be the case for a Bill’s Report. It might also be the case that there is not a complete understanding of the nature of today’s proceedings, so I hope that I might usefully reiterate what we are and are not doing. I then want to make some remarks focused on the public and campaigners, about how they should reflect carefully on their own obligations to respect the sincerity and freedom of choice of Members. I have come to consider that issue to be important, given some public interventions by high-profile campaigners, experiences with my own constituents and experiences that I know other hon. Members have had when they have been lobbied on the topic and on the way in which they will be voting today.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Not on that point. We may wish to reflect on how we might change our approach to Bills like this one in the future, given the significant dissatisfaction that has been expressed with the manner in which it has been considered, even though it has been done in the ordinary way. But we are where we are. As on Second Reading, this debate has been a balancing exercise. The promoter of the Bill and others have appropriately reminded us all of the very difficult and tragic experiences faced by the terminally ill and their families, but I respectfully say to the hon. Member for Spen Valley that we should be cautious in saying that opponents of the Bill are happy with the status quo, and I know that she would not have meant to suggest that.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have expressed my views on that matter. I understand why Members are concerned, but it has been in order, and at your discretion, Mr Speaker. MPs who disagree with campaigners’ views for or against assisted dying are not uncaring or lacking in compassion. They have not failed to understand the arguments; they have just inevitably disagreed with at least some of their constituents. I urge campaigners to use their passion and commitment to the cause to fuel their campaigning, as is their right, but to pause and reach understanding before criticising an MP simply because they have reached a different view on a very challenging matter. In a democracy, the public are as important as politicians in determining the quality of our discourse. I hope that my remarks remind people of that, and encourage them to aspire to be the best example of the behaviour that they want to see from their elected representatives, just as we have seen again in the Chamber today.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I need to make progress. I say that not least because I suspect that a very large number of supporters of the Bill might draw on their Christian or other religious compassion to explain why they want to see it pass. There was widespread reporting of how powerful the Second Reading debate was in showcasing the best of Parliament, with thoughtful debate and a consideration of nuanced and varied viewpoints. If Parliament demonstrates itself at its best, that creates a call for the public to do the same.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some remarks about the process. The time allocated today is a matter for the Chair and it would not be appropriate for me to comment, but I accept and understand the concerns raised by the hon. Lady and other hon. Members. Today we have also looked at the procedure for receiving assistance, including safeguards and protections, and issues related to eligibility and mental capacity. As in Committee, some of the proposed amendments would make significant changes. I want to comment on the correspondence from the relevant Ministers regarding the amendments. Their letter to Members quite properly explained that those amendments laid by the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), were considered workable by the Government, but the same could not be said about other amendments. It is important that the Minister emphasises, in his closing remarks, that that should not be read to mean that those amendments are not workable, which a superficial reading of the letter might imply; it just means that the Government have not given a view. I have sympathy with the concerns raised by the hon. Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and for Bradford West (Naz Shah) about the challenges for Members seeking to lay amendments without Government support. While all the normal conventions may have been followed, this is not a normal Bill, because of its significance and potential impact.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has added his concerns to those of others about the manner in which the debate has been conducted, but I reiterate that this has been done in the ordinary manner in terms of the Speaker’s discretion and the Standing Orders of the House. Opponents of the Bill are concerned that it will lead to a different set of unacceptable circumstances for different people; it is not that they are happy with how things are at the moment. All MPs have talked about people they care deeply about and how to help them. Whether they referred to disabled people, young people or the terminally ill, MPs have been speaking out in support of or against amendments, out of concern and compassion. I may be tempting fate in saying that we might find consensus on advertising restrictions, but outside of that, Members have undoubtedly expressed a variety of strong views on others’ amendments. It may be that Members vote consistently in line with whether they were originally for or against assisted dying, but other Members who are supportive of the Bill in principle are voting for restrictive amendments because they think that they are necessary. That is because this is a complex moral, legal and societal matter. I understand that Members are considering their votes with a degree of uncertainty. There should be no shame at all in Members’ admitting that they will be daunted by the sheer number of potential changes to the Bill, not to mention the decisions from the Speaker on those we are going to vote on or the challenge of deciding how to vote on each of them, either today or on a future day.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As I said, I recognise that the Bill is of greater significance than a typical private Member’s Bill, but it has been delivered through the normal procedures of the House, and it is for the House as a whole to make those changes.

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

  More

  Sarcasm!

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

  More

  I am grateful to be able speak in this Opposition day debate ahead of next week’s UK-EU summit. I campaigned for, believed in and continue to believe in the promise of Brexit. At its core, Brexit was a vote for the importance of national democracy, a vote for national sovereignty and a vote against regionalisation and government by bureaucrats. I believe strongly in international co-operation, but I do not believe in institutionalisation. I do not believe that decision making gets better in aggregate. My experience has taught me that it only gets worse. It gets more remote, less well informed and riddled with compromises that barely satisfy anyone and please no one. I continue to believe that the UK—its people and its Government—deciding its own future, not locked into continental bureaucracy, provides the best possible future for us. Behind all the carefully choreographed language from Ministers about resets, there is one inescapable truth: this Labour Government risk laying the groundwork and taking the first steps to betraying the full promise of Brexit. That should not be any surprise, given that they are led by a man who campaigned for the leadership of the Labour party on the basis of restoring freedom of movement. He supported a second referendum and he voted against Brexit 48 times. We on this side of the House are not prepared to watch this slow train wreck in silence. Many issues have been raised by many Members, but I want to raise just two that are of particular importance. First, on the youth mobility scheme, the fundamental issues that made freedom of movement so unpopular would remain at the core of any youth mobility scheme. The level of economic disparity across EU member states is fundamentally incompatible with the scheme becoming anything other than yet another route for mass low-skilled migration, at a time when the Government tell us they want to drive that down. Secondly, there can be no dynamic EU rule taking or ECJ oversight. Any agreement on food standards, services or carbon trading must not come at the price of automatic alignment. We did not leave the EU to find ourselves bound to it in everything but name. We must demand mutual recognition and independent dispute resolution, and that is the only thing we should accept. That would reflect a relationship of mutual respect. These are not unreasonable demands. They are the bare minimum that any sovereign state would expect when engaging in talks with a foreign bloc. The United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, whether the Prime Minister and his Ministers like it or not. Is it any wonder that they are looking for answers internationally when we look at their domestic picture? They are restricting winter fuel payments, inflation is still biting us, business confidence is shaken, working families are being hammered with job-destroying taxes, and growth is stalling. We must not allow this to serve as a diplomatic distraction from their domestic failure. We will not allow Labour to turn a reset into a roll-back, and any future Conservative Government will not be bound by any agreement that breaches these clear red lines. We will not allow Brussels to disguise control as co-operation, and we will not let the democratic choice of the British people be eroded by stealth. Brexit was not a pause; it was a pivot. It was a huge opportunity for our country, and I believe that the benefits will accrue for decades to come. The Government might be able to hide their true intentions this week but they will not be able to hide them forever, and we will be here to make sure that the British people know what they really believe in. It is not the freedom and sovereignty of Brexit.

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

  More

  As was put to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), at the start of the debate, the red tape is coming from the EU, not us. Why is the ire of the Lib Dems never directed at the people responsible for introducing the trade barriers?

• 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 May 2025 · Small Abattoirs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing this important debate. Several farmers in my constituency have contacted me to raise concerns about the threat to small-scale abattoirs, to express how vital they are to their business and to ask me to take part in this debate to share the challenges they face as a result of the disappearance of small-scale abattoirs and their fears for their future. I thank the Brighton and Hove food partnership and the Wealden food partnership for their local research on this matter. Small-scale farms go hand in hand with small-scale abattoirs, which offer the flexibility that small farms need to rear a diverse range of breeds. In Sussex, they support conservation efforts to restore a rare and highly diverse habitat. We are incredibly fortunate in East Sussex to have one of the rarest habitats in the UK—chalk grasslands, which have formed over thousands of years and have created the conditions for a rich, biodiverse ecosystem of rare plants and animals. The South Downs national park authority highlights that we can find up to 40 different species within 1 square metre. Since world war two, however, the UK has seen an 80% reduction in these chalk grasslands, making their conservation an important local issue, as the last remaining areas are under threat from spreading scrub, including nettles, hawthorns and brambles. Local farmers can support these crucial and rare grasslands through a process known as conservation grazing, which is considered an important tool in local efforts. Conservation grazing is the practice of using primarily native breeds of grass-grazing livestock to selectively graze out problem or invasive species, most often without the need for supplementary feeding. That gives our chalk grasslands the opportunity to start growing, instead of continuing to shrink. The native breed animals needed to do that, however, are typically smaller and less homogenised than the products we are used to seeing in supermarkets. Most large-scale abattoirs sell directly only to wholesalers and supermarkets, which creates a number of problems. Supermarkets have very clear specifications of what they consider to be an acceptable cut of meat. Often, the native breed animals that farmers would use in conservation grazing will not be accepted by supermarkets, as they produce cuts that are too small or too variable, meaning that large-scale abattoirs will not accept those livestock in the first place. Farmers are then restricted in the breeds they can rear. Large abattoirs usually do not allow farmers to reclaim their meat to sell locally. If farmers are able to sell their own meat, they are also often able to make a small premium, which tells the story of their farm and recognises the slow and sustainable pace at which the animals were grown. That is where small-scale abattoirs such as Down Land Traditional Meats come in. The abattoir is in Henfield, West Sussex, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who I know has been doing his best to support it. It provides an essential service to local farmers in my constituency and across Sussex. The abattoir is willing to accept those native livestock species and allow farmers to get their meat back. Sadly, like many small-scale abattoirs, Down Land Traditional Meats faces potential closure due to a range of different factors. Some are specific to its circumstances, but there are pressures outside its immediate control. One pressure, as has been mentioned by other Members, is an uplift in the FSA hourly rates for official vets and meat hygiene inspectors visiting meat premises for the 2025-26 financial year, which on average is close to 20%. It is true that the very smallest abattoirs have discounts on those rates, which have remained, but for those abattoirs in the middle bands, there has been a decrease in the discounts from 26% to 17% and from 14% to 6% respectively. That puts immense financial pressure on already tight margins. Without small-scale abattoirs, local farmers and businesses will have to start reconsidering practices such as conservation grazing or start looking further afield into other parts of England, but that comes with its own consequences. Whatever their size and make-up, there are good reasons to have a good spread of abattoirs across the country so that all farmers are reasonably close to one. In that regard, the south of England already has a disadvantage compared with the rest of the country, as there are so few abattoirs of any kind—only Scotland has fewer per square mile. Using more distant abattoirs would increase the transit time for livestock. That is a great concern to farmers in my constituency, as their livestock would have to be placed in bigger lorries and travel longer distances. Long journeys increase stress in animals as they are exposed to crowded conditions, noisy vehicles, vibrations, a lack of food and water or space to rest, and fluctuating temperatures. On an economic point for farmers, the cost of increased transportation will further cut into their tight margins, making an already costly business even more expensive and, perhaps for some, unviable. The last Government recognised the importance of small abattoirs and the role they play in providing a route for farmers to rear rare and native breeds, which is why they launched the £4 million smaller abattoir fund to boost the sustainability and efficiency of red meat and poultry abattoirs across England. The fund awarded capital grants from £2,000 up to a maximum of £60,000 to help smaller abattoirs across England improve productivity, enhance animal health and welfare, add value to primary products and encourage innovation and investment in new technologies. Six months after the launch, recognising further pressures, the last Government increased the maximum grant value to £70,000. Meanwhile, this Labour Government have instead introduced devastating changes to inheritance tax laws through their cruel family farm tax, which will mean that many small farms will have to sell land to larger so-called super farms, which may not have the same sense of guardianship over the land as our smaller local farmers. I finish with a number of questions for the Minister. First, given the increased costs, what assessments have the Government made of reforming the professions that can conduct the necessary welfare checks? Are they confident that only a vet can fulfil all the duties currently fulfilled by vets at that increased cost? Secondly, what plans are there for further direct funding support for small abattoirs? Finally, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of the fee increase? Can they commit to freezing fees for next year? I welcome this opportunity to raise those concerns on behalf of farmers in my constituency, and I look forward to the Minister providing the concrete plans and reassurances that my local farmers seek.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition on Third Reading, following on directly from the Committee of the whole House, where Government Members rejected our amendments to strengthen the Bill. We now know the strength of the appetite on the Labour Benches to tackle this challenge properly and comprehensively here and now: there is not one. In truth, we knew that already. The Government had an opportunity weeks ago to restore democratic accountability to the Sentencing Council through the private Member’s Bill of the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). They rejected that opportunity, and earlier today they rejected even the more modest strengthening we proposed. That should not be a surprise. Labour has a Prime Minister who is first and foremost a lawyer, not a leader. He is a lawyer steeped in the philosophy of securing political change through legal activism. That is the very approach that the Lord Chancellor has been forced to bring in emergency legislation to curtail. That approach is why the appetite for proper action is so limited. The legislation before the House is a fig leaf to hide the truth that a Labour party led by Keir Starmer will always have to be dragged kicking and screaming to tackle the judicial activism that he has long championed— [ Interruption. ]

• 30 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I gently suggest to the Minister that if there is a risk of a democratic deficit, surely the thing to do is to act now in the short term and unpick it later if he feels he has overreached.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would expect the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to at least acknowledge that such references are to judges in their capacity as leaders of the Sentencing Council, not to judges sitting in individual cases. That is an important distinction to make when parliamentarians comment on their conduct.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of amendments 3 and 4 in my name and in the name of the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and of Conservative colleagues. As MPs from across the House have made clear, the draft guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council would have led to an unacceptable two-tier justice system in which defendants were treated differently on the basis not of their crimes, but of their racial, cultural or religious identity. In fact, the record will show that two-tier justice did exist for several hours, because this issue was managed so shambolically that the guidance came into effect ahead of its formal withdrawal. That is not justice—it is a betrayal of the fundamental principle of equality before the law. It would have happened under the watch of this Labour Government and this Lord Chancellor but for the intervention of the Opposition, and in particular the shadow Secretary of State for Justice. This Bill is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Instead of acting decisively to restore public confidence, after the Labour Government have been dragged to this Chamber to act at all, they now bring forward a half measure—a meagre response that falls short of what it should be. That is why the Opposition have tabled two important amendments. Amendment 3 would ensure that in future, sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports cannot simply be issued by the Sentencing Council without democratic oversight, and would instead require the consent of the Secretary of State before coming into force. Why is that now necessary? The Sentencing Council has proven itself not just in the initial measures it proposed, but in its attitude and response towards parliamentary and public scrutiny, to be unable to sustain public confidence in its work in this area. It is one thing for a public body to possess operational independence and to seek to exercise that independence on a day-to-day basis; it is quite something else for a public body to choose not to exercise good judgment and make use of that independence to act with restraint in the face of widespread Government, Opposition, parliamentary and public concern. While they do, of course, have their merits, the actions of the Sentencing Council have brought to life the potential pitfalls of unelected quangos that are deaf to the concerns of the people who pay their wages and the politicians who represent them. While this whole affair has no doubt been humiliating for the Lord Chancellor and the Government, the damage to public confidence in the leadership of the Sentencing Council is just as great. Despite what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) said in his remarks on Second Reading, the Sentencing Council did not agree to pause the implementation of the guidelines to allow for a period of reflection—it outright refused to do so. He has misunderstood the sequence of events. The council paused only because we would have otherwise entered into a constitutionally unsustainable situation where people were being sentenced in the courts, with guidelines being legislated against in Parliament through emergency legislation. It was that direct threat alone that caused the council to pause and demonstrated its lack of judgment. I am afraid that we must therefore act more broadly to constrain the Sentencing Council in future, pending any wholesale changes that may be forthcoming. That is why the shadow Secretary of State put forward a Bill that would have taken the necessary steps to return accountability of the body through the Lord Chancellor while wholesale reform could be undertaken. Labour chose to oppose that Bill. Today, it is out of scope for the Opposition to seek to introduce a similarly wide amendment, and we are therefore restricted to seeking to at least restore accountability where we can in this field. The amendment would require that guidelines on pre-sentence reports drafted by the council must be expressly approved by the Secretary of State before they come into force as definitive guidelines—a basic safeguard of democratic accountability, ensuring ministerial oversight on sensitive sentencing matters. Without our amendment, history may repeat itself: the same council will be free to bring forward ideological frameworks that Ministers will be powerless to stop before the damage is done. Had these guidelines gone unchallenged, we would have tilted sentencing based on identity politics, undermining public confidence in the entire system. Our amendment would create a crucial safeguard, ensuring that no future set of guidelines in this field, at least, could bypass ministerial accountability. I encourage those on the Government Benches who have made clear that they wish to see accountability restored across the work of the Sentencing Council to vote in support of amendment 3; doing otherwise would make clear that they are unwilling to follow through on their concerns with action. Amendment 4 would make clear that sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports must not include consideration of a defendant’s status as part of a group that has experienced historical or intergenerational trauma. Why is this necessary? It would be deeply wrong to allow collective historical grievances to influence the sentencing of an individual today. This area is the latest frontier of identity politics, with the public being told that what should be given disproportionate focus in all sorts of domains—that what matters more than what is happening today, with the whole variety of challenges facing people of all creeds and colours—is, in fact, the past. Sentencing must focus on the actions, culpability and direct personal circumstances of the defendant before the court, not on sweeping assumptions based on historical events. We are not able in this Bill to legislate across all the workings of the criminal justice system as much as we might like to. The events of the past few months have shown that what has happened with these guidelines was not a one-off. There is a creeping, systemic attempt to inject identity politics into our judicial processes, bail decisions, probation, and even training materials. If we do not confront this now, it will embed itself deeper and deeper into the foundations of our system. It is fundamental to the rule of law that justice looks to the individual, not to the group. It is fundamental that we deal in evidence, not in ideology. Taken together, our amendments are designed to strengthen this Bill, to ensure that it is not merely a reactive measure, but, in this narrow area at least, provides lasting protection of the principle that justice must be blind, and must be seen to be blind. The public expect justice to be equal, not preferential. Our amendments will go further in helping to secure that. We are in this Chamber today because the Lord Chancellor was not paying attention, and was then humiliated by the recalcitrant leadership of an unelected body turning its face against parliamentary and public concern. The Government should have acted decisively and immediately and we provided them with an opportunity to do so, but they failed to take it. Even now, we are faced with a Bill that does not do the full job. Our amendments are closing the gap between what the Lord Chancellor is offering and what is necessary—decisiveness in place of timidity. I urge the whole House and the Government to support them.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; they do not want to hear it. The root cause of the issue is that the Prime Minister appointed an Attorney General—the Government’s own Law Officer—who is steeped in judicial activism. The Prime Minister himself practised in a chambers that relished it and wholeheartedly supported its expansion case by case. For anyone interested in a treatise on the risk of this approach—from someone much more qualified than me, as I am sure the House will agree—I encourage them to listen to Lord Sumption’s Reith lecture. His analysis on the divide between matters that should properly be the domain of politics and matters for law could not be more pertinent. He said: “It is a vice of some lawyers that they talk about law as if it was a self-contained subject, something to be examined like a laboratory specimen in a test tube, but law does not occupy a world of its own. It is part of a larger system of public decision making. The rest is politics. The politics of ministers and legislators of political parties, of media and pressure groups, and of the wider electorate.” Lord Sumption went on to say: “The Courts have developed a broader concept of the…law which greatly enlarges their own constitutional role. They have claimed a wider supervisory authority over other organs of the State. They have inched their way towards a notion of fundamental law overriding the ordinary processes of political decision-making, and these things have inevitably carried them into the realms of legislative and ministerial policy. To adopt the famous dictum of the German military theorist Clausewitz about war, law is now the continuation of politics by other means.” Be in no doubt: this whole sorry episode has been an exquisite further example of that mentality, this time from the Sentencing Council and its members as part of the wider judiciary establishment. The Lord Chancellor has failed to act decisively today. If she continues to refrain from taking decisive action, we will be here again and again, with the Opposition making sure, on each and every step of the way, that voters know where the sympathies of the Labour party and its leader lie: not with the ordinary, law-abiding citizen who expects equal treatment under the law and the democratically elected politicians of this country deciding on policy, but with activists and campaigning lawyers who want to wrestle control from them. The Bill is barely adequate—barely. We will not oppose it, because it is better than nothing—and at least it tells the public everything that they need to know about those who sit on the Government Benches, and about the mentality of the man leading them. Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing the debate, and thank him for being willing to share his personal experiences. His doing so has been incredibly valuable. Similarly, I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). The criminal injuries compensation scheme is one of the most important parts of our justice system. It does not simply punish wrongdoing but, crucially, offers some measure of direct justice—some attempt to right a wrong for those whose lives have been changed by violence and abuse, as incomplete as that attempt may often be. In 2020, the previous Conservative Government published the findings of a comprehensive review of the scheme as part of a wider review of a first ever cross-Government victims strategy. It found that overall the scheme was operating well. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was dealing with more than 30,000 applications a year and had a high satisfaction rating of 95% from applicants who had been in contact in the preceding period. Those levels of satisfaction had been broadly maintained. Today’s debate has already highlighted that, within broad levels of satisfaction, there can often be serious and consistent individual failings, which it is important we do not take for granted. However, the review also recognised that changes and improvements could be made, and a consultation was launched on a number of areas to make the scheme simpler, more transparent and easier for victims to understand and engage with. Those included the approach to classifying and compensating for disabling mental injuries, overhauling how brain injury is represented and reforming the groupings of other injury types. The review also proposed changes to bereavement awards. Members may be aware that there was a need to launch a further, targeted consultation on the unspent convictions rule to ensure that it was fully and comprehensively reviewed for possible reform. Under that rule, an applicant’s compensation award could be reduced or withheld depending on the sentence imposed for an unspent offence they had committed. The Supreme Court has previously found that the unspent convictions rule was lawful and that the rationale underlying it was legally sound. The judgment also rejected the notion that vulnerability that leads to later offending should require any special exemption from the rule, on the basis that the criminal justice system should already include measures to allow any vulnerability of victims to be taken into account at the time of their prosecution and sentencing. Following that judgment, there was further impetus to consider change, as the Government rightly sought to respond to the final publication of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which made further recommendations regarding the scheme, as a number of Members have touched on. The 2023 consultation focused on time limits and the scope of the scheme. It considered the inclusion of online abuse in the definition of a crime of violence. It also looked at whether children who suffered abuse should have longer to apply for compensation. It also raised the question of whether non-contact offences should be brought within the eligibility criteria. The variety of consultations and additional areas for reform reflects what has been a rapidly evolving area of political and public concern. That has created a greater and greater focus on groups of victims, as our understanding of the nature and impact of sexual abuse, particularly historical sexual abuse, domestic abuse and online harms has broadened. Across the consultations, hundreds of responses were received and difficult questions were explored in detail. However, before a final response could be published, the 2024 general election was called. Last month, the current Government sought to move forward to resolve those pieces of work and to progress on the basis of this extensive background. However, they have also decided to make no changes at this time to the scheme’s scope or time limits or to the unspent convictions rule, and it is important for the Minister today to clearly explain why. I recognise the concerns about singling out particular categories of offending and about the unintended consequences of such changes. However, concerns arise when the guidelines that do exist that attempt to allow for exceptionality do not operate as well as they should. If the Government choose not to make formal changes to the rules, there is an even greater emphasis, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield said, on ensuring that the guidelines that do exist that operationalise the exceptionality clauses function as they should. On unspent convictions, the Government have laid out their reasons for not making changes—again, that is on the grounds of not wanting to create unintended consequences for victims. However, a proposal for reform was put forward that would have allowed the Government to maintain an overall bar on people seeking compensation despite their offending, by considering whether lower-level offences, such as community offences, could be removed from the disbarring applications, or where there could be a significant gap between the injury suffered and the nature of the indexed offence. That would be universal, rather than singling out particular types of offending. I would be interested to hear why the Government did not take forward that suggestion. I would also like the Minister to explain further the Government’s failure to provide a comprehensive response to the 2020 consultation, which suggested many reforms. The Government have said, to quote directly from the Minister’s foreword to the Government response: “I have decided not to publish a substantive response to the 2020 consultation as the victim support landscape has changed substantially since 2020. I am concluding that consultation by writing to the Justice Select Committee notifying it of my decision.”

• 29 Apr 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I think I have clearly laid out the timetable and the sequence of events, particularly in terms of the courts requiring a further consultation, and the sensible decision to respond further to the inquiry consultation. I am interested in actually getting a response; I appreciate that the hon. Member seeks to make a party political point, but that is fine. It is slightly disappointing not to see a comprehensive response, notwithstanding the hon. Member’s concerns, as I think that the 2020 consultation and the many proposals in it—some of which were implemented on an interim basis—were important. Does that mean that the Government have now entirely rejected some of the other changes I have outlined, or will the letter set out in more detail which changes will or will not be taken forward, and the reasons why? It is important for the Government to do that. Although the scheme may be working well overall, we should continue to consider where challenges remain operationally. We know that the experience of applicants varies regionally. For example, in Birmingham, which includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield, the average time for a compensation decision was over 490 days in 2022. While there has been some improvement, wait times are far too long for some individuals, even if the majority receive their compensation in a timely manner. We have heard from a number of Members today about individual cases and their personal experiences. It is important that we hold the Government to account in terms of ensuring that as many people as possible, and as great a ratio of applicants to the scheme as possible, receive an adequate service. The true measure of our commitment to victims is not the volume of our pronouncements, but the effectiveness of the systems we create to maintain them. I want to finish by saying that the criminal injuries compensation scheme has always been about more than money: it is about recognising harm and restoring dignity. The Conservative Government took that responsibility seriously. We listened, we consulted and we left a clear foundation for action. Now it is for the current Government to build on that foundation, and we will hold them to account, simply because victims deserve nothing less.

• 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?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Whiplash Injury Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister explained, the Government have conducted their statutory review of the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 and determined that, while the existing tariff structure remains appropriate, an inflationary uplift is required. The proposed amendments will increase compensation for whiplash injuries occurring on or after 31 May 2025 by 14% to 15% across all tariff bands. That adjustment accounts for inflation since 2021 and provides an additional buffer for expected inflation until the next statutory review in 2027. The framework of the tariff remains unchanged, including the two-tier structure for “whiplash only” and “whiplash with minor psychological injury”, the requirement for a single medical report to support a claim, and the option for a discretionary uplift of up to 20% in exceptional cases. The review process highlighted challenges in determining prognosis due to inconsistencies in medical reporting. The Ministry of Justice has committed to working with the pre-action protocol medical report provider MedCo to improve the clarity and quality of medical reports, and we welcome that commitment. I understand that the Treasury is due to report later this month on whether insurers have, in fact, passed savings from these reforms on to policyholders—the primary, or certainly an important, aim of the policy’s original intention. It is important that motorists receive the anticipated lower premiums. We look forward to the findings of the review, and it would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that it is on track. Furthermore, while the statutory instrument is limited to amending tariff amounts, it forms part of a wider framework of reforms to be reviewed. A post-implementation review of the whiplash reform programme is due to take place in 2025-26, and we welcome the opportunity to assess its effectiveness in delivering fair compensation and maintaining access to justice. We support the regulations and recognise their role in ensuring that claimants continue to receive fair and proportionate compensation. We look forward to the continued monitoring of the system to ensure that it remains balanced and effective. Given the extensive and thorough review of the regulations provided by the Minister, I do not seek to comment any further.