Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal Of Prisoners For Deportation Order 2025) (First sitting)

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 General Committees

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. Let me begin by confirming that the Opposition will not be voting against the statutory instrument. We support further reforms to the removal of foreign national offenders from our prisons. It is right that those who have committed crimes here and have no right to remain should be removed at the earliest possible opportunity, both to protect the public and to reduce the pressure on our system.

This measure builds on steps that we took in January of last year to advance the point at which early release can take place, from 12 months from the end of a sentence to 18 months. The order expands the early removal scheme to allow foreign national offenders serving determinate sentences to be removed from prison and deported as early as the later of two points: once they have served one third of their custodial sentence, or when they are four years from their earliest release point. The Government’s own explanatory memorandum for the order confirms that the impact of this change on the prison estate is modest—just 350 to 500 spaces freed up—and those gains will be quickly offset by the forecast growth in the prison population.

Perhaps more telling than what the order does is what it fails to do. First, there is no serious new mechanism for enacting it. Far too many countries simply refuse to take their own nationals back. We in the Opposition have been clear: if a country refuses to accept the return of its own nationals, we should apply visa sanctions, because there must be consequences for countries that are unwilling to co-operate. The Government’s refusal to act on that proves that they are not truly committed to tackling the issue.

Secondly, nothing in the order stops foreign national offenders abusing the Human Rights Act 1998 to block their removal. We all know how that plays out: legal claims made by those abusing the Human Rights Act, appeals, reappeals and endless delays, while taxpayers foot the bill and the dangerous individuals remain in the UK. The Conservatives would disapply the Human Rights Act from all immigration-related cases, ending the cycle of endless appeals and legal loopholes. We would ensure that if someone breaks the law here, they are returned to their country of origin or a third country—no excuses, no exceptions and no delays.

Earlier this year, we tabled to the Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill an amendment calling for the automatic removal of any foreign national convicted of any offence or charged with immigration offences. Labour had the chance to back firm action, but it chose to reject that. Right now, removal is triggered only if the offender receives a prison sentence of at least one year. Our amendment would have replaced that broken model with a clear principle: if someone breaks the law here, they are returned to their country of origin. We are not opposed to this order, but let us not pretend that it is a bold step forward. It is a half measure from a Government who refuse to face up to the scale of the challenge.

I will finish by saying that I have enjoyed speaking opposite the Minister over this session and I wish him and his colleagues an enjoyable recess. With all the rumours of a reshuffle, who knows whether we will end up facing each other again?

Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I rise on behalf of the official Opposition to express our support for the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill. I do not have the benefit of being a learned Member like the Minister, so I have enjoyed getting to understand what property law looks like in the UK.

As the Minister said, this Bill comes before this House from the other place, where it has already received careful and considered scrutiny. I particularly acknowledge the contributions made there by the noble Lord Holmes of Richmond, whose deep expertise in digital and emerging technologies greatly enriched the debate, and the noble Lord Sandhurst, who rightly described this Bill as

“a necessary but appropriately constrained measure.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. GC284.]

This Bill both preserves the inherent flexibility of the common law and provides just enough statutory clarity to support continued innovation and legal certainty in a fast-moving world.

Recognising the need in 2020, the previous Conservative Government asked the Law Commission to examine how the law of personal property should respond to digital assets. The commission undertook extensive consultation and concluded that some assets defy current classification. In response, it recommended confirming in statute that assets need not be things in possession or in action to attract property rights, paving the way for a third category of personal property and ensuring that our common law can continue to evolve with confidence and coherence.

This may be a short Bill, but it carries significant weight for not just the UK’s legal framework, but our global reputation as a leader in digital innovation. As other jurisdictions watch how we respond to technological change, this Bill reaffirms the UK’s commitment to legal clarity, innovation and economic competitiveness. We have a world-leading fintech ecosystem, and with trillions of pounds in digital asset transactions expected globally by the end of the decade, the UK must ensure that it remains at the forefront, supporting innovation, financial inclusion and the future of capital markets.

This Bill also complements a wider programme of regulatory reform already under way in the UK. Since 2023, firms promoting crypto assets have been subject to Financial Conduct Authority rules, including mandatory risk warnings and a 24-hour cooling-off period for new consumers. Anti-money laundering rules apply, and crypto firms must register with the FCA. In 2025, the Government published draft legislation to bring a wider range of crypto assets activities, such as trading platforms and custody services, under full financial regulation. The FCA and the Bank of England are also consulting on new rules for stablecoins, prudential safeguards and the safe custody of digital assets, while the Bank explores the future of a potential central bank digital currency, the “digital pound”. Those efforts, taken together with this Bill, represent a joined-up and forward-looking approach to digital asset regulation in the UK.

As the Minister explained, for centuries the law has recognised two traditional categories of personal property: things in possession, referring to tangible objects such as a bar of gold, and things in action, such as debts or contractual rights enforceable only through legal process. However, the rise of the digital economy has introduced a growing range of assets that defy those historical classifications.

From crypto tokens and digital files to in-game items and carbon credits, individuals and businesses now interact with a third category of asset. This Bill introduces that third category of personal property by confirming what the courts have been increasingly willing to suggest: that a thing is not precluded from being treated as property merely because it does not fit the traditional mould. It does so in a deliberately modest way, allowing the common law to evolve with technological change, rather than attempting to predict or prescribe it.

As Lord Sandhurst put it in the other place, we should champion the flexibility of the common law and legislate only to reinforce and clarify developments already emerging within it. This Bill strikes the right balance: it is principled in substance but careful in its implications. It gives confidence to our courts, clarity to commercial actors and reassurance to individuals navigating digital ownership. We welcome the Government’s amendment in the other place to extend this legislation to Northern Ireland and the agreement of the Northern Ireland Assembly to that extension. I understand that the Scottish Government have consulted separately on the question of recognising crypto tokens as property under Scots law.

Let me take a moment to welcome the Government’s stated intention in the impact assessment of reducing the burden on businesses by improving clarity in this space. At a time when digital assets are increasingly used as a means of payment, representation or value storage, it is vital that our legal architecture keeps pace—not to control innovation, but to support it with the rule of law. We on the Conservative Benches are committed to ensuring that our legal system remains fit for the 21st century and can accommodate new technologies while safeguarding rights and responsibilities.

While we are pleased to support this Bill, let us not lose sight of the broader context. After a year of downgraded growth forecasts, our economy contracting, unemployment and inflation rising and borrowing costs creeping up, the UK urgently needs legal reforms that drive up competitiveness and economic growth. Like the recent reforms to our international legal procedures, it is no coincidence that this Bill stems from a review commissioned by the last Conservative Administration—a Government who really understood the importance of forward-thinking legal reform to support technological and financial innovation to drive economic growth.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Draft Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2025

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 General Committees

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. This delegated legislation follows on from legislation laid by the previous Government as part of their response to the independent domestic homicide sentencing review undertaken by Clare Wade KC.

As the Minister outlined, the regulations amend schedule 21 to add aggravating factors for when the murder is connected with the end of an intimate personal relationship, and when the murder involves strangulation, suffocation or asphyxiation. The previous Government, of course, gave consideration to introducing these measures, as they were determined to identify approaches to reduce the rate and nature of violence perpetrated against women and girls.

Our earlier legislative changes introduced statutory aggravating factors for repeated controlling or coercive behaviour by the offender, and sustained and excessive violence towards the victim, but, as the Minister will know, the Government chose not to take forward these specific measures at that time. I am sure that he has been privy to the full range of official advice on these amendments, even if he has ultimately decided to move forward with them now. The Sentencing Council articulated the counter-argument to their introduction in its consultation response, focusing on the challenges of an approach that distinguishes through method rather than the impact of violence of one type or another. The Sentencing Council also expressed concerns that trials might face complex evidential questions about what constitutes an intimate personal relationship. It was not unreasonable to pause and give consideration to those concerns, but we recognise why the Government have now chosen to proceed with these measures.

As the Minister explained, in over a third of the murder cases studied in the Wade review,

“the murder occurred at the end, or perceived end, of the relationship.”

The use of strangulation was also frequently involved, a method of killing that is disproportionately used by men against women, and which has long been recognised as a marker of escalating abuse and lethal violence.

The Law Commission is currently reviewing the law on homicide and sentencing more generally. So if there is a residual concern about how all the different aggravating and mitigating factors interact, that review will present an opportunity for the Government to consider the matter in the round in a way that might assuage concerns about these individual measures.

In conclusion, for now, we respect the Government’s settled view that they believe these measures may on balance bring benefit, and we will not oppose them this evening. But I say to the Minister that the Government do need to make up their mind. The benefit of introducing measures such as these is somewhat muted, because at the same time, the Government are introducing a whole raft of other measures that make the efforts to tackle violence against women and girls and particularly the fight for justice for them harder.

The Government have committed to letting out offenders after serving a third of their sentences simply for not breaking the rules while in prison. They voted against our measures to allow victims to appeal unduly lenient sentences and to protect victims from having their impact statements unduly interfered with. They have introduced automatic release in relation to parole breaches, rather than keeping people in prison until it is safe to let them out. And last week, they welcomed a report that recommended even greater discount for guilty pleas, which, when combined with the Gauke recommendations, could see a domestic abuser serve just one fifth of their sentence.

Measures like these this evening are not going to change the situation, and victims will notice. They will know when they are being given something with one hand only to have twice as much taken away with the other, and we will hold the Government to account for that every step of the way.

Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 11th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I rise to express the Opposition’s support for the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for bringing it forward. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) was not so keen for me to make the most of the time available, so I do not intend to.

As was noted during the earlier stages of the Bill, this legislation largely mirrors a previous Bill introduced before the election by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson)—my office neighbour, as it happens. Although the previous Bill did not complete its passage, I pay tribute to her dedication and clear commitment to improving outcomes for children in custody. She laid the ground work for the Bill we are debating today, and I have no doubt that she will be pleased to see it return to the House with the support of the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth.

Secure 16 to 19 academies, also known as secure schools, are a new form of custodial provision, with education and rehabilitation at their core. They represent a much-needed shift in how we support and care for young people in custody. The last Conservative Government introduced the first secure school, Oasis Restore in Medway. The evidence shows that smaller units that focus on education, health and the root causes of offending are the most likely to reduce reoffending. By helping these children—and they are children—to turn their lives around, we can make sure that everyone is safer in the long run.

Secure schools are not typical educational institutions, and it is both appropriate and necessary that different legal and procedural requirements apply to them. The Bill makes a number of changes to funding and consultation requirements, which are all eminently sensible. Although we agree with the Bill’s provisions, we would welcome reassurance from the Government that the schools will be properly funded and supported, and that appropriate steps are being put in place to ensure that young people in custody are properly supported to reduce their reoffending. If secure schools are to succeed where other parts of the youth estate have historically struggled, they must be properly resourced, effectively led and rooted in strong local partnerships.

We would be interested to hear more in due course about the Government’s long-term vision for the youth estate. What further plans do they have, if any, to open any new secure schools? What future role do they see young offender institutions and secure training centres playing? How will the Government ensure that partnerships with health and education providers are strengthened to maximise the impact of this reform? I would be grateful if the Minister could make some remarks along those lines. This is a practical and proportionate Bill. The Opposition support it and look forward to seeing its progress.

Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

Some may say we are old school in South Norfolk, but I call it common sense. Criminals should be punished and victims should get their day of justice. Simply hoping that more sitting days will fix the Crown court backlog is not realistic, so I urge the Minister to be radical and ensure that offenders are punished and victims get their day in court.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Has the hon. Member actually read it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

The whole House will remember the murder of Sarah Everard and the national debate about violence against women and girls that it provoked. Sarah’s parents, Susan and Jeremy, had many positive experiences of the criminal justice system, but they were deeply upset by the restrictions that were placed on what they could say in their victim impact statements. I think that is wrong, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner thinks it is wrong, and the Victims’ Commissioner thinks it is wrong. Does the Minister think it is wrong?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I have been proud and privileged to meet the Everards, as well as other families who are members of Justice for Victims, to discuss how we can improve the criminal justice system for victims by putting them back at the heart of the system. As the shadow Minister will know, we debated this issue heavily in Committee during the Victims and Courts Bill, and the Department is considering it actively to ensure that the voices of victims are represented in court and at sentencing. I will happily update him on our discussions about how exactly we can do that and what is the best way of doing it.

[Dr Mullan]

I welcome that commitment, but the Minister failed to mention that we tabled an amendment in Committee which she voted against, along with a number of other Labour Members. Given what she has just said, will she commit herself now to ensuring that an amendment is tabled during future stages of the Bill to prevent restrictions on what victims and their relatives can say in their impact statements?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Let me say yet again that, as the shadow Minister will know, we voted against that amendment because victim impact statements are currently classed as evidence in a court of law, and they have to be quite specific. We are aware of the concerns of victims; what we need to do is put forward workable, realistic possibilities for how we can best represent their voice in the courtroom. We are getting on with action, whereas the Conservatives dithered and delayed for 14 years. We are making sure that victims are represented in our criminal justice system.

Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 General Committees

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. The draft order will amend the criteria for determining whether an offender recalled to custody should be eligible for automatic release after a fixed term. It has been framed as a pragmatic response to prison overcrowding, but in truth, it is a short-sighted and potentially dangerous change that prioritises expediency over safety and reactivity over long-term strategy. Let me be absolutely clear that this is not a procedural tweak but a significant recalibration of how we manage and record offenders.

The draft order would mandate fixed-term recall—automatic release after 28 days—for the majority of offenders serving under four years, so long as they are not managed under MAPPA level 2 or 3, they have not been charged with a new offence or they are not linked to terrorism or national security. We cannot possibly support that step. There are 67,000 registered sex offenders in the UK, and 95% of them are managed at MAPPA level 1. More than 63,000 registered sex offenders would now automatically be released from prison outside of very limited circumstances.

Such a sweeping change to recall policy, which would affect a large and potentially serious cohort of offenders, raises concerns about public protection and undermines the careful balance that recall decisions are meant to strike. In 2023-24, 45% of recalled offenders were deemed too unsafe for release by the Parole Board, yet under these new rules, many of them could now re-enter society without proper assessment; it is absolutely imperative that the Minister explains how many of those offenders would have been let out if these rules were in play at that time. The chief inspector of probation, Martin Jones, has warned that the policy risks creating a bounce-back effect whereby prolific offenders are released for up to 28 days, then recalled again repeatedly without the root cause of their behaviour being addressed.

These are not edge cases. The policy will apply to criminals serving sentences of up to four years, including those convicted of serious sexual and violent offences who, under the current arrangements, might have remained in custody pending robust risk assessment. Victim safety, public protection and community confidence demand far more than blanket rules, and the draft order exposes us to unacceptable risk. It makes a fundamental change that will create capacity at the expense of victims and public safety.

Let us dwell for a moment on the human consequences: by mandating automatic release after 28 days, the draft order strips away an important layer of risk management. We know that many offenders breach licence conditions not just on a mere technicality but with behaviours that signal a resurgence of their threat. That threat is particularly clear in cases involving domestic abuse. Domestic abuse charities and campaigners have raised deep concerns about fixed-term recalls being applied in this way, and last month Victims’ Commissioner Baroness Newlove stated:

“Victims will understandably feel unnerved and bewildered by today’s announcement. The cumulative effect has been to corrode confidence in the justice system and undermine victims’ sense of security.”

Ellie Butt, head of policy and public affairs at Refuge, warned:

“Refuge has consistently raised concerns about the serious safety risks posed to survivors of domestic abuse as a result of prison early release schemes…if a perpetrator were to breach”

licence conditions

“and be recalled to prison, they could be free to offend again in less than a month.”

The Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Dame Nicole Jacobs, stated:

“I cannot stress the lack of consideration for victims’ safety and how many lives are being put in danger because of this proposed change…Re-releasing them back into the community after 28 days is simply unacceptable.”

The Government will tell us they have no choice. Short-term thinking is jeopardising public safety. A couple of weeks ago, reports emerged that the Government have decided not to proceed with constructing new cells in an existing prison. Specifically, the Ministry of Justice has rejected long-standing plans to build a 240-place house block at HM Prison Gartree. They claim to be doing all they can to prevent early prisoner release, but how does that decision align with their attempts to increase capacity?

The Government will claim that there are not alternative solutions, but there are, such as tackling the remand population. As of March 2025, the number of people held on remand in England and Wales stood at 17,582, which is a full 20% of the total prison population, and still several thousand above the historical average. Those are people who are not yet convicted of any crime, and many may not ever be. Still, however, the Government failed to act on the Lady Chief Justice’s offer of additional court sitting days. Even now, sitting days remain available, but they have decided not to fund them. Every month they delay means more courtrooms left empty, more victims and defendants left waiting, and more pressure piled on to the system.

What about probation? The impact assessment for the draft order concedes that it would “increase the workload” on the Probation Service. That is an under-statement. In reality, the order would transfer pressure from the prison estate to the community, demanding that probation officers, already overstretched, manage a sudden influx of higher risk, less thoroughly assessed offenders. There has been a decrease in the absolute number of probation officers in the year up to March 2025, at a time when the Government are pledging to expand probationary services. The impact assessment says that will

“increase demand for probation services as offenders will spend more time on average on licence being supervised”

in the community. When do the Government expect to increase the total number of probation officers in a sustained way? How much of the additional funding in the spending review was allocated to this policy?

There are further impacts on the police, as the impact assessment makes clear. Chief Constable Gavin Stephens responded to the spending review on behalf of the police chiefs, commenting,

“it is clear that this is an incredibly challenging outcome for policing. In real terms, today’s increase in funding will cover little more than annual inflationary pay increases”.

Police forces are already shouldering a substantial share of risk. As I said, approximately 95% of registered sexual offenders in England and Wales are on MAPPA level 1, and are usually managed locally by the police and Probation Service. We are adding an additional task to their workload.

The statutory instrument fails on multiple fronts. It ignores victims, it burdens probation and it makes the public less safe. It does not address the underlying causes, and instead we have a blunt tool, wielded in haste, in the hope that no one notices the deeper difficulties it conceals. For those reasons, we will oppose the order today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank both speakers for their contributions to the debate. First, let me pick up on the points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Eastbourne, who was right to say that the criminal justice system crashed under the previous Government’s watch. That was our inheritance.

The hon. Member was also right to raise his concerns about the response being appropriate and safe. I can assure him that, given the alternatives we face, this will be a safe and appropriate way of proceeding. It is worth reminding ourselves that the recall population was 6,000 in 2018 and is now 13,600; it has grown exponentially. There is a need to create space in prisons in a safe and secure way so that we can lock up the dangerous people who need to be locked up. That is why we are taking this measure now, and it will be carefully and appropriately managed.

Where there are any issues of risk from individuals, they can be recalled at that point, and it is for the Probation Service to identify that. There are proper and sound bases in place to tackle the issue, but I thank the hon. Member for his constructive approach to this issue and for recognising that it is a challenge. It is a challenge that this Government are determined to meet in a safe and proper way that ensures that we can continue to lock dangerous people up.

That brings me to the speech made by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. As always, it was interesting and challenging, but it suggests that there is no recognition of his party’s contribution to the difficulties we find ourselves in. In essence, we have to take the hard decisions that the previous Government failed to take. If we take prisons as an example, 500 prison places were added in 14 years, compared with the 24,000 places added in the 13 years of the previous Labour Government. Already, more than 2,000 have been added in the first year of this Government.

We do not take lectures from the party opposite lightly; however, the hon. Member’s challenge is perfectly reasonable and proper. In the May of their last year in government, the previous Government brought in their parallel measure for the fixed-term recall for sentences of up to 12 months to create space in prisons. That is what we are being forced to do now, in a managed, proper and safe way.

[Dr Mullan]

I have one question for the Minister about the most important impact of the policy, and about the people who the Parole Board would otherwise say cannot be released in order to go home. What proportion of them will potentially be affected by this policy and will be let out?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I do not think that information is—[Interruption.] The reality is that the Parole Board has so much to do that people have to wait a long time to get their parole hearing. That is one of the reasons why the prison system is essentially running out of spaces, and we inherited that from the hon. Member’s Government. We are having to roll up our sleeves and deal with the problem, whereas his Government just abrogated their responsibility. If they had taken the necessary actions, we would not be in the situation that we are now in. Frankly, it would be far better if we did not have to take these actions, but we do, in order to keep public protection in place, to keep people safe, and to be able to lock dangerous people up.

Question put.

Criminal Justice

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Linsey Farnsworth]

We inherited a particularly drastic situation, which will not be turned around overnight. The Minister will speak on behalf of the Government, but I expect the Government to make these difficult decisions until we are in a better position. That may have to be reviewed in due course. I do not speak for the Government, but I trust them to ensure that the public are safe and that there are places available, by whatever means, so that dangerous criminals can be put in jail.

We must move beyond crisis management. This mission-driven Labour Government are investing to deliver 14,000 new prison places by 2031. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) was right to point out that that contrasts starkly with the 500 prison places that the previous Government created in 14 years. However, it is clear that the solution to overcrowding cannot simply be to build more prisons, but instead lies in breaking the cycle of reoffending.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

As a member of the Select Committee, you will want to be accurate in what you say about prison places—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Dr Mullan, there is no “you” in the Chamber; you are talking through the Chair.

[Dr Mullan]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member will want to be accurate in what she says about prison places. Does she accept that we added 13,000 prison places during our time in office?

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I recognise that prison places were created, but we are talking in net terms, and net, there were 500 extra places. [Interruption.] We are certainly not happy with only 500 places, net, over 14 years. That is why this Government are taking action to increase prison places in real terms.

We must sort out the cycle of reoffending, which places a massive strain on the system. Almost 60% of those receiving a prison sentence of 12 months or less reoffended within a year, and in those instances, focusing on what happens after a crime has been committed is the best way to prevent future offending. We do not need a justice system that is bigger; we need one that is fairer and more effective. Our ambition and reforms to make our streets safer cannot be achieved by enforcement alone. They must be backed by proper sustained funding, particularly to support the Probation Service, which is at the heart of a functioning and fair justice system.

That takes me back to a project in Nottingham that I was proud to be involved with in the early 2000s. It was the community justice initiative under the last Labour Government’s “respect” agenda—yes, I am that old, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

We who knock on doors week in, week out, know all too well the trend that has grown in recent years; every display of incompetence, every proof of national decline, and every sign of political self-interest from the Conservatives has damaged—indeed, hollowed out—public trust in the ability of our democracy to get things done. The public have had their fill, and in few other policy areas, and with no other political party, have they seen such incompetence, such decline, and such self-interest as with the criminal justice system and the Conservatives. It was the Conservatives who melted our criminal justice system, and the Conservatives who lost control of the security of our communities. It was the Conservatives who clung to hopeless policies. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say that in crashing the criminal justice system, the Conservatives did more harm to our country’s faith in democracy, and the ability of the state to get things done, than we can ever know or quantify.

I do not exaggerate that, because when I knock on doors I hear that when people ring the police, they cannot get them to attend. When they submit crime reports, they do not hear back, and they feel that there is an absence of visible policing on their streets. That is the inheritance that the Conservatives gave the Labour Government. There is a hopelessness in our politics, and we need to reckon with that reality. Our courts are clogged, victims are waiting years for justice, police officers are stretched to the limit, legal aid is hollowed out, and communities feel unsafe and unheard. Shoplifting, antisocial behaviour, and the illegal use of e-scooters and e-bikes are examples that people in our communities raise of local decline, and they say that there are too few police to respond to those issues. This is not just a matter of law and order; it is a matter of fairness, decency and safety.

This Labour Government have a challenge: to put right a criminal justice system that was fundamentally broken—[Interruption.] When I see that Opposition Members are here in such few numbers, and are laughing at what I say, it is really disheartening.

[Dr Mullan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Hayes]

I will happily do so if the hon. Gentleman will apologise for 14 years of chaos.

[Dr Mullan]

I gently point out that the hon. Gentleman might consider the ratio of Labour Members to Conservative Members, and look at how many people are on the Conservative Benches and on the Labour Benches. We can be pretty proud of our showing, compared to that of Government Members.

[Tom Hayes]

That is so wide of the mark. It is unsurprising that the Conservatives are floundering in polls and so unwelcome in our communities. We can and must regain public trust in our criminal justice system, and in the ability of our democracy to do things. We want a criminal justice system that works for everyone and protects the public, that respects victims, and that rehabilitates offenders where that is possible, and where that is not possible, locks people up for the appropriate amount of time. We want a system that protects the Probation Service and our prison officers, and ensures that we are truly able to be a secure country again.

I welcome the announcement that our Labour Government will provide 13,000 more police officers, with 40 going to my area. I welcome the fact that we are tackling court backlogs by creating more sitting days; those who work in the court system across Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole have privately told me that they welcome that. We must champion victims’ rights. Having run a domestic abuse service for five years before my election, that particularly matters to me, and I know that many colleagues across the House care passionately about tackling domestic violence, as well as rebuilding our youth services. Having run a mental health and domestic abuse service, I know the importance of the third sector. I plead with the Minister to ensure that the third sector has a role in our thinking about how we can rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition to this estimates day debate on Ministry of Justice expenditure as it relates to criminal justice. I thank the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for securing and opening the debate. We are in Armed Forces Week, and those of us who have been involved in the criminal justice system in various guises over the years know that in our prison service, around a quarter of prison officers have an armed forces background. In that sector alone, we see the ongoing contribution that people from the armed forces community make to our public services in different ways. It is a pleasure to be able to pay tribute to them on the record today.

Criminal justice is, of course, a very important topic for discussion. Our courts, prisons and probation services are the bedrock of our criminal justice system. This Government have been in charge of these key areas of public expenditure and activity for almost a year now, and we have heard from Members about the challenges that those who are in contact with the criminal justice system continue to face. We all know that, almost from day one, this Government have lurched from crisis to crisis, and sadly the Ministry of Justice has not been spared. As we consider the estimates for expenditure and the Government’s linked plans to overcome challenges in the criminal justice system, we can only have a meaningful debate if we consider the journey we have been on to reach this point.

I will begin by responding to the points that have been raised about the inheritance that this Government had. Their inheritance can only be fairly considered in the light of what we inherited, what we delivered despite the challenges, and what challenges remain. Labour Members talk about challenging inheritances in the criminal justice system, but what did we face upon arriving in office? We have heard a lot in recent months about Labour being forced into early release schemes for prisoners as a sign of the pressures on the system, but what exactly was happening with early release at the end of Labour’s last period in government? Under the last Labour Government, an astonishing 80,000 prisoners were released early—a huge number—with those releases stopping just before the election for purely political reasons. We were left to pick up the pieces across the prison estate that we inherited. During our 14 years in office, we released just 6% of that figure. If the number of prisoners that Labour Members say they have been forced to release since they came into office is a barometer of failure, what exactly do they make of releasing 80,000 prisoners early after more than a decade in charge?

Perhaps Labour had a good excuse for releasing that many prisoners early—maybe it happened because Labour had been spending its time in office rightly toughening up sentencing for the worst offenders. I am afraid not. In fact, in what I consider to be an enormous historical mistake—the consequences of which we are still battling today when it comes to delivering proper punishment through the justice system—Labour introduced automatic halfway release for essentially all offenders when it was last in government. Those offenders were not included in the figure of 80,000 released early under the emergency schemes I have spoken about. Essentially, all offenders were released early, yet Labour still managed to have a sustained crisis in prison capacity, so I do not take any lectures from Labour Members about the history of the Labour party and the criminal justice sector.

Under the previous Conservative Government, we worked to restore public confidence that serious offenders would face the punishment that their crimes deserved, and worked hard to ensure that—unlike when Labour was in government—we did not have to release 80,000 prisoners early through emergency release schemes. We brought in serious reforms. We reduced automatic release from halfway through a sentence to two thirds of a sentence for the most serious offenders, which was a huge step forward in introducing a greater degree of proper punishment into the criminal justice system. Building on that, we introduced whole-life tariffs for the premeditated murder of children. We increased maximum sentences for the worst child abusers through Tony’s law; for killers of emergency service workers through Harper’s law; and for those who kill through driving in memory of victims such as Violet-Grace. I am proud of all those reforms, and make no apologies for them.

Such measures do create challenges for prison capacity, but as I will go on to explain, those changes were necessary. More than any other factor, it was covid that created the challenges we now face. Of course, we had to tackle the enormous challenges presented by covid, which have left a long legacy in the criminal justice arena. We prioritised the right to jury trials in a way that the rest of the world struggled to; we had one of the shortest suspensions of sittings of trials, and did what we could to support the continuation of jury trials. We increased sitting days, allowing the courts to sit at maximum capacity for three years in a row; we invested £220 million in essential modernisation work for courts up to 2025; and we extended the use of 20 Nightingale courtrooms in 2024-25. That kept our justice system moving, despite what Labour now claims.

Undoubtedly, the backlog still presents challenges, but again, I am happy to compare records. Labour MPs are now deeply concerned about the backlog, but how concerned about Crown court backlogs were Labour MPs when they were last in government? I can tell Members that pre-pandemic backlogs in the Crown court reached higher levels during Labour’s time in office than they did under us. The increase in the remand population of approximately 7,000 above the historical average, which is directly linked to covid, is a major factor in the prison capacity challenges we now face.

What has Labour done to make a decisive difference since coming into office? Did the Government rush to maximise sitting days to get the backlog down? No, they did not—they have repeatedly dragged their feet. For almost six months, they did not take the Lady Chief Justice up on her offer of further sitting days, and even now, there are more days available to the Government that they have not funded. With each month that has passed, that has meant more lost court days, more people waiting and more pressure on the system than if they had just increased sitting days from the outset. What has been their biggest celebration when it comes to prison building? It is the opening of a new prison, HMP Millsike, which was planned, paid for and largely built under the previous Conservative Government.

Despite what Labour says, we created 13,000 prison places during our time in office, including in two new prisons, HMP Five Wells and HMP Fosse Way. I am not aware that any of Labour’s projected plans for prison places use net figures, which Labour Members want to use when looking at our record. The Government have announced plans for 14,000 prison places by 2031, supported by £7 billion, but 6,500 of those places were already in the pipeline, having been announced by the previous Conservative Government. Four of their new prisons were already planned or under construction, so this announcement is less a bold new strategy than it is a tired re-announcement. Even more concerning is the funding gap. The Government have allocated £7 billion, but the National Audit Office reports that the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service expect the cost of expansion to be closer to £10 billion. That is a £3 billion shortfall, placing a serious question mark over how the promised places will be delivered.

How are the Government building on their legacy of releasing over 16,000 prisoners early just in their first six months, which is 11,000 more than planned? In the name of what they call sustainability, they are embedding even greater levels of early release into the system, unpicking the positive steps we took in government to turn around Labour’s legacy of weaker punishment. The Government are doing this on the back of a sentencing review carried out by David Gauke, based on the premise that increasing prison populations were unsustainable. I am clear that that review was an insult to the views of victims and their families—many have told me so directly—and it is unfortunate that so many Members speak positively about it. Imagine launching what you describe as a “landmark review of sentencing”, and then giving almost no consideration in the pages of that report to what victims and their families actually want from sentencing.

Worse, instead of a serious attempt to engage with what victims and their families might want, Mr Gauke chose to deploy the all-too-common patronising talking points of those who want us to believe that victims and their families simply do not understand sentencing, and that if they did, they would undoubtedly feel much better about it all. This might be of particular interest to the Chair of the current Select Committee, because Mr Gauke, in particular, cherry-picked quotes from our excellent report from a previous Session on public understanding and expectations of sentencing. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick might remember, that report very much engaged with what the public wanted and how to determine that more effectively. It takes a particular type of intellectual approach to go through a report full of rich detail and just pick out what suits you, hoping no one will notice. Well, I noticed, as did representatives of victims and their families such as Justice for Victims.

That half-baked exercise in considering sentencing has now served as the launch point for the Government’s sentencing policy. If halfway release was not an appalling enough legacy from the last time Labour was in government, the Government are reducing release to a third of the sentence for most offenders, and turning our two-thirds release for the worst offenders back into halfway release. Let us be clear: prisoners will now be rewarded for doing what should be expected of them. Obeying prison rules and engaging in education or working are the basic behaviours of any law-abiding citizen. They should not qualify offenders for early release, and they certainly should not allow them to serve as little as one third of their sentence. That is not justice.

Labour’s model rewards serious offenders, does little to protect the public, and is a dereliction of duty. All the while, our Crown court backlogs have increased by more than 10% and stand in excess of 70,000 cases. Our remand population sits at more than 17,000 people. Wherever we look, problems that Labour promised to fix in opposition are just getting worse. How does the Lord Chancellor now plan to tackle this challenge? The £450 million committed to the courts in the spending review is a perhaps useful, if not fully adequate, indication, but how will the money be spent? Unfortunately, that is where the Government fall short.

The Government have no substantial ideas of their own, with 14 years apparently not long enough for them to think of their own innovations. While we await the findings of yet another independent review that they hope will solve all their issues, they have announced that custodial sentences of under 12 months will all but vanish, replaced by community sentences. The consequences are staggering. Up to 43,000 offenders, including burglars, shoplifters and knife carriers, will avoid jail altogether. I have met local businesses at their wits’ end. They tell me about the rise in shoplifting, staff who are afraid and customers who no longer feel safe. Removing custodial sentences for repeat offenders does not send a message of reform; it sends a message of impunity.

Labour has chosen the easy way out. It is tackling the prison population not with long-term reform or capacity investment, but by quietly reducing sentences and downplaying criminal behaviour. It is short-term thinking that puts public safety at risk. In fact, just last week it was reported that the Government declined to move forward with building a new prison block. They say they are doing everything possible to avoid releasing prisoners early, but how does that square with that decision?

We might think that the Government would grab opportunities that cost nothing, but we have seen them stand in the way of reforms we put forward as amendments to the Victims and Courts Bill this week. Labour did not support making sure victims are awarded compensation equivalent to their losses, or allowing victims the freedom to speak their minds in victim personal statements. Labour did not support increasing the time available to collect courts fines, or giving victims and families a better chance to appeal unduly lenient sentences. All their lofty spending plans will be of little use if this Government’s ongoing mismanagement of the economy leaves us with even less money to spend on the Ministry of Justice.

Across nearly every single major economic metric, Labour has made things worse. Unemployment is up, inflation is up and all the projections of economic growth it inherited from us have been downgraded. Is it any wonder why? The Office for Budget Responsibility is clear about the damaging impact of the Government’s jobs tax, and businesses can see what is on the horizon with the Employment Rights Bill. The costs of borrowing are soaring. The MOJ’s expenditure pales in comparison to what we will be paying on interest in ballooning debt over the course of this Parliament.

I will finish with three short questions. First, given the funding allocated to probation and the increasing reliance on it and given that, as the Justice Committee member, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) highlighted, the number of probation officers has gone down since Labour came into power, how do the Government plan to ensure that money is delivering effective services? Secondly, how do they plan to close the £3 billion gap in the prisons budget? Thirdly, given that so much of their own thinking is relying on it, when will Brian Leveson’s report be published? The British people deserve a justice system they can trust—one that protects victims, punishes offenders and keeps our communities safe. This Government’s approach fails on every single count.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I do not need to add anything to my opening speech, because the inevitable gaps have been filled eloquently by the subsequent speakers. Let me just take two minutes to thank those who have contributed to the debate.

I thank the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Pam Cox) and for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). They are all members of the Justice Committee, although the hon. Member for Eastbourne was wearing his other hat today as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, and I thank them for being here today. Indeed, I thank all the Committee members. With the exception of the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, who resumed a distinguished parliamentary career after a short gap, they are all new Members, and they all give a great deal of time to this role in addition to everything else that new Members have to do.

I also thank the other Members who have spoken. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for his forensic dissection of the last Government’s failings in this area, and I thank, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), who covered ground that I did not have time to cover in relation to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and miscarriages of justice. I am grateful for her work in chairing the all-party parliamentary group for miscarriages of justice, as I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson)—who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on access to justice—for her work on that and to other APPGs in this field.

I even thank the Front Benchers for their contributions. The hon. Member for Eastbourne is always very critical but very constructive. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) would like to adopt that approach.

[Dr Mullan]

indicated dissent.

[Andy Slaughter]

No, I thought not. However, I very much enjoyed our time together on the Justice Committee, and I also enjoy his taking every bad point during these debates—although he should have been kinder to the distinguished former Lord Chancellor David Gauke, who, in my view, produced a very good report. As for the Minister, he is a very good friend of mine, and I thank him for his contributions. We know what a difficult job he has, but that will not stop us being on his back all the time to ensure that the many problems that have been identified today are resolved.

Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

May I begin by first thanking the Clerks for the considerable work they have undertaken to support Members across this House in preparing amendments across so many different elements of this complex issue? I know that you, Mr Speaker, gave a great deal of thought to which of those we voted on. I also know that you had a difficult balancing exercise in giving time to this Bill versus the limited time available for Friday sittings.

I say again to the Government that I am deeply disappointed that they chose not to assist you, Mr Speaker, and all Members, by providing further time on the Floor of the House so that every single Member who simply wanted to speak could do so. Telling Members how many hours were spent in Committee, when so few Members can participate in that, is of little comfort to those Members who have been unable to put their views on the record on the Floor of the House. But we are where we are.

I join others in acknowledging the very hard work and sincerity of the sponsoring Member, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). Now is the moment for us vote on her Bill in what we have to assume is its final form. There might be changes made in the other place, but there might not be. If Members vote for the Bill today, they must do so happy that this is the version that will come into law.

As we conclude, I return to what I said on Second Reading. No one on either side of this debate can claim that only their side is motivated by care and compassion for others. We have heard powerful speeches motivated by concern for others, both from those in favour and from those against this Bill. We heard powerful examples from the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), who served the memory of her brother well.

On either side of the debate, we should resist the temptation to give ourselves false comfort. Those supporting the Bill, and I am sure even the sponsoring Member herself, will accept that there is no such thing as a perfect law, and certainly not in an area like this. No one can be certain that the concerns raised by opponents of the Bill will never transpire in any case. Members supporting the Bill should vote with an understanding that there may be unintended consequences. Similarly, those opposing the Bill should do so, accepting that they cannot rule out that some people of sound mind, without undue pressure from others, would want to access assisted dying.

We have heard about the very real suffering that people at the end of their life can experience. How much that suffering can be relieved by palliative care has been a point of real contention, but the most powerful medications for relieving pain have equally powerful side effects, and that should weigh heavily with Members considering voting against. While opponents of assisted dying may prefer an improvement in palliative care instead, they cannot guarantee it will happen.

I do not think it is fair to say that those who ultimately vote no to the Bill are, as some have described, actively happy with the status quo. I am sure that all of us at some point have seen a problem of human suffering of one form or another, but opposed a plan to alleviate it, because we thought it might make things worse in some other respect. That does not mean we are happy with the problem that still remains.

Taking all that into account, Members have to undertake a difficult balancing exercise. I want to end my remarks with the words we started the day with—words that are heard in the Chamber every time we sit. I am not religious, but the meaning our daily Prayers conveys is, I think, of universal assistance. We are encouraged to lay aside

“all private interests and prejudices”,

and to keep in mind our

“responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all mankind”.

Saying those words is easy. If only it was as easy to have the necessary wisdom to always know what exactly it means to improve the condition just of our constituents, let alone all mankind. The daily Prayers cannot help us with that, unfortunately, and today we do not even have the help of the party line. All of us at one time or another have railed against the Whip and its encouragement to vote for something we think is unwise, but if we are honest, that encouragement can be a great help a lot of the time.

The extent to which the debate covered the views of professionals and representative organisations reflected Members trying to find help of another form in place of the Whip. Most of us are not experts, yet we have to make a decision that even experts disagree on. But let us welcome the fact that here today, as we wrestle with this decision, we are truly doing exactly what we were sent here to do, more than on most other days. Even if we might be uncertain about our vote, we can be absolutely certain about that.

Victims and Courts Bill (Fourth sitting)

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 19th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

Division 7

Ayes: 5

---

Conservative: 3
Liberal Democrat: 2

Noes: 10

---

Labour: 10

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

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

This amendment is linked to Amendment 22.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 21, in clause 3, page 7, line 14, leave out from “and” to end of line 16.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 22.

Amendment 22, in clause 3, page 7, leave out line 20.

This amendment, along with Amendments 20 and 21, would ensure that there has to be a review by the family court in all instances where a prohibited steps order is issued.

[Dr Mullan]

We return to consider the measures on parental responsibility. There was significant debate in our earlier sitting on the need to balance the measures, and the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats both moved amendments to widen the Bill’s scope in ways that I think would have been proportionate and necessary to secure the maximum possible benefit from a novel measure to protect children from people who would not ordinarily be able to exercise their parental responsibility.

The debate was about the need for balance, which is why, at the same time as seeking to widen the scope of the measure, we want to secure balance by making amendments to ensure that the family court has a bigger role to play where we introduce automatic powers for taking this through the family court.

Under the Bill as drafted, a review by the family court is required only if an offender is acquitted or if their sentence is reduced to below a life sentence or a term of four years or more. The amendment deletes those conditions by removing proposed new section 10D(1)(b), which limits review to the specific appellant outcomes I have described.

We believe that automaticity, while preferable to the risk of inaction in relation to children, should be enhanced with a considered approach—when time allows—to taking the necessary protective steps. The amendment would ultimately require such orders to be reviewed on their own merit, in a family court, with children’s welfare as the guiding principle. Our amendments would ensure that the safeguarding lens of the family court is engaged in all cases, not just in those that meet certain technical thresholds. This morning, the Minister was keen to emphasise the novelty of these measures, as well as the importance of the family court in considering these issues more widely.

Our amendment would help to ensure that those correctly put points are enacted more consistently than they currently will be. An automatic power, while important, will inevitably have limitations in understanding the specific circumstances of each case. I have spoken to experts in this area, and they highlighted the rare but compelling cases where, despite one parent being convicted of a very serious offence, there may be similar safeguarding concerns about the other parent. Where parental responsibility is removed in one case, it might be left to a single person whom the family court might also consider inappropriate, in isolation, to be exercising parental responsibility.

As unusual as they might sound, I understand that those scenarios sometimes occur. That is why family court practitioners are concerned about the automatic suspension of parental responsibility. Our amendments are designed to counterbalance those concerns and give greater strength to the desire of both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats in broadening the scope of automaticity with a stronger safeguard for those exceptional circumstances where, at times, it might not be considered the best approach.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

The amendment seeks to insert a requirement for the family court to consider every prohibited steps order made under clause 3. The shadow Minister’s intention in moving the amendment is noble. However, the Government must ensure that we are acting in the best interests of all children, and there are several reasons why this amendment cannot be accepted.

First, we must protect the children and families in these horrific circumstances from unnecessary procedural burdens, particularly when there is no challenge to an order by the parties involved. Under clause 3, the prohibited steps order will have been made because an offender has been convicted of serious child sexual abuse offences against a child for whom they hold parental responsibility. For the child, that means that the very person who was supposed to protect them has committed some of the most heinous acts of abuse against them.

In such cases, we believe it is right that a prohibited steps order is made automatically, and that it would not be in the best interests of the child or their siblings for their abuser to continue exercising parental responsibility. However, we have provided flexibility for cases to be considered by the family court, where there is an application to do so.

This amendment would require the victim and their family to go through another set of potentially traumatic legal proceedings after the criminal case has concluded. This would prevent them from moving on with their lives, and we do not want to put that burden on victims and their families at what will already be an incredibly difficult time. We think it is right that, instead of mandating further consideration in the family court, the offender and others should apply to the family court to vary or discharge an order.

Furthermore, we must consider the impact this amendment would have on other, unconnected children already involved in family court proceedings. The family court makes difficult decisions about some of the most vulnerable children in our society every single day. This amendment would increase the caseload in the family court and would undoubtedly impact on the time it takes to resolve cases. Every member of this Committee will have constituency casework involving the family court, and we do not wish to add to its caseload. It is important that the family court can resolve cases as quickly as possible, and the Government do not want to add to the volume of cases in the system, unless it is absolutely necessary.

Finally, the amendment has inconsistencies that would create difficulties in its application. It maintains the definition of “local authority” as the relevant local authority at the time the verdict of acquittal is entered or the sentence is reduced. As drafted, the amendment leaves open questions as to who the relevant local authority is in cases where no appeal has been made. This would place an additional burden on the Crown court to ascertain who the relevant local authority is and would risk the measure being applied inconsistently.

The good intentions behind this amendment are clear. We all want to ensure that children and their welfare are protected. However, this amendment is not the way to do that. For the reasons I have outlined, we do not think that mandating a family court review is the right approach in these cases, and I urge the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Mullan]

I would like to make two points. First, on the drafting, I appreciate that the Government are ultimately responsible for the wording of legislation, but I gently say that perhaps the Minister might review this with her officials. The wording of the amendment was taken from the previously approved drafting of a similar measure in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which was introduced by the last Government, so there must have been a change of heart in the official advice to the Minister.

On the issue of substance, perhaps the Minister will elaborate on a compromise outside the Committee. These are new and novel measures, and undoubtedly there will be guidance for local authorities when they come into force. The Opposition would be reassured if the Minister committed to ensuring that the guidance highlights to local authorities the importance of carefully considering their role in seeking further review of a case, outside the limited scope of the legislation, in circumstances where parental responsibility is removed through an order. Local authorities will perhaps be in a better position to judge whether leaving someone with sole parental responsibility might not be the ideal scenario.

The Minister will not have a chance to respond, but I would be grateful if she could assure me, perhaps outside in the Committee corridor, that the guidance will be absolutely clear on the burden that will be placed on local authorities, as well as on the importance of local authorities acting swiftly. An automatic order is not necessarily in the best interests of children in all circumstances, when considering the wider factors.

I will not press the amendment to a vote, as I take it in good faith that the Minister will at least have a further discussion with me. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 1.

Clause 4 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

Our approach of updating the victim contact scheme and establishing a new dedicated victim helpline will give victims much-needed confidence about the routes available to receive information about their offender’s release, which will help them to feel safe.

[Dr Mullan]

As the Minister outlined, we are discussing changes primarily to the victim contact scheme and victim helpline. We supported the operation of those services in Government, and it is perfectly in order for the Government to seek to expand them further. But, during the Committee evidence sessions, the Minister will have noted the questions about the resources available to individuals for accessing those services. I note that the witnesses from HM Prison and Probation Service and others felt that there were the necessary resources, or at least that the impact of the expansion on the resource requirements would not be particularly significant, but I would welcome the Minister assuring the Committee that she has done the due diligence necessary to ensure that we do not raise expectations in those expansions and additions to victim support services that are not realised.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am happy to reassure the hon. Member on that point. These provisions have been drafted in consultation with colleagues, including from HMPPS, to ensure that we have the necessary resources. He will know that we have provided additional funding for the new helpline, and for the additional resources required to expand the victim contact scheme. That is all laid out in the economic impact assessment of the legislation. We will, of course, keep it under review to ensure that adequate resources are available to support victims, and give them the communication that they require.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The next three clauses of the Bill, clauses 6 to 8, pertain to increasing the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. In 2024, the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act strengthened the role of the Victims’ Commissioner. Among other measures, it placed a duty on relevant bodies to co-operate with the Commissioner’s requests and respond to their recommendations. The Government’s manifesto committed to build on those powers, providing the Victims’ Commissioner with the full suite of tools to drive systemic change. These clauses deliver on that manifesto commitment.

I take this opportunity to thank the Victims’ Commissioner, Baroness Newlove, for her engagement on these clauses and on the vital work she does every single day to support victims and witnesses. The Victims’ Commissioner’s role is fundamental to appropriate scrutiny of, and accountability for, the systems that support victims and of the criminal justice system. The clauses on the Victims’ Commissioner empower the commissioner better to hold the system to account. They are an important step towards building victims’ confidence in the system and rebuilding their trust. They will ensure that victims’ voices are heard and that the system that supports victims of crime and of antisocial behaviour are held to the same standards, and are effectively and thoroughly scrutinised.

Clause 6 bolsters the Victims’ Commissioner’s ability to promote the interests of victims and witnesses by giving them a legislative foundation to act on individual cases, which expose systemic failure. Individuals’ lived experiences offer invaluable insights into how the system delivers for victims. Existing legislation lacks clarity on the extent to which the commissioner can act explicitly within the parameters of her existing functions in those individual cases.

The clause makes it clear that the Victims’ Commissioner can choose to act on individual cases and where such cases raise public policy issues. That will promote the interests of other victims and witnesses who may face similar systemic problems. In practical terms, therefore, if the commissioner identifies an issue or a failure—such as a policy not being followed, or the absence of a relevant policy—that may have wider implications for other victims, she may request information from the relevant agencies. That could include an explanation of what went wrong and the steps being taken to address that, and recommendations on how improvements can be made across the system.

To achieve that, the element of the legislative bar preventing the commissioner’s involvement in individual cases will be amended. Other elements of the bar will remain the same, including the preservation of the existing restrictions on the commissioner interfering with certain proceedings and with prosecutorial or judicial functions. The clause will enable the Victims’ Commissioner better to promote the interests of victims and witnesses on the issues that impact on them directly.

[Dr Mullan]

Again, the role and importance of the Victims’ Commissioner was something that we supported, reformed and strengthened during our time in Government, as the Minister highlighted. I too pay tribute to Baroness Newlove, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting on a number of occasions to discuss a whole variety of issues related to victims. She brings her incredible experience—and that of her wider family, who have their own perspectives —to so many different issues. I welcome measures that seek to strengthen her role.

I only have one question for the Minister. The new power will sit within a number of bodies—the ombudsman and others—who have roles to play. I am sure that Baroness Newlove and her successor will be forceful and proactive in helping to understand how the powers sit within those remits. Nevertheless, the Government and the Ministry of Justice have a convening and overarching role to ensure that, with all the different parties, the new power and the new individual approach do not confuse victims and that it is clear to everyone what the new Victims’ Commissioner role will or will not involve. Co-operation with others will be necessary to pick up cases that might need that. I will be grateful to the Minister for assurance that the MOJ is sighted of that issue, of ensuring that there is not confusion across the patch.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am happy to clarify that the powers in the Bill that we are extending to the Victims’ Commissioner to allow that measure to take place will bring them in line with other commissioners, such as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Children’s Commissioner, which do those functions and operate well across different agencies. Therefore, it is just a matter of replicating the powers of the Children’s and the Domestic Abuse Commissioners, and how they work in those other jurisdictions. I take that on board.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Duty to co-operate with Commissioner: anti-social behaviour

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

The Committee heard in the evidence sessions how important it is to tackle antisocial behaviour, and how important these powers will be in terms of getting to grips with this issue, which plagues all our communities. For that reason, I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Dr Mullan]

Everybody in the Committee today will be familiar with the importance of engaging with local authorities and social housing providers in relation to antisocial behaviour. We will all have seen examples of good work and proactive local authorities and social housing providers, but we have almost certainly also seen examples of where they do not do the basics that we might expect for our constituents as residents of their housing. We therefore welcome the expansion of the role of the Victims’ Commissioner into this area.

My question is about understanding the different roles that agencies will have. First, what discussions did the Minister have with her colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government about ensuring that local authorities are minded and sighted to these changes, as well as on how they will operate and play their convening role when it comes to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the regulators of social housing.

I am sure the Victims’ Commissioner will do their own work and engagement, but the MHCLG and the MOJ will have an important role ensuring that all stakeholders understand and co-operate to make the most of these new powers, for the benefit of all our constituents who experience antisocial behaviour in local authority and social housing.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s questions. He will know that MHCLG already has a legal duty to respond to recommendations in the commissioner’s reports when relating to some of these measures, so it will feed into that more systemically as a result of these new powers. This Government are not legislating in a vacuum; the new powers in this Bill sit alongside and complement the new measures in the Crime and Policing Bill currently before the House, particularly the duty to create the new antisocial behaviour case reviews.

It is really important that we do not legislate in a vacuum. That is something that has been done previously, but this Government are taking a different approach, looking at how we can tackle issues across Government. We have made these Bills complementary because, in order to solve these problems, we have to do things together across Government and across different agencies. That is why colleagues across Government and from different Departments, including MHCLG and the Home Office, have been carefully involved in the creation of these new powers.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Duty of Commissioner to report on compliance with victims code

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Clause 8 requires the Victims’ Commissioner to produce an annual report to Ministers that will provide an independent assessment of compliance with the victims code. The code sets out the minimum level of service that victims should receive from the criminal justice system in England and Wales. It is part of the Victims’ Commissioner’s role and core functions to keep the code’s operation under review.

The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 contained a new code compliance framework that will require criminal justice bodies to provide Ministers with data demonstrating how they are complying with the code, but that measure lacked independent oversight and scrutiny. In recognition of the role of the Victims’ Commissioner in keeping the operation of the code under review, this measure will place a duty on them to produce their own independent assessment of code compliance. The measure will strengthen their role within the code compliance framework and enhance independent and victim-focused scrutiny of code compliance, with the aim of improving the service that victims receive from criminal justice bodies.

The report will also form a key part of the evidence that informs the ministerial annual report on code compliance. Once the code compliance framework is in force, Ministers will be under a statutory duty to have regard to the new report from the Victims’ Commissioner when preparing their own. As a result, we are removing the existing duty on Ministers to consult the commissioner during the preparation of their annual report, as previously set out in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. The Victims’ Commissioner will also be able to use this report to make recommendations to authorities within their remit, to which those authorities will be required to respond, helping to drive up compliance with the code. As a result, I urge that clause 8 stand part of the Bill.

[Dr Mullan]

As we have come to the conclusion of the clauses relating to these powers, I thought I might bring Baroness Newlove into the room and quote her view overall on the measures that we are passing. She says:

“These important and welcome reforms give the Victims’ Commissioner the statutory powers needed to deliver on the role’s promise: championing victims’ rights, scrutinising compliance with the Victims code, holding agencies to account, and spotlighting the true victim experience to drive meaningful change. This marks a step towards a more accountable system that puts victims first.”

The measures have also been welcomed by SafeLives, Green & Burton ASB Associates and Victim Support, which we heard from during evidence sessions earlier in the week. Therefore we do not intend to oppose this final measure of the three; as I say, they all reflect our long-standing commitment over 14 years in government to the role of the Victims’ Commissioner, which we sought to enhance over time. Of course, as I said, it is right for this Government to think further about other changes that can be made for the benefit of victims.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Appointment of Crown Prosecutors

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 9, page 11, line 4, leave out “persons” and insert “a person”.

This amendment and Amendments 2 to 7 ensure that exemptions conferred by sections 1 and 5 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 remain available to persons with rights of audience in relation to certain proceedings in the Senior Courts and all proceedings in the county court and magistrates’ court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

The Opposition recognise that flexibility in how we decide which professionals can perform important functions in our criminal justice system is important, and we do not object to the widening of the scope, for example by including CILEX members. However, the Minister will know that it has not been universally welcomed. In particular, former Director of Public Prosecutions Lord Macdonald described it as a

“cost cutting measure rather than a measure designed to improve the quality of justice”.

We will not oppose the measure, but given the significant expansion of the professionals involved, what plans do the Government have to review the impact of the change to ensure that there have not been any unintended consequences? It would reassure not just the Opposition but wider stakeholders if the Government kept a close eye on the measure and formally reviewed its implementation.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will happily reassure the Committee that the measures will not reduce professional standards in any way. As I have said, they will simply remove unnecessary barriers that prevent qualified individuals from becoming Crown prosecutors. We are all aware, sadly, of the issues with backlogs in our Crown courts and cases waiting a long time to get to trial. Part of the reason for that is recruitment challenges in the CPS.

I respectfully challenge the comments from the previous DPP. The measures are not a cost-cutting exercise. They are about ensuring that we have the broadest level of talent while maintaining the highest professional standards, so that more victims see justice and more perpetrators are held to account for their crimes.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments made: 2, in clause 9, page 11, line 5, after “subsection (3)” insert

“who does not have a general qualification (within the meaning given by section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.

Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 11, line 11, leave out

“persons designated for the purposes of subsection (3)”

and insert “such a person”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.

Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 11, line 19, after “omit ’” insert “but”.

This amendment updates the text to be omitted from section 5(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 so that the provision reads correctly in light of the amendment to that provision currently included in the Bill.

Amendment 5, in clause 9, page 11, line 22, leave out “persons” and insert “a person”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.

Amendment 6, in clause 9, page 11, line 23, after “subsection (1)” insert

“who does not have a general qualification (within the meaning given by section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.

Amendment 7, in clause 9, page 11, line 29, leave out

“persons appointed under subsection (1)”

and insert “such a person”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Private prosecutions: regulations about costs payable out of central funds

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

I am pleased to say that I was a member of the Select Committee, and I sat on that inquiry and signed off its recommendations. The issue of costs was particularly pertinent to me at the time. I welcome the commitment to extensive consultation, because while the Select Committee absolutely recognised the growing disparity between costs restrictions in non-private prosecutions and private prosecutions, we heard that that was still an important route to justice for some people and we would not want to overly restrict it, so the rate at which costs restrictions are set and the process for that will be important.

The rest of my remarks relate to what the Government are not doing. I note the Minister’s commitment to considering further changes, but she will know that opportunities to legislate do not always come along when we might want them to. Of course, the Government have committed to legislating later in the year on sentencing, and they will almost certainly be legislating on court reform, following Brian Leveson’s review. That is a hefty timetable of legislation in the increasingly short time available in this Parliament, so it may well be that there are not future opportunities to legislate in this important area.

I am sure that all hon. Members are familiar with just how badly private prosecutions can go wrong for some people, particularly in relation to the Post Office Horizon scandal. While there was some CPS involvement in some of those prosecutions, the majority of them were private prosecutions, and we all know the devastating consequences of some of them. We are yet to see whether criminal proceedings might flow from the inquiry, and the extent to which misconduct may have taken place. That is why, as part of our report, the Committee called for regulation of private prosecutions to bring them in line with the ordinary expectations we have of the good practice of the CPS—they really should not be any different.

I would like to hear from the Minister a clear commitment, rather than a generic assurance, and a timetable, during this Parliament, for when the Government expect to develop and publish proposals for the regulation of private prosecutors and when they hope to legislate to bring them into force. It is all well and good for the previous Government and this Government to speak powerfully about the Post Office and the impact that the scandal has had on people, but I think the public want to see steps taken to ensure that it cannot happen again. I am sure the inquiry will have recommendations about that, but the regulation of the private prosecutions sector will be important in ensuring that we do not see a repeat. I would welcome comments from the Minister in that regard.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

On the wider concerns about private prosecutions, the shadow Minister will have heard me say that we will shortly be publishing our response to the consultation that this Government carried out. We recognise that there is more to do in this area, and we will act if the recommendations suggest that we should do so. He will also know that, sadly, this Government inherited a justice system in absolute chaos, which has resulted in us having to bring forward a number of urgent reviews, including into sentencing and court backlogs, and a number of legislative vehicles. I guarantee that there will be ample opportunity for us to legislate on these issues during this parliamentary Session should that be deemed appropriate given their nature.

[Dr Mullan]

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

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am confident that there will certainly be more opportunities, given, as I have said, the nature of the issues facing the Ministry of Justice and the need for the Government to act to correct some of the difficulties and problems that we inherited. This Government are getting on with action to clean up the mess in our prisons, to reduce the criminal cases backlog and, through this Bill, to ensure that victims’ rights are heard. We are not sitting on our hands and waiting for appropriate vehicles; we are getting on with the job, and that is exactly what we are doing today.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Samantha Dixon.)