Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill

Chris Clarkson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Wayne David]

I am not familiar with Magna Carta, but I suspect our common law has moved on somewhat since then.

The uncertainty about the scope and effect of the new clause also raises the somewhat unfortunate spectre of new and unexpected avenues for litigation, when these measures are intended to do the exact opposite. I am clear that the drafting of the Bill makes its purpose transparent. It is a purpose that is consistent with rights already established in domestic and international law and that addresses the fundamental need to ensure access to justice for both claimants and defendants.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that at the heart of this is the application of the reasonableness test? Although I agree with the thrust of new clause 1, I think there is an opportunity to apply the existing framework to achieve its goals. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden said, the idea of freedom of speech and public participation is already a fundamental part of our common law, but even when we are applying the reasonableness test we often give judges instruction on how they should interpret reasonableness. Does the hon. Gentleman think that there is an opportunity to ensure, before Report, that we have embedded that concept?

[Wayne David]

I am a very reasonable person—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am glad that all Members agree.

Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill

Chris Clarkson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 23rd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David]

It is an issue that has to be considered carefully, and, indeed, it has been given a great deal of consideration and much debate.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Wayne David]

May I just respond to the other point that has been made? It is vital that this issue is considered properly and deeply. I hope very much that, if we are successful today, the debate will continue into Committee, so that further consideration may be given to that issue. At the moment, I am erring on the side of what is suggested by my private Member’s Bill. I think the Bill strikes a balance. It is not quite accurate to talk about subjectivity and objectivity, because a judge will have to make a determination on the facts that are presented and his knowledge of how the case is being conducted. At the moment I err in favour of saying that there is a false dichotomy, but it is something that should be considered further in Committee.

[Chris Clarkson]

I join in concordance with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David). This is an excellent piece of legislation and I am very broadly in support of it. I just wanted to respond to the comment from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord). Subjectivity is actually a fundamental part of our legal system already: we talk often of the man on the Clapham omnibus. It is the reasonableness test, so I do not think there is anything in the Bill that is out of scope or inappropriate.

[Wayne David]

I am inclined to agree with that comment, as my Bill suggests, but it is something that needs to have more airing and more consideration. Detailed consideration in Committee would be an appropriate place for that to happen.

As others have said many times, most SLAPP-related activity takes place below the radar before a formal court case and court claim is issued. There are a number of reasons why SLAPPs are so bad, and why SLAPPs claimants are so successful in their warped objective of perpetrating them. Commonly, the comparatively modest means of a defendant are leveraged against them to encourage retraction or the abandonment of the important research that would shine a light on questionable behaviour. Bullying tactics can include huge threatened litigation costs and damages, and all of the unbearable consequences such as bankruptcy and loss of homes and livelihoods, as well as the emotional distress that entails. All of that can cause huge hardship and psychological pressure.

Sadly, many people are not able to withstand all of that. So many of the cases are like David and Goliath, but if David had no slingshot. I should be clear about why the unfairness of a legal system that allows all of that has to be challenged and changed. That is why I am bringing forward the Bill today. We must eradicate the harms caused by that kind of aggressive litigation. We must protect publishers, authors and advocates from spurious claims and empower them to forge ahead with publishing legitimate stories. Grounded, well-researched investigative reporting must be protected, not reined in for fear of colossal legal costs. We must do our utmost to protect and empower ordinary people, and give them the confidence to use the legal system of this country to ensure fairness in the public interest.

Of course, protecting journalists or anyone else cannot be at the expense of denying claimants their rights of access to justice. But at present, the fact that claimants can wrongly exploit the justice system to obfuscate the transparency that is essential in a healthy democracy means that an important balance must be struck. As things stand, that is clearly not the case, and that is why I call for urgent reform today. Robust action to counter SLAPPs in all their forms is needed and it is needed now.

I have sought to work alongside the Government to ensure that the approach underpinning the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act—which was positively received across civil society, media and the legal professions, including the regulators—remains largely intact in the Bill as it achieves what is necessary. The Bill will therefore keep, for the most part, the definition of a SLAPP claim in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, but it will also broaden the scope and capture all SLAPPs in future. In future, any SLAPPs cases in which speaking out is in the public interest, including for publications on economic crime, will be caught.

Let me address the components of the definition. First, the claimant will have acted to restrain the defendant’s exercise of their right to freedom of speech. Secondly, the exercise of that right will have been in the pursuit of the public interest, or exposing potential wrongdoing or other bad behaviour, such as illegality or untruths, or matters to do with public health and safety or the climate and the environment. Thirdly, the claimant will have misused litigation for its threat to cause harm to the defendant, specifically through harassment, stress or expense, which is beyond that which can be ordinarily expected in properly conducted litigation. The last point includes an important distinction. Legal cases almost always bring a measure of stress and expense to the parties involved, given their serious nature.

As I have said, SLAPP claims are often designed to generate excessive stress and expense in pursuit of a remedy that is a mere fig leaf, or excuse to allow the real harm that the claimant wishes to cause. One thing that distinguishes a SLAPP claim is that the legal action is not pursued for the appropriate remedy, but as a means, in its own right, of bringing oppression to bear. To safeguard against that harm in an effective and proportionate way, including by ensuring that legitimate claims can proceed, the Bill will introduce a new early dismissal test. Claimants will have to show that they are more likely than not to succeed at trial. Where they cannot do so, the case will be struck out.

In addition, much of the harm in SLAPP claims lies in the risk of adverse costs that defendants face. A properly functioning early dismissal mechanism will assist in removing many of the risks to the defendant. However, for SLAPP claims that are not dismissed early, the Bill will introduce a new costs regime that protects defendants from costs that they would usually pay if they lost the case. That will ensure that defendants can defend themselves properly and that the risk of costs does not force them to settle claims unnecessarily. The underpinning principles of that new cost regime are included in the provisions, but the detail will be introduced under the usual cost regime-making powers through rules of court.

Together, those provisions will initially require only new civil procedure rules to give them shape and maximise their effectiveness, as the evidence available shows that SLAPPs are focused on civil proceedings. However, the provisions can be extended by regulations to any other proceedings as necessary, such as the online procedure rules. I trust that the Government will make necessary regulations when claimants who are well resourced and able to exploit any perceived loophole choose other courts in which to pursue SLAPPs. That will also help to ensure that the Bill is future-proofed. SLAPPs are likely to evolve, and we need legal infrastructure to be robust enough to meet future challenges.

As a result of the Bill, the courts will have the necessary tools and guidance to deal swiftly with all SLAPPs, which aim to stifle freedom of speech. Investigative journalists will also be empowered to expose wrongdoing in all its forms, whatever that may be. It is my hope that defendants in such cases will, as a consequence, feel safe from attempts to wrongly exploit our legal system. Journalists and others will be empowered to shine a light on criminal misconduct wherever they find it, whatever form it takes, without fear of spurious claims being made against them.

Unscrupulous individuals or corporations brazenly misuse our courts and legal system to further their agendas, to the detriment of the public interest, though it is wrong to do so as a matter of principle. The public must know about wrongdoing and corruption, so that our democratic society can function and the rule of law can be preserved. This Bill recognises the breadth and depth of SLAPPs; currently, the law focuses solely on economic crime, but SLAPPs can be found in all areas of the law. This all-embracing legislation against SLAPPs is, I believe, a truly significant step in ensuring freedom of speech and removing a clear abuse of our legal system. I therefore urge colleagues across the House to give the Bill their full support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum). May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David)? He has brought forward an excellent private Member’s Bill, and this is entirely what we should be doing with Friday sittings. I love Friday sittings; I have outed myself as a geek on multiple occasions. For me, this is what the job is about—coming here and talking at length about stuff that is important to people.

I also out myself as a lawyer and wave my LLB about. I am passionate about our legal system and believe keenly in it. It is the jewel in the crown of our state. It is par excellence and second to none. It deeply grieves me when something so important is perverted for the narrow interest of a small cadre of people who have rightly deduced that a technical flaw is available to them, and they have enough money to exploit it. The system should not be exploitable purely because someone has the financial resource to do it. We should not be able to purchase justice in this country—but people do that.

I will speak to two main issues only that I have deduced from reading this private Member’s Bill—which I will support fully, I hasten to add. The first is a matter for when the Bill reaches Committee, and that is how we address the serious problem of forum shopping. This country has a particularly robust approach to defamation legislation. Imagine that I publish a book like “Putin’s People”, for example: it could be the case that it is published in 18 different countries but that I only get sued in this one, because this country is the one that is most technically adept at allowing somebody to get money out of me and keep me quiet. That will then prevent me from being able to publish that book in other places; effectively, that process in one country will gag me in other countries. I think we can do something in that space. The hon. Gentleman has put together an excellent Bill. It is one for the pinstripe-suited—I am actually not wearing a pinstripe suit today—geeky bods to get into. We will have to drill down into the Bill to ensure that it is as robust as possible, but I am happy with its direction.

My second point is about addressing what the Bill is really about. It is about not technical amendments to the legal system—as much as I love those—but freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental rights in every democracy. The United States constitution starts with:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting…the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

That is an incredibly powerful and potent set of clauses that prevents the situation we are discussing from happening in the United States. We have to rely on article 10 of the European convention on human rights; and I will say now, for the avoidance of doubt, that you will get me through a wood chipper faster than you will get me through a Division Lobby to take us out of that.

Article 10 is incredibly important, but it is not adequate for the task ahead of us, and that is why this is such an important Bill. As a Member of Parliament, I want to be able to go out and talk about what is correct, right, proper and decent, without having to rely on the fact that I have immunity in this Chamber, but I cannot do that without fear or favour at the moment, because this lawfare system—I think the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse coined that term, which is an effective way of describing what is going—is basically being used to destroy one of the fundamental principles of our democracy.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly is entirely right and proper to bring us this Bill. I will enthusiastically support it; if he needs people for Bill Committee when it gets to that stage, I will be there—and I am afraid I will be talking a lot.

Community and Suspended Sentences (Notification of Details) Bill

Chris Clarkson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 23rd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

I am very pleased to be supporting the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones). I am what would be typically referred to as a Tory wet, which means that I do not think locking up everybody is always a panacea for everything. Community centres have an important role to play; not only do we have a particularly crowded prison estate as it is, but the prison estate is not the best place for the rehabilitation of offenders who have shorter sentences because their crimes are their first offence or relatively minor. If we are talking about a proper lag or villain, then let us lock them up for 20 years, but fundamentally we should be trying to get people into the habit of improving their lives. We should be creating productive citizens.

I support the Bill very much; the hon. Lady has alighted on an important point. When somebody leaves a custodial sentence, there are rules and regulations in place to ensure that they do not change their identity or somehow get around the system in order to reoffend, although there will be some who go on to reoffend. There will sadly also be those who go on to reoffend after having had one of these non-custodial sentences. By applying to them the same regime that applies to people who have been in the prison estate, we are not introducing a new special punishment and they are not under any extra burden. They are being asked to comply with a perfectly sensible regime. I therefore very much welcome what the hon. Lady has done.

We will all know of at least one or two heartbreaking cases from our constituencies where the system has not worked quite as it should. When I first started in this place, I met the family of a constituent who had been murdered by somebody who was out on parole. There had been a similar issue with identity: documents had been lost; meetings were not taking place. This man had basically just disappeared into the ether of the system. I cannot guarantee that, had the safeguard in the Bill been in place, it would have saved my constituent’s life, but it certainly would have made it much less likely that a little boy was left without his dad and parents were left without their son.

I congratulate the hon. Lady on introducing this Bill, and I look forward to supporting it.

Powers of Attorney Bill

Chris Clarkson Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 17th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Nickie Aiken]

My hon. Friend makes a key point. The Ministry of Justice might want to look at what public-sector organisations, such as libraries and local authorities, can do to help support people—possibly older or more vulnerable people—who are not au fait with using the internet. That may be something for the Minister to consider eventually as this process continues.

However, I welcome the Bill and what it sets out to achieve. It is tough, and often heartbreaking, when loved ones lose the ability to make their own decisions as a result of mental incapacity. As such, a lasting power of attorney is one of the most important legal documents a person will make, so we need to get the legislation right. I will take this opportunity to provide my own experience with lasting power of attorney. I am the lasting power of attorney for my father and mother. I did that six years ago when my father was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and it became obvious that he would not have the mental capacity to make decisions for himself as the condition progressed. At a point when he still had the capacity, we organised lasting powers of attorney on health and on the financial side. It is important to make the point that lasting power of attorney is so important in both areas—the financial side and health.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

I am very interested to hear my hon. Friend’s experience with this process. Does she agree with me that, having been through the process, it is needlessly complicated?

[Nickie Aiken]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. We went through our family solicitor, who is somebody that we trust and who knew the family. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the process can be long, and, when not using a solicitor, it can be quite unnerving for some people. It is such a massive and important document. From my own experience, when it came to the end of my father’s life, and there had to be major decisions made on whether to continue his treatment, the fact that I had the final say ensured that the family knew that we were making the decision for my father in his best interests. It was not left to medical professionals. I would absolutely trust a doctor or a medical professional to make that decision, but having the health power of attorney meant that I made the decision on his behalf.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

I absolutely agree. We never know what fate has in store for us, and I urge my hon. Friend to put writing his will and arranging a lasting power of attorney at the top of his list, and I promise that I will do the same. I urge everyone in this country to discuss with those closest to them whether they should arrange a lasting power of attorney for each other.

[Chris Clarkson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that everyone should have these conversations, but not everyone can follow up on them because of the expense of, for example, getting legal advice to arrange a will or power of attorney. She says she was fortunate to be able to use a solicitor, but that will be too expensive for some people. Does she agree that the measures in the Bill will make it much easier for people to access lasting power of attorney without incurring the extra expense and difficulty?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow for the second time today my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes). As warm-up acts go, it really is quite unfair to follow somebody so articulate and so well-considered twice and try to look good by comparison.

I wish to pay tribute to, and thank, my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) for introducing this Bill. I have had the pleasure of participating in the Science and Technology Committee and various other endeavours with him. I know that he takes very seriously any endeavour in which he participates, and this has all the hallmarks of his usual excellent work.

The Bill is pragmatic—it is pragmatism at its finest—as it addresses the key issues and gaps in the current LPA application process through a combination of good sense and innovative technology. I was struck by the fact that the Bill passed its Committee stage on St David’s day and it is having its Third Reading on St Patrick’s day—happy St Patrick’s day, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that its next stage will be closer to St George’s day than it is to St Andrew’s day, because we cannot wait for this much longer.

The measures in the Bill will help to reduce administrative burdens and minimise the likelihood of application errors which, as we have heard, can be tortuous and drag the process out for far too long. Most importantly, they will ease the burdens on applicants and their loved ones who find themselves in these unfortunate circumstances. As we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and for Clwyd South, sometimes these situations can move extremely quickly. When someone is going through a complex and tortuous process, the emotional burden can make it too much to complete the process, leading to the very worst of outcomes.

The Law Society considers these to be some of the most important legal documents that people will ever sign. To that end, I welcome the provision to allow chartered legal executives to perform certification. That will provide more choice and will be much more affordable for people. One of the perversities of the process is that sometimes people feel that they have to commission a solicitor to go through the process and that can be expensive. Someone on a modest income may have financial assets to protect, such as a house, and the wellbeing of a loved one to consider, but may not have the disposable income to get a solicitor. It is wrong that some people may be effectively priced out of the system, and the Bill will go a long way to removing some of the barriers that people have to accessing it.

A case in which that happened came across my desk not long ago. A constituent wrote to me about his experience of a delayed LPA process. During the height of the covid-19 backlog in 2021, I was contacted by a man who had been waiting for more than five months for a decision on his LPA application for his 91-year-old mother who was suffering from dementia. Weary of the process and the delays, my constituent hired a solicitor to complete the application. He had been assured that it was filed correctly. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy) flagged a similar case. My constituent waited months for the application decision while his mother’s mental health deteriorated and she was no longer able to manage her finances or health-related arrangements. It then turned out that an error had been made in the process by the solicitor, the forms had all been returned and the process had been in abeyance. My hon. Friend mentioned that he had encountered a similar situation when undertaking this process for a loved one, and he is himself legally qualified. That is how mystifying the process can be. I too have a legal background and have taken a cursory look at what the process involves: it scares the living whatsits out of me. As my constituent’s mother’s dementia became more severe, she had no concept of the value of money or how to pay bills, and was acutely vulnerable to cold callers and scammers, but there were no protections in place for her.

My constituent and his mother are not the only ones dealing with the delays. I am acutely aware that people up and down the country are waiting for certainty. We have all had the conversation—people put off the decision, as they do in making a will, because they do not like to think about their own mortality. They are always waiting for the next time. When my dad was diagnosed with cancer, fairly late, none of these things had been done because everybody thinks that they will live for ever and will get around to it tomorrow. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), “Get that will sorted asap!”

[James Wild]

I am happy to confirm that I will have a conversation with a solicitor to draw up that will next Friday.

[Chris Clarkson]

Being a good friend of his wife, I am sure she will be very pleased and putting roller skates at the top of the stairs after that date—[Laughter.]

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) made the interesting point that in some circumstances people do not recognise or accept Scottish lasting powers of attorney. As he probably knows, I got my legal education at Dundee, which is one of the few universities that dual-qualifies its students, so I have a particular interest in ensuring that the two jurisdictions work as closely together as they can. The reality is that most people, when relying on a legal instrument, do not really care whether it is a solicitor in Glasgow or Manchester; they just want to know that their loved one will be looked after. Similarly, people move across the border and have family on both sides. I would welcome a conversation with the hon. Gentleman outside this debate about how we can streamline the process to ensure that this place and the devolved Administrations have some sort of framework to allow it to work properly. I appreciate that there is a legislative consent motion for the Bill.

[Patrick Grady]

I am happy to pick this up with the hon. Gentleman. We recognise that the Bill is not quite the vehicle to deal with this issue in legislative terms, but it has shone a light on the importance of mutual recognition south of the border and of people having powers of attorney in the first place. I assure him that we are all working together on this, and there is consensus.

[Chris Clarkson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and completely agree; there is an outbreak of consensus across the House. These are such important and necessary changes.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock has made provision for maintaining the paper route, with a fluid system in which it is possible to use both paper and digital. It is not just older people who sometimes struggle with accessing or using technology, although I have been approached repeatedly by constituents who are upset or concerned that they are not able to access the full range of services from various providers for that reason. There is also a digital divide. I represent a constituency that is not particularly affluent. There are people who simply do not have access to the technology or might not have had sufficient training in using it to feel confident going through this process, whereas if somebody can sit down with them and go through a form, they have the certainty that it is being dealt with properly, so I am pleased that my hon. Friend has maintained that route.

The Bill strikes the balance between improving the efficiency and processing times of applications and minimising the dangers of fraud. These circumstances are never easy—they are often some of the most heartbreaking and challenging situations, where loved ones are simply losing capacity and people have to make difficult decisions about what happens to them next. The Bill is a step in the right direction. It eases the burdens on individuals and takes away some of that difficulty and stress. It removes some of the expense, which blocks some people from accessing this, and gives people flexibility and choice. I strongly commend the Bill to the House and thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock for his diligent work on it.

Rape: Criminal Prosecutions

Chris Clarkson Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

We have measured it very carefully and we have committed to doubling the number of cases received in the Crown court by the end of this Parliament. This is a work in progress.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

When we talk about this distressing subject, there is the potential to go into abstraction and talk about statistics when, in fact, behind every one of those figures is a shattered life. What is being done to ensure that people dealing with victims of rape and sexual assault understand fully the trauma that the individual going through the process is experiencing, so that they can help them to stay in the process?

[Victoria Atkins]

The focus of Operation Soteria, the police technique of focusing on the suspect rather than on the witness’s credibility, is critical to the increased understanding that my hon. Friend talks about. He is right to say that when we talk about percentage increases and so on, it can take away from the individual person or people who have been so hurt and traumatised. If I can just translate this into English, from October to December last year, 467 people were convicted of a rape offence. That represents a 15% increase on the previous quarter. Those 467 people were convicted and sentenced by the courts, thereby protecting the public from their violent behaviour.

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Chris Clarkson Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I will speak briefly about why I welcome the Bill and why I believe it is necessary to tackle the issues on which many hon. Members have made very good speeches this afternoon. May I first congratulate the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and Ministers from the Department on the constructive and decisive action that they have taken? I pay particular tribute to the Labour party and the shadow Solicitor General for supporting this measure, which I think shows the importance of the subject.

As the Lord Chancellor said, the first duty of any Government is to keep their people safe, and this Bill goes some way to increasing the likelihood that that will happen. It increases the likelihood of ending the uncertainty for victims, their families and those who have been affected by these atrocities, and it will go some way to restoring the confidence of my constituents and people across the country in the sentencing guidelines for people who commit these most hideous crimes.

I want briefly to talk about how terrorism affects everybody, directly or indirectly. There are two occasions in particular that stick in my mind. The first was 7/7. I was 15 years old at the time and—I hope hon. Members do not tell me off—I chose that day not to go into school. I remember the breaking news coming through on the television. My father was working in London at that time. In fact, my family were all working in London; I am a Londoner. I remember trying to make some phone calls to see whether they were okay. For some reason, I got a crossed line and got through to a lady when I called my father’s phone. This woman was trying to find out where her daughter was because she was using the tube that morning. She was terrified, fearful and concerned about where her daughter was. We spoke for just two minutes, but I tried to reassure her and she reassured me.

The other occasion was the Westminster Bridge attack, which happened while I was a special adviser to Sir Patrick McLoughlin. I was walking up Whitehall when the shots were fired, and was locked down in the Cabinet Office. Sir Patrick was locked down in here. Members of my family were desperately trying to find out whether I was okay, and I was trying to find out whether friends in this House and around the Chamber were okay. I mention both those occasions to show that we are all affected by terrorism.

Terrorism spreads fear, harms lives and, most importantly, costs lives. But this Bill goes some way to giving some reassurance to the victims, families and people who are affected by terrorism that those who commit these crimes will go to prison and stay there. Sadly, we cannot say with certainty that attacks such as the ones I have mentioned will not happen again. We all know that; I am afraid that it is the nature of the beast.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend spoke extremely eloquently about his own experiences in London. Greater Manchester has certainly experienced its fair share of terrorism, including the 1996 bombing and the atrocity at Manchester Arena just three years ago. Does he agree that the terror does not just stop with the initial act, and that by restricting early release we are at least giving the family some comfort, some measure of protection from the damaging effects of the attacks and a chance to heal?

[Paul Holmes]

I absolutely agree. As he represents a constituency from that region, he will have seen the concern and fear that went across the region at the time of those attacks. That is absolutely why the Bill is necessary. May I pay tribute—as I should have done at the beginning of my speech—to the security services, the police and all those in the emergency services across the country who have to deal with these incidents? I also pay tribute and my respects to the victims and their families.

As I said, we cannot say with certainty that something like this will not happen again, but we can give certainty to people across the country that the perpetrators of these crimes are put away and kept away, with the reassurance that if they are, in consultation with the Parole Board, released two thirds of the way through their sentence, they will be monitored properly and in conjunction with the Parole Board.

Colleagues in all parts of the House will have their own memories of attacks like these, as do so many of us who live or work in London. We must never forget those who have lost their lives due to the barbaric actions of terrorists. We must also never let the spectre of terrorism stop us from living well. The aim of terrorism, as I have outlined, is to spread fear. I am enormously proud that the people of London—I am originally a Londoner—are not allowing these attacks to succeed by making us too afraid to go about our daily lives. This Bill goes some way towards removing the fear of victims, because the killers in these cases will serve their sentences and be monitored properly. The involvement of the Parole Board is absolutely essential, and I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for outlining that.

We must question why these attacks happen. The perpetrators of the attack at London Bridge in November and of this month’s attack in Streatham were both released from prison automatically at the halfway point of their sentence, with no involvement from the Parole Board, to serve the rest of their sentence on licence. The fact that they were able to commit these atrocities shows that this approach must be changed, and that is why I am glad that the Government are doing so with this Bill. It is vital that automatic release is not applied to those convicted of terrorism offences and that the Parole Board is involved in each of these cases to assess whether or not these people should be released.

However, I do ask for some reassurance from the Minister on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). If the perpetrators of these attacks serve a full sentence or go through release in consultation with the Parole Board, we must not see that as the end of the journey. Rehabilitation, and a reassurance to people across this country that these people are being watched and monitored, is absolutely vital. We do not want another Streatham to happen. We know that this guy was on the records of the security services. Despite these actions being taken, it is absolutely vital that we have some reassurance that we will go further to make sure that these people are being monitored adequately.

These changes will not only make us safer but give the public more confidence in the ability of our criminal justice system to deal with terrorists. This is a valuable and much-needed piece of legislation. Moreover, it is the right thing to do. The Lord Chancellor is right to take action and should be congratulated on doing so swiftly. That is why I will support the Bill this evening.