Oral Answers to Questions

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

11. What steps his Department is taking to reduce the Crown court backlog.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

12. What steps he is taking to tackle backlogs in the courts.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

14. What steps he is taking to reduce the length of waiting times in the Crown court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend highlights almost two decades of the SNP running Scotland into the ground. Here, we have had a record increase of £92 million. On the day we introduce the Hillsborough law, it is hugely important to record that that is the biggest extension of legal aid for people who have suffered at the hands of the state in over a decade.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Rape is a heinous and despicable crime, with lifelong consequences for victims. Some do not survive. According to the House of Commons Library, the average number of days from charge to case completion is 363 days. What time do the Government think is acceptable for delivering justice for rape victims? Do they have a target? What is it and what steps are they taking to reach it?

[Mr Lammy]

We must have swifter justice for victims of rape. When I was shadow Justice Secretary, I was appalled that under the previous Government we got to a position where we had almost decriminalised the situation because there were so few prosecutions. There must be justice, and that means swifter justice.

Sentencing Bill

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It is my pleasure to open this debate—my first since being appointed Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. It is an honour to be back on this beat and to take up this brief. Justice has always been at the heart of my politics over the past 25 years. Far from being abstract, it runs through every aspect of our lives: our education, our health and the opportunities that people have to succeed. It has shaped my life, from studying and practising law to serving as a Minister in the old Department for Constitutional Affairs, and of course as shadow Justice Secretary.

During David Cameron’s period as Prime Minister, I was asked to conduct an independent review on racial disparity in the justice system. I grew up as a working-class kid in Tottenham and saw too many young black men end up on the wrong side of the law. I represented Tottenham during the 2011 London riots, addressing at first hand the destruction caused when peaceful protests were hijacked by violent criminals. During the Lammy review I also saw the state of our prisons, which are operating at close to maximum capacity, putting the public at risk of harm.

Public protection is exactly why we have introduced the Bill before us today. At the heart of it is the threat that the previous Conservative Government left us with: that our prisons could run of out places entirely, leaving us with nowhere to put dangerous offenders, police without the capacity to make arrests, courts unable to hold trials and a breakdown of law and order unlike anything we have seen in modern times. As Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary, I will never allow that to happen, because the first duty of Government is to keep the public safe.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

I broadly welcome the Bill’s provisions, which will take on the mess that the Conservatives left behind. Does the right hon. Member agree that it is important to get the right balance between the purpose of prison, particularly for violent crime, which is to rehabilitate criminals, but also to provide a deterrent and punishment, and maintaining public safety and delivering restorative justice?

[Mr Lammy]

That is a very good summary. We must have punishment that works, and I will talk about that later in my speech.

When we look at the record of the previous Government, and I have looked at the figures very closely, we see that the recidivism rates were running at 60%, 65%, 68%. Something is not working when people go back to prison over and over again. I got the Department to give me the figures: over 5 million offences. All those offences have victims. We have to do something about it, and the Bill will begin to get us into the right place, because the first duty of government is to keep the public safe.

But the Bill is not only about preventing an emergency; it also takes us back to the purpose of sentencing, which must be, as has been said, punishment that works—punishment that works for victims, who deserve to see perpetrators face retribution; punishment that works for society, which wants criminals to return to society less dangerous, not more; and punishment that works to prevent crime.

Humanist Marriage

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I am delighted to co-lead this debate. Many problems that face this country and indeed the world are difficult to solve, but marriage equality for humanist weddings—as the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), my constituency neighbour, pointed out—is something we can fix simply with the stroke of a pen. I therefore urge the Government to do so.

I will reflect on my own marriage, which was a humanist marriage. I am not religious, but I was raised going to church on Sundays and I went to a Catholic school, so I am familiar with the Catholic faith and have great respect for it. When it came down to it, however, a religious marriage did not feel right for me or my wife. The words someone needs to say at a church wedding just did not ring true for me, and the last thing I wanted to do on my wedding day was to lie.

The words we say on such a day are special and should be meaningful. The alternative to a religious marriage, in a place that is wanted, is therefore to have a registry office marriage with a celebration after, but I wanted the celebration to be the marriage—to combine, as religious ceremonies do, the legal act of marriage as defined by law and the deep and meaningful declarations of love made on the day.

That is why we decided to get married in Scotland. As my name suggests, I do not have ancestral connections to Scotland, but I often wear a tartan tie in this place because I am now so fond of the country in which I got married. I am today wearing the same tie that I got married in four years ago. Our humanist celebrant, Lesley, was absolutely wonderful. She guided us through the whole thing perfectly and even offered us a bit of advice on the snow gates in Braemar in December.

Everyone in England and Wales should have the same opportunity that has existed in Scotland for 20 years. Twenty years ago, Humanist Society Scotland wrote to the Registrar General and asked them to read the law as relates to religious marriages as also providing for humanist marriages. They were persuaded that, from a human rights perspective, given freedom of religion or belief, that had to happen, so they reinterpreted the law in exactly that way. No legislation was required, and so, on 18 June 2005, Karen Watts and Martin Reijns were married by a humanist celebrant at Edinburgh zoo.

When Scotland passed the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014, the decision was made to update marriage law to put humanist marriages on a proper statutory footing. The first two same-sex marriages in Scotland were both humanist, and humanist marriages have only continued to grow in popularity since.

It is not just Scotland that has left England behind. In 2017, Laura Lacole and Eunan O’Kane applied to the Registrar General in Northern Ireland to ask for their marriage to be a humanist one. They asked for the law to be read similarly to the way it was read in Scotland. This was declined, but a court later found in their favour. As in Scotland, humanist marriages have since exploded in popularity in Northern Ireland.

To finish my tour of the home nations, the Welsh Government have repeatedly written to the UK Government over the years asking for a humanist marriage order to be laid or, failing that, for marriage law to be devolved to Wales. I am proud that my party has been committed to that for many years, and that it was a commitment in the last Liberal Democrat manifesto. I am also proud that the Liberal Democrats were in government in Scotland when humanist marriages were introduced there. The Liberal Democrats of course have a very good record on marriage reform. We can debate the merits of the coalition—as I am sure we will again and again—but one of the standout achievements was same-sex marriage. It is worth noting that the couple who had the first same-sex marriage in England and Wales, Peter McGraith and David Cabreza, are humanists and said they would have liked a humanist wedding.

Legal recognition of humanist marriage would especially benefit and support same-sex couples. LGBTQ people are significantly more likely to identify as non-religious, and many religious groups still do not allow same-sex marriages. Humanists UK tracks whether the ceremonies its celebrants do are for opposite sex or same-sex couples; as a result, we know that every year since 2013 more same-sex couples have chosen to have a humanist wedding without legal recognition than have had a religious same- sex marriage with legal recognition. That which there is clear demand.

Labour committed to action when in opposition; now they are in power, I urge the Government to listen to this debate. I would not change my wedding for the world, and Scotland now has a very special place in my heart, but would it not be lovely if a legacy of this Government was that such special memories can be made in England and Wales too?

Violence against Women and Girls

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

It is a privilege to be here in the Chamber to experience so many astonishing speeches. I direct attention specifically to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), whose speech was one for the ages.

I preface my contribution with the acknowledgment that there are 263 women Members of this Parliament who are often best equipped to speak on matters that impact women and girls. However, in the case of violence against women and girls, it is important that men speak. We should not shy away from the fact that such violence is often inflicted by men, from across society and from all walks of life. The recent convictions of the men who raped Gisèle Pelicot brought to light some information that shook my faith even in myself. Among the men who raped her were a journalist, a councillor, a soldier, lorry drivers, farm workers and even—pause for a moment to consider this—a nurse.

One of the most shattering examples of violence against women and girls was the tragic case of Sara Sharif. Rarely am I moved to such anger as when I revisit that case. The man who tortured and murdered 10-year-old Sara was the one person whose primary responsibility as a human being was to protect his daughter. I echo the statement by the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who referred to labelling such men as monsters. To label him and the perpetrators of similarly disgusting crimes as monsters is to obscure an uncomfortable truth: they are often fathers and brothers, they are often our work colleagues. I note the absence today of the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) and his enablers.

Men across the country are outraged by violence against women and girls, but how many of us are ready to look in the mirror? Men taking a stand against demeaning language, inappropriate behaviours and toxic mentalities will prove central to winning the minds of men and boys, but we must also recognise it in ourselves. As with any other form of intolerance—I draw attention to the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who linked broader intolerance to the matter we are discussing—it is the othering of “them” and the validation of “us” that drives resentment.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

May I associate myself with the words of the Minister, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) and others on the comments made to the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls? I am appalled by the comments made online and by well-known members of the public.

Will my hon. Friend join me in wholeheartedly condemning public sexual harassment, including so-called cat calling, which is designed to harass, intimidate and humiliate women and girls? Shamefully, 68% of adult women have experienced sexual harassment by the age of 15. Will my hon. Friend also join me in asking the Government to pass the statutory instrument required to enforce the legislation passed last year on that?

[Cameron Thomas]

I absolutely stand by my hon. Friend’s comments. May I also congratulate him on the recent birth of his daughter? I am delighted that he will learn now, as I know, that there is nobody more blessed than the fathers of daughters.

The attention of men and boys is often won through divisive and even violent rhetoric and behaviours. It appeals to men’s frustrations. It frames women as opponents— some adversary to be controlled or defeated—or an object to acquire, possess and impose our will upon. For some of us, that rhetoric is first experienced in our own home, growing up. If not, then it is experienced in the playground. It is not long before toxic role models are in our social media feeds, with algorithms repeating and reinforcing toxic messages.

We can decide in this House to challenge toxic influence, predominantly through our schools. Boys and girls should be taught together to respect and appreciate each other for their differences, as well as for what they have in common. We should also mandate social media companies to publish the actions they take to address and control online abuse. Let me be explicit: those who do not measure up must have no such place of influence in our society.

I will end with an acknowledgment that withdrawing our armed forces from Afghanistan and leaving millions of women to the will of the Taliban is a self-made humanitarian tragedy. Together with our allies, for 20 years, we brought Afghan women freedom and hope for the future. With the US-planned withdrawal and our corresponding actions, we condemned and, in so many cases, returned them to a pitiful and hellish existence.