Arbitration Bill [Lords]

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

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

I am pleased to be opening this Second Reading debate on the Government’s Arbitration Bill. This legislation is a direct response to recommendations made by the Law Commission of England and Wales in its report on arbitral reform, published in September 2023. If enacted, the Bill will make targeted reforms to the Arbitration Act 1996, which governs arbitration in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland has its own devolved arbitral framework under the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010, which this Bill will not affect.

Arbitration is a major area of business activity. For example, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, headquartered in London, has more than 17,000 members across 149 countries. As the House will know, arbitration is greatly valued by individuals and businesses alike as an alternative to going to court, giving parties the ability to appoint a private tribunal to resolve disputes by issuing a binding and enforceable award. For example, when parties enter into a commercial contract, it is common to find a clause that provides that any disputes will be resolved through arbitration in this great capital city of London, rather than through litigation in court. That is often true even where a contract has no other connection to the UK, such is the prestige of arbitration here. Furthermore, thanks to an international convention commonly called the New York convention, which dates from 1958, arbitration awards made in the UK can be enforced anywhere in the world. Studies suggest that such enforcement is often faster and more reliable than seeking to enforce court judgments.

The New York convention may date from 1958, but arbitration has been a feature of our justice system for centuries. Arbitration was a common way of settling disputes back in Anglo-Saxon times. It was largely a public affair, with enforcement through community pressure. By Norman times, parties could choose their arbitrator, someone known to both sides and well placed to facilitate a reconciliation. In the 14th century—[Interruption.] The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), is enjoying my little canter through the historical background, which I am sure the massed attendance this afternoon is also enjoying. In the 14th century, the mayor and aldermen of London set up, in effect, an arbitration centre here in this great city. This also provided services to foreign traders whose disputes had no other connection to England. Arbitration then grew in Elizabethan times, and by the mid-18th century arbitration clauses were very common, as were professional arbitrators.

It is said that our first arbitration Act, the Arbitration Act 1698, was single-handedly drafted by the famous political philosopher John Locke after he had been tasked by the then Board of Trade to devise a scheme that would help merchants to reach a satisfactory settlement of their disputes. John Locke’s arbitral framework fitted on one or two sides of paper, which is a real achievement, is it not? If only we could emulate that today, but things have got more complicated and therefore more precise. Arbitration has come a long way since then, though we salute John Locke and his efforts in setting us on this journey.

Today, arbitration happens in a very wide range of settings, from rent reviews through commodity trades and shipping to international commercial contracts and investor claims against states. In each instance, it enables parties to resolve the dispute at hand and move on from it. The parties can choose a neutral venue to resolve their dispute. They can choose trusted arbitrators or arbitral institutions to preside over the proceedings. I add with emphasis that some of the world’s leading trade and arbitral institutions are headquartered here in London. I may have mentioned that before, but we need to be proud of it. They range from the aforementioned Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and the London Court of International Arbitration to important specialist organisations concerned with matters such as shipping and trade in grains, oils and sugars.

Parties can tailor the arbitration process to their own needs, which results in an award that is internationally enforceable. At the same time, the process is respected for its integrity—at least, that is the position here in the UK, thanks in large measure to the regulation of arbitration through the Arbitration Act 1996. The Act ensures that arbitration is conducted in a way that is impartial, fair and without unnecessary cost and delay. The English courts, which command much respect worldwide, retain a supervisory jurisdiction.

Building on its extensive history of arbitration, and thanks to its legislative framework, London has become the world’s leading destination for international arbitration. It is highly respected as a neutral venue for resolving disputes across the world, something in which we all rightly take immense pride. In fact, the Law Commission estimates that at least 5,000 arbitrations take place in England and Wales each year, directly contributing at least £2.5 billion a year to our economy in fees alone. So arbitration and the Bill are part of our growth agenda for our great country. However, as arbitration is a largely private affair, we may speculate that its direct value is likely to be even greater than that £2.5 billion.

Arbitration is also an important offering in our country’s international business package, one that includes legal services, banking, insurance and trade. It is a great advantage of our jurisdiction that business can be done here in the knowledge that when legal disputes arise, they can be resolved swiftly and fairly. We enjoy a worldwide reputation for the quality, independence and ethics of our legal professions. It is therefore no surprise that arbitration here in London is a showcase for that, or that it is very much in demand.

Given that the Arbitration Act 1996 is approaching 30 years of age, the previous Government rightly asked the Law Commission to undertake a thorough review of the legislation back in 2021. It was tasked with determining whether the 1996 Act required amendment to reflect modern practices and maintain its effectiveness in a growing global market when competing jurisdictions had already updated their own arbitral frameworks. The Law Commission was painstaking in its review, carrying out the commission given to it by the previous Government, and I pay tribute to the members of the Law Commission for their painstaking work on this matter, from which we all benefit.

An initial consultation paper was published in September 2022. It laid out the Law Commission’s analysis of the law as it stood and proposed a small number of areas for reform. That consultation received responses from abroad and from an expert base of consultees including individual practitioners, academics, specialist bodies and international firms and institutions, as well as from our judiciary. Taking this feedback on board, the Law Commission refined its proposals and published a second consultation paper in March 2023. After yet another round of engagement, final proposals and a draft Bill were published in September 2023.

As I said, this process has been painstaking and thorough, and we need to credit everybody involved, including the Conservatives for their leadership of the process during that time. It is a testament to the longevity and flexibility of our arbitral framework that only targeted updates were recommended, with the Law Commission concluding that while some modernisation of the 1996 Act was needed and desirable, root and branch reform was not. And it is testament to the Law Commission’s thorough consultation that the Bill commands such support in the arbitral and legal sectors.

I cannot resist adding that the work has been watched carefully by our competitor jurisdictions abroad. The Law Commission’s report was cited by the Singapore court of its own initiative, and in the last few months, seeing the positive developments here, France has announced a need to review its own arbitration laws. We lead the way, and this Bill will ensure that we stay ahead.

As hon. and right hon. Members will be aware, the previous Government introduced an Arbitration Bill in 2023 that also sought to implement the Law Commission’s recommendations. That Bill had made its way through Committee in the other place when Parliament was dissolved for the general election. The legal sector was emphatic in expressing the view that the proposed reforms are vital for updating the arbitral framework and making sure that our jurisdiction remains competitive.

We are first in global class on arbitration, and this Bill will ensure that we stay first in global class. The Government agree wholeheartedly with the legal sector’s view, not least because of our commitment to fostering economic growth in our country. As such, this Bill was introduced in the other place at the very earliest opportunity in July 2024, as one of the first acts of this Government after the general election. I am pleased to see the Bill finally arrive in this House, as I am sure you are, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is worth saying that the 1996 Act boasts some key strengths. It provides flexible procedures that allow parties to shape proceedings to best suit them. Parties can, for example, arbitrate their dispute with one of our jurisdiction’s many world-leading arbitral institutions, which have developed procedures that parties trust will deliver a fair and timely outcome.

Our current framework also permits effective recourse to our courts, where needed. Parties can request that our courts determine a preliminary matter in the arbitration, such as jurisdiction, or later challenge an award produced by arbitration. Arbitrators can similarly apply to the courts to assist their proceedings, such as by enforcing their orders. At the same time, the regime of court support is carefully balanced to prevent parties from dragging their feet and re-litigating cases. This gives parties huge confidence that arbitrations taking place in our jurisdiction are both efficient and fair.

Many of this Bill’s reforms are designed to build on the strengths of the 1996 Act. I will now go through the key clauses, because I can tell that Members are deeply interested in checking through the detail so that, should we move to a vote, we know exactly what we are voting on.

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

Quite right.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am pleased to see the Opposition spokesman give me a willing eye of encouragement, for which I am duly grateful.

I start at the beginning. Clause 1 will make it much simpler to determine what law applies to an arbitration agreement. Currently, the rules for identifying the governing law are found in the common law and a recent Supreme Court decision. That decision shows both immense learning and the complexity of the current approach. The Supreme Court was split in its judgment, and its approach was different from that of the Court of Appeal, which used an approach different from that at first instance.

Instead, to make the law clearer and more predictable, clause 1 provides that the governing law will align with the legal location—that is, the seat—of the arbitration by default. This will ensure that arbitrations, where seated in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, will be fully supported by our law, which is among the most supportive of arbitration globally.

Clause 2 codifies a duty for arbitrators to disclose circumstances that may cause doubts as to their impartiality. This will codify the common law and align domestic law with international best practice, such as the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law model law, which our expert lawyers had a major hand in drafting. The model law’s influence can be found in other jurisdictions as far apart as Scotland and Switzerland. It will promote trust in arbitration by promoting trust in the integrity and impartiality of arbitrators.

Clause 3 and, in the interest of briskness, clause 4 will support arbitrators in making impartial and proper decisions by extending their immunity against liability when they resign for good reason or are removed for no fault of their own. This will support arbitrators to make robust and impartial decisions without fear.

Clause 5 clarifies the two pathways for a party that wants to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitrators—that wants to question whether the dispute should be arbitrated at all. The party can either apply to the court for an early ruling, or it can wait until the award is issued and then go to court. Clause 5 clarifies that it cannot do both. It is either/or.

Clause 6 ensures that, where arbitrators agree that they should not be hearing a dispute after all, they can still award the costs incurred up to that point against the party that generated those costs.

Clause 7 will allow arbitrators to adopt expedited procedures to dispense with issues that have no real prospect of success. This aligns with summary judgments available in court proceedings and will make arbitrations more efficient.

We move seamlessly to clause 8, which will help emergency arbitrators. Emergency arbitrators are appointed on a temporary basis while a full tribunal is being established—that process can sometimes take weeks. They are, therefore, very important to arbitrations. They are often tasked with vital preliminary matters, such as preserving evidence or assets, and are important to ensuring that arbitrations can proceed smoothly. As the practice of emergency arbitrators post-dates the 1996 Act, our framework did not make explicit provision for them, so looking again gives us an opportunity to examine their role.

Clause 8 empowers emergency arbitrators to handle urgent matters better and ensure compliance with their directions by equipping them with final orders and court enforcement. That will give emergency arbitrators the same pathways to enforce their orders as other arbitrators, and will enhance their effectiveness.

Clause 9 provides that court orders made in support of arbitral proceedings can be made against third parties, which aligns with the position in court proceedings. For example, it would enable a party to arbitration to get an order freezing assets held by a third party, such as a bank.

Clause 10 ensures that when a party challenges an arbitral award at court, the court has the full range of remedies available, regardless of the pathway. This clause irons out discrepancies that courts and practitioners have otherwise sought to work around.

Clause 11 provides more efficient court challenges to the tribunals jurisdiction through rules of court that would prohibit repeating evidence and arguments already debated in front of the tribunal. That will avoid such challenges becoming full re-hearings, reducing costs and delays.

I can deal with clause 12 pretty quickly, you will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker. Clause 12 ensures that the time limit for challenging awards is consistent across the Act.

Clause 13 corrects a rare example of a drafting error. What the Act meant to say was that court orders could be appealed, but in some cases there would be restrictions. What it actually said was that court orders could be appealed only where there were restrictions. To its credit, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords spotted this error and interpreted the statute as it was meant to be read. We have taken this opportunity to correct the drafting to reflect the judicial ruling, as a useful bit of tidying up.

Clause 14 streamlines the requirements for applying to court to obtain preliminary rulings from the court on questions of law, or on whether the arbitrators have jurisdiction to hear the dispute. Early rulings, such as those from expert judges, can save time and cost.

I am getting towards the end of going through the clauses. In fact, I have come to the last and final clause that I wish to comment upon, clause 15, as you had probably worked out, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that usually comes after clause 14. [Laughter.] There is no clause 16, so clause 15 is the final clause. Clause 15 repeals provisions that were never brought into force, simply to tidy up the Act. Those provisions would have meant slight differences in approach between domestic arbitrations and international arbitrations. In the event, they were never used or needed, never brought into force and there remains no demand for them. Our arbitration law is first class and applies equally to domestic and international arbitrations, so removing the provisions is a helpful way to tidy things up.

In sum, the Bill will greatly approve the arbitral process in our jurisdiction and further cement our position as a top global business destination, where legal disputes can be resolved fairly and quickly. The Bill has already gone through the other place, where it received considerable examination and support from noble and learned Members, including many experienced arbitrators. There are, apparently, a lot of experienced arbitrators in the other place, and they brought their knowledge, experience and expertise to the debate, for which we are very grateful.

Indeed, I emphasise that the Bill has been reviewed by Members of the other place not once, but twice. The first time, scrutiny was provided by a Committee, led by the noble and learned Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that took further evidence from expert stakeholders. The several technical improvements made to the previous Bill because of that work are retained in this Bill. This time, the Bill was reviewed on the Floor of the other place, where the Government amended clause 13 to fix a long-standing error in our framework on arbitral appeals.

I have been quite thorough in covering the ground. I hope all Members feel they have got a good understanding of the issues behind the Bill and why we need to take the steps that I am urging the whole House to take.

To conclude, I second the remarks made by Lord Thomas on Third Reading:

“We must find a means of doing this very rapidly, as we must keep English law—I say English law deliberately—attractive and at the forefront of use internationally, for the benefit of our whole economy.”

—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1499.]

I hope the House agrees, and will give the Bill a Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I rise on behalf of the Opposition to support the Second Reading of the Arbitration Bill. As the Minister has laid out, arbitration is a cornerstone of the UK’s legal and economic landscape, contributing significantly to our reputation as a global hub for dispute resolution. The Bill seeks to amend the Arbitration Act 1996 to ensure our framework remains world leading and fit for purpose in a rapidly evolving global business environment.

Arbitration plays a vital role across both the domestic and international spheres. It is employed in areas ranging from family law and rent reviews to commodity trading, shipping and investor claims against states. With over 5,000 arbitrations conducted annually in England and Wales, the process directly contributes more than £2.5 billion to our economy in arbitrator and legal fees, while also supporting wider sectors, such as banking, insurance and trade. The Minister used the opportunity of this debate to cover quite extensively the long and distinguished history of arbitration in our judicial system.

We all agree that London stands proudly as one of the world’s most preferred seats for international arbitration, alongside Singapore. Maintaining this position is no accident. It reflects the strength of our legal system, the confidence of global businesses in our expertise and the robustness of the original 1996 Act. However, as other jurisdictions modernise their arbitration laws, we must ensure that ours remain cutting edge to safeguard our competitive lead.

The previous Conservative Government rightly recognised that need, and in March 2021 tasked the Law Commission to review the Act. I thank all those involved at the Law Commission for their hard and excellent work. After extensive consultation and input from stakeholders, the Law Commission published its final report and a draft Bill in September 2023, identifying targeted reforms to enhance our arbitration framework. A Bill to deliver those reforms was introduced by the Conservative Government in November 2023; I thank the Minister for his acknowledgment of the previous Government’s work.

The Bill’s progress was interrupted by the general election. The Opposition commend the Government for reintroducing the Bill swiftly in light of the broad support. Observers may have noticed that we have a quiet Chamber today, but in this the world’s first debating chamber, the lack of attendance is a reflection of the deep and considered consensus and lack of debate around the need for this important Bill and what it is seeking to achieve.

I thank Lord Bellamy in particular for his contributions as the sponsoring Minister of the original Bill and for his continued and important contributions in the development and improvement of this Bill. I also thank Lord Hacking for his contribution to the debates in the other place, particularly on the issue of corruption. We appreciate such valuable input and agree that that matter warrants further consideration. Even if, ultimately, the need to get the Bill on to the statute book for all the benefits that it brings means that it would not be appropriate to do that through the current legislation, we should continue to monitor and revisit that issue.

The Arbitration Bill introduces a range of reforms designed to improve clarity, efficiency and fairness in arbitration proceedings. Those reforms address practical changes while reinforcing the UK’s position as a global leader. I will highlight a few key provisions, as the Minister has explained in detail, which make the Bill significant.

First, the Bill addresses long-standing uncertainties in the legal framework, particularly regarding arbitration agreements where no jurisdiction is specified. By defaulting to the law of the seat of arbitration, the Bill aligns with international norms, thereby enhancing predictability and clarity for parties involved. Secondly, it strengthens the integrity of arbitrators by codifying the duty of impartiality and disclosure. As clarified in the landmark Halliburton v. Chubb case, the Bill ensures greater transparency and fosters trust in the arbitration process. Finally, the Bill promotes procedural efficiency. Provisions such as allowing summary awards, recognising emergency arbitrators and streamlining jurisdictional challenges represent vital steps towards making arbitration more accessible and efficient for all stakeholders.

Those are just some of the many commendable provisions in the Bill that aim to modernise the 1996 Act and ensure that arbitration remains an attractive and effective method of dispute resolution. The Opposition developed the original Bill and support this one to ensure the UK’s ongoing leadership in arbitration. However, we remain committed to scrutinising its provisions in Committee to ensure they achieve their intended goals without unintended consequences. I commend the Bill to the House and I look forward to hearing the contribution of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to the debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

With the leave of the House, I will speak briefly. I focused my remarks earlier on the Bill, as hon. Members might expect, but I want to take this opportunity, as important matters such as arbitration are before the House and as I have the Minister’s attention, to reiterate our thanks to everybody involved both in this Bill and in the previous one, in both Houses. Particularly, we thank Lord Hacking for his work in highlighting other issues.

I encourage the Minister to recognise that, although the Bill is welcomed and will be positive, the Government will need to continue work on some issues: as I mentioned earlier, the interplay between arbitration and corruption; the need for expedited hearings; the role of third party funding; and the authority to mandate mediation between parties. The Minister may not have an immediate response, but I would welcome future work from the Government in those areas.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am encouraged by his nodding.

We take corruption very seriously. However, we have concluded that arbitral corruption is not caused by any issue with our domestic arbitral framework. The Arbitration Act 1996 and common law already provide remedies to deal with corrupt conduct. The courts are empowered to set aside arbitral awards where there are serious irregularities, as they have done recently in the well-known case of Nigeria v. P&ID. Furthermore, arbitrators are under a statutory duty to be impartial and to reach a fair resolution of the dispute. They can issue an award that prevents the corrupt party from benefiting. Although arbitration procedures are often private, corruption can be exposed. Common law allows an exception to confidentiality when disclosure is in the public interest.

However, there is a need for arbitral practitioners and institutions across the world to ensure that their practices are continually developing to weed out attempts to exploit them. We shall support and keep track of initiatives that are under way, such as that of the International Chamber of Commerce’s anti-corruption taskforce. We will engage with the sector to adopt the very best practices as they are developed. I hope that that assures the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover).

I give my sincere thanks to right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. It has been a measured and helpful debate, which underscores the broad support for this legislative programme. I am happy to have heard so much support for this Bill, particularly those contributions that emphasise its importance to economic growth. Our legal services are a vital element of our economy both for creating favourable domestic business conditions and for attracting investment in the UK. And this Government will continue to support them.

I re-emphasise that these reforms are very much appreciated. Many businesses will be deciding whether to designate London as their seat of arbitration versus competitors such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Sweden or Dubai, which have updated their arbitral frameworks in recent times. This decision is not just to settle disputes via arbitration now. Arbitration agreements are often pre-emptive, so these businesses will be making a decision as to where and how disputes may be settled many years in the future.

For the past quarter of a century, our Arbitration Act and our law have been a key draw, making our shores the natural choice for arbitration. In 1996, we created a truly world-leading legislative framework, which contributed to London becoming the preferred forum for arbitration proceedings across the globe. We must maintain our leading position and continue to attract businesses to ensure economic growth. It was therefore important that these measures sought only to improve the arbitral process and promote trust in arbitration. It would have been no good had these reforms created red tape—we would not want to see that.

Arbitration must remain a quicker and a more flexible means by which to resolve a legal dispute versus going to court. But also it is key to promote trust in arbitration to ensure that proceedings on our shores remain robust and respected internationally. The Law Commission needs to be commended for doing such a brilliant job—a superb job—reviewing our framework line by line and seeing where improvements can be made. This Bill contains, as I have said, the expertise and wisdom of myriad practitioners, experts, firms, judges and others.

I will, if I may, indulge in sharing some of the supportive quotes from the sector about the Law Commission’s work.

[Dr Mullan]

No!

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I have only a few. [Laughter.] The House would be the poorer for not hearing these quotes—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I feel that it is important to share them. More are available, but I will restrict myself to just a few. The Bar Council said:

“We welcome the Law Commission’s characteristically careful and balanced review of the Arbitration Act, and we support the proposals for reform which it makes. It is extremely important that the government finds parliamentary time,”—

we are doing that—

“for the short bill which the Law Commission proposes. London has a well-deserved reputation as the foremost centre”—

the foremost centre—

“for international arbitration. It is important to legislate to make the modest changes to the arbitration regime which the Law Commission has recommended in order to maintain and enhance that reputation.”

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators said that it welcomes

“the proposed changes, the majority of which are in line with our recommendations, which were informed by input from our membership… It is a sign of the Arbitration Act 1996’s strength and value that only specific changes to ensure that Act remains current have been recommended as opposed to an overhaul. As well as underpinning the attractiveness and competitiveness of London as an arbitration seat, the Act forms the basis of legislation in many other jurisdictions, lending global significance to this development.”

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators

“worked closely with the UK Law Commission to inform the review. We support regular review of such legislation to ensure arbitration remains effective, fit for purpose, and a viable means of justice in a modern world.”

White & Case LLP said that

“we expect that the amendments proposed by the Law Commission will promote the efficiency and finality of arbitration proceedings, whilst not unnecessarily introducing drastic reform to existing legislation. The Report therefore is to be welcomed as a positive, incremental step in maintaining London’s position as a major centre for international arbitration and dispute resolution more generally.”

The last quote is one of many positive comments that have been received on what we are doing today and on the Law Commission’s work. Herbert Smith Freehills LLP said:

“There can be no suggestion that any changes are being made for change’s sake. The Law Commission has respected the importance of this legislation and sought only to make changes that are necessary…If enacted into law, they will continue to ensure that the arbitration legislation of England and Wales maintains its market-leading status.”

That is what we all want, Madam Deputy Speaker. We want this Arbitration Bill, which began under the previous Government and was completed under this Government, to maintain our market-leading status. We are determined to do that by working together across this House.

Those are, I assure the House, only a small sample of those who engage with, and support, the Law Commission’s review. However, I will also highlight that these comments were made almost a year and a half ago now on the publication of the Law Commission’s final report. Although it is indeed the case that law reform can take some time, this Government are committed to ensuring that these reforms find their way on to our statute book as quickly as possible.

We must ensure that the Bill faces no further delay. These measures must now proceed at pace through the House. Dispute resolution matters. Disputes that go unresolved are bad for the parties and have knock-on consequences for everyone else. At best, disputes distract from firms getting on with their business and individuals getting on with their lives. At worst, the slow and stressful impact of legal disputes can have much greater impacts elsewhere. Businesses may have money tied up in litigation that could and should go towards investment. Individuals may find that a protracted court battle, with its costs and delays, may lead to sickness, which of course will have its own knock-on effect on economic productivity.

Resolving disputes allows everyone to move forward—all the more so if disputes can be resolved by a process that is trusted and respected and that can be tailored flexibly to the needs of those involved. It is no wonder that arbitration has proved such a popular method for resolving disputes in the UK and why UK arbitration has proved such a popular method for resolving disputes worldwide.

I will also take a moment to compliment the other excellent forms of dispute resolution on our shores. In the construction sector, many disputes will by default go to an expedited adjudication with experts, allowing for a quick determination that enables the project to proceed without further delay. We also boast an excellent network of ombudsmen, which deal with all manner of disputes, including consumer matters. We also have a growing mediation sector, which, in both commercial and family matters, is expert at facilitating negotiation between parties to come to a truly consensual resolution to disputes.

The Bill will enact long-awaited reforms to our arbitration law framework, which will enable more efficient dispute resolution for domestic and international parties alike. It will attract international legal business and promote UK economic growth—not just directly because arbitrations happen here, but because it promotes the UK as a one-stop shop for business. Our arbitrations are respected, and so too are our lawyers engaged in arbitrations—lawyers who are then engaged for transactional businesses; business that is funded by our banks, underwritten by our insurers and mediated through our trading houses; and trading houses that also offer arbitral services in a mutually reinforcing offering.

The Bill ensures that our arbitration law is cutting edge. As I have said, it has attracted attention the world over, serving as a reminder of why the UK remains a premier destination internationally for businesses everywhere. The Bill is therefore of great importance to the legal services sector and to the Government. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

As the Secretary of State mentioned, the approach to managing hyper-prolific offenders is part of David Gauke’s review, which could consider, for example, the wider use of GPS tagging and home curfew, but the Department has been undertaking its own assessment of the effectiveness of GPS tagging. Will the Government commit to publishing that review before or alongside the sentencing review, so that we can properly judge the merits of any proposed expansion?

[Shabana Mahmood]

As I have sought to do throughout this process, I will ensure transparency in the Government’s approach when it comes to not just the emergency releases data, but other information that underpins future policy choices.

[Dr Mullan]

I did not quite hear a “yes”, but I will take that as an encouraging commitment that the Secretary of State will publish the GPS tagging review ahead of any sentencing review. However, I am afraid that in Ministers’ discussions of these issues, they risk losing sight of the fact that imprisonment also serves the important purpose of punishing offenders in the interests of justice. Importantly, how will the Government decide whether any of David Gauke’s proposals that they are minded to accept sufficiently punish offenders? How will that judgment be made before any recommendations are accepted?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I have said on many occasions in this House that I believe in punishment and in prison. Prison has a core role to play in the punishment of offenders. However, we must not run out of prison places. We must balance the need to punish and imprison people with interventions that expand the use of punishment outside prison. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, “Build more” from a sedentary position. We are. We are moving forward to solve the 14,000 prison place deficit left by his Government at the last election. This Government will build prisons, but as he knows, we cannot build our way out of the prison capacity crisis. We must consider other measures as well, but let me be clear: we will always seek to punish offenders, and prison will always have a place. This Government will build more prison places than the previous one.

Prison Capacity Strategy

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her remarks. I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling out what was quite obviously an attempt to avoid scrutiny this week. I also thank the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for his efforts to ensure that we had a proper statement today.

I begin by making one thing absolutely clear: if Labour MPs think that spending the next few years talking about our record in government is going to stop this Opposition from holding them to account, they are dead wrong. There will be no free passes for them on these Benches. It is already clear to the British public why the Government desperately want them: they are floundering and they know it.

I say to the Minister that I will happily spend all day comparing records of Governments and inheritances. Labour MPs and the Minister decry our record of having had to release 5,500 prisoners early, but the last Labour Government released not just 5,500 or even 10,000 prisoners early. By the end of their time in office, they had released 80,000 prisoners early. That was the state of the system when Labour was in charge, and that does not even include the systematic erosion of the punishment element of our justice system brought about by Labour’s introduction of blanket halfway release for essentially the entire prison population. Labour did not call it early release, but that is what the British public know it to be.

That was the record of the Labour Government that we had to try to turn around. I am proud of the fact that we began to unpick that record by reducing early release for the most serious offenders from halfway to two thirds, and that we introduced a whole-life tariff for premeditated child murder and increased maximum sentences for child abusers and others. Let us be absolutely clear: the root cause of the problem that we now face is a spike in the remand population. We have approximately 7,000 more people in prison on remand than we normally would. That unprecedented spike has occurred as a direct result of covid, and the Government know that.

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Dr Mullan]

No—you cannot give way on a statement.

In fact, prior to covid, we had got the Crown court backlog down to a lower level than it had been under the last Labour Government, another record of which we can be proud. To try to tackle the problem, we increased sitting days and introduced Nightingale courts, and contrary to what the Government have said, we were clear that we would carry on doing everything possible to bring that number down. We did not refuse the judiciary extra sitting days, as this Government have done, nor would we have refused them.

We had agreed a floor on sitting days, not a cap, and negotiations were ongoing. If the judiciary had come to us and asked for more sitting days, we would have responded to that—and not by saying no, which is what this Labour Government have done.

In the prison population estimates that sit alongside this plan is the proof that the Government truly have already given up on fixing this problem. Not only do their projections not target the remand population being brought down, but they show it going up, which means more victims waiting for trials and more prisoners released early. We should be building more prison spaces, and under our leadership we actually increased prison capacity at the fastest rate in living memory. That was not so we could accommodate more people on remand, but so we could go even further in ensuring that offenders are properly punished and victims get justice.

The Government want to talk about the last 14 years, but I am afraid this plan leaves me asking what they were doing for those 14 years. They came into office telling the British public they had it all worked out. What have they done on sentencing? They have asked someone else to do a review. What have they done on how we prosecute murder? They have asked someone else to do a review. What ideas have they come into office with for tackling the court backlog? Absolutely none. Today, as the Minister knows, we have simply had a reannouncement of our planned prison building programme, with four new prisons, all of which were already announced or under way before Labour took office. This is not a bold new strategy; it is a continuation of work started under the Conservative Government.

There are of course some important questions for the Minister. First, given that we did not do so, why have the Government refused additional Crown court sitting days to the judiciary? Secondly, why do their prison population figures project an increase in the remand population? Thirdly, given that they are committed to building more prison spaces whatever the sentencing review says—they will have to decide that; they cannot park responsibility with an independent review—will she commit to continuing our programme of increasing the amount of time that the most serious offenders stay in prison? Fourthly, missing from the prison population figures is any transparency at all about the number of foreign offenders, so what are their estimates for the foreign offender population in our prisons in future years?

The Government blame us for their early releases, but the situation was nothing compared with the scale of the early releases they themselves oversaw when they were last in office. They released prisoners they should not have done, they botched the legislation and had to come back to this House to correct it, they let people out without tags who should have been tagged, and they have given up on fixing the fundamental issue of the remand population. The Leader of the Opposition has said that

“we did not get everything right in government”,

and she knows there are no easy answers to these challenges, only trade-offs. However, this Government are making it clearer and clearer how not to do it, and we on these Benches will be there every step of the way so that the British public know exactly that.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Yet again, zero humility from the people who put us in this crisis—it is absolutely staggering to think that that is what the Opposition want to tell the British people. There was no apology for the crisis they left us. When we took office in July, we were just days away from a complete collapse of our criminal justice system because of the inheritance we received from the previous Government. The fact is that this Government are taking action. We have increased Crown court sitting days—there are 500 more—to ensure that we have capacity in the system, and magistrates’ sentencing powers have been increased from six to 12 months, freeing up 2,000 more days in the Crown court.

I am glad the shadow Minister mentioned foreign national offenders, because like him I believe that we need to be doing more to deport the foreign national offenders in our jails. However, there is a difference between him and me, because this Government are actually doing something about it—less rhetoric, more action. We are on track to deport more foreign nationals from our prisons than at any time in our recent history. Since coming into office, this Government have deported more than 1,500 foreign national offenders, which is more than at this time last year, and who was the Immigration Minister then? Oh, that’s right: it was none other than the shadow Secretary of State for Justice himself. If it was that easy, why did he not do it after 14 years in Government? This Government are taking action to ensure that we have a criminal justice system that is fit for purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

[Shabana Mahmood]

Yes. The specific problem that the hon. Gentleman refers to, which relates to Serco’s performance and the two tranches of SDS40 releases, has now been resolved. The backlog has been cleared, and Serco’s performance is now back to where it should be. Of course, we will continue to monitor Serco’s overall performance and keep the contract under regular review.

[Dr Mullan]

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

[Shabana Mahmood]

Yes. There are no additional issues in relation to tagging or the process by which the tagging takes place with Serco, but where there is contract failure by Serco, we will not hesitate to take action. We have already imposed financial penalties for the things that went wrong with the SDS40 releases, and we will keep this issue under regular review. The Prisons Minister in the other place discusses these matters directly with Serco on a regular basis, as do my officials, and we will continue to monitor the situation.

Draft Home Detention Curfew and Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods (Amendment) Order 2024

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.

The Minister’s remarks were to be expected; they are in keeping with the trend across Government of defending decision after decision taken by them by reference to the Conservatives’ record and actions in office. That is the nature of politics, and I imagine it will continue for some time, but I am certainly not going to write any blank cheque to the Minister and the Government, nor abdicate our duty to hold them responsible and accountable for whatever they might say about their inheritance. It is our role to deliver scrutiny—of not just the overall outcome they are seeking but how they are going about it.

Although the Government’s intent to address prison capacity pressures is clear, we must critically assess: whether these measures have been properly considered; that we can expect them to be delivered competently; and that, when looked at in detail, they match up to the Government’s pledges. Our prison system faces unprecedented strain, and all the evidence suggests that that strain has become the challenge we see today primarily because of covid. If the remand population that has spiked directly because of covid were at historical levels, we would not be here; we have been left with 7,000 more people in our prisons, compared to the historical average. Members will know that this sum is greater than the numbers that the Government have released and will be going on to release to reduce the steady-state prison population.

The previous Labour Government, like this one, sought ways to manage the challenge, including through use of the end of custody licence scheme—a scheme that, as they have criticised it, Government Members should be aware was actually created by the last Labour Government. The previous Government also had a plan to change legislation to allow us to accommodate prisoners overseas and to discourage use of shorter sentences. This Government have, of course, decided to take their own measures, beginning, as we have heard, with the SDS40 scheme, and now they proposes to extend home detention curfew eligibility from 180 to 365 days.

We are told that both measures are short-term, that the impact of the steps has been fully understood and that there should be some acceptance that the Government will deliver the mechanisms effectively. Let me begin with the proposition that these are short-term measures, or, as the Minister likes to call them, “urgent”. I make the same point I made to the Lord Chancellor in the Chamber on SDS40. If these measures are expected to be short-term, why have they not been sunsetted? If the Minister is confident that they are only short-term, he should make them short-term in the legislation.

The Government have not even gone so far as to tell us the threshold for when they will review possible withdrawal. To be fair to the last Labour Government, even they did that. When they introduced the end of custody licence scheme, they set a prison capacity target—a fixed figure—at which they would review its use, and that is what happened. This Government have not even done that. As is so often the case, the devil is in the detail, or to be more precise in this instance, in the impact assessment. Why, if this is a short-term measure, is the period measuring its benefit over 10 years? It is there in black and white on page 7 of the impact assessment. The Government cannot expect the Opposition to support measures that they say are short-term when all the evidence suggests that they are not.

Next, I turn to the question of whether we have the necessary assurance that the Government have properly considered the impact of their policy. I am afraid, again, that the Minister and Committee members will need to reflect on the Government’s own impact assessment to assist them with this. Page 4 helpfully lays out those who will be affected by the policy. Quite rightly, paragraph 13 lays out that

“Victims of those released from custody”

should be included in this group. I am sure that everyone here can agree that female victims of male violence, and people who have been burgled or mugged, are impacted when they see the perpetrator walk away from prison early.

Paragraph 56, on page 10, summarises the impact assessment, stating:

“We have taken into account the potential impact of the earlier release of some offenders on the public and, particularly, victims of the offenders released.”

I am afraid that the Minister will need to help me here. Forgive me, but where exactly between pages 4 and 10 have the Government done that? Extraordinarily, the document talks about how much better it will be for the perpetrators and their families to be reunited, but what about victims and their families? Besides a cursory mention of notifying them that this will be happening and of the impact on them, it says absolutely nothing.

Finally, we come to effective delivery. Where might we look to make an assessment of that? Of course, we did not look any further than this legislation, because as well as expanding the HDC scheme, as the Minister has said, today’s legislation is also correcting errors in the SDS40 scheme. This amendment rightly excludes six additional offences that were missing from the SDS40 scheme, ensuring that those convicted serve at least half their sentence. How did the Government initially overlook offences such as breaching restraining orders, sexual harm prevention orders and serious harassment? Those are not minor offences; they carry significant harm, particularly for victims.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

indicated dissent.

[Dr Mullan]

The Minister may shake his head and say that in some ways they were captured, but ultimately, as he has admitted, offenders have been released who should not have been.

Ultimately, this provision will also significantly change the number of electronic monitoring tags required. The framework acknowledges this, but fails to detail how the Government will ensure readiness. We have seen what happens when these systems fail. Under the SDS40 early release scheme, offenders were released without tags, posing a clear danger to the public. We are told that the Government are now up to date with the SDS40 scheme. Can the Minister tell us the situation with the wider backlog? I am afraid that the Government have not done enough to reassure us that yet further extensions to the use of tagging at this stage will be suitably managed. The Lord Chancellor has also committed to funding at least 1,000 additional probation officers by March 2025. The recruitment and training of probation officers takes time. What evidence do we have that that target will be met?

I am afraid that, on the three sensible tests against which we might view this policy, the result is wanting. The Government want to talk about our record. I remind them that they steered the Crown Court to a higher backlog, after we had reduced the backlog pre-pandemic.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

indicated dissent.

[Dr Mullan]

The Minister frowns, but he can look it up. Pre-pandemic, the backlog was lower than the backlog that Labour left us at the end of its previous time in government. The Government criticise, saying that we forced them to release several thousand prisoners early. Perhaps Government Members do not know that they released more than 80,000 prisoners early when they were last in charge.

There is no doubt that there are challenges in our criminal justice system, but the Government should not expect and will not receive a free pass when it comes to fulfilling their responsibilities to tackle that challenge with professionalism and due diligence. The public expect better than this and we will be voting against this order on their behalf.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne, for recognising at the start of his speech that the Government are taking this matter very seriously. I also say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, that the official Opposition are absolutely right not to give the Government a free pass. “The public expect better”, he said, but he should bear in mind that our scheme excludes people convicted of sexual offences, while his Conservative Government did not put any exclusions in place at all. Their scheme was done hurriedly just before the election, while this is being done to take control of the prison population in response to a crisis, so that we can run the criminal justice system appropriately. If the previous Government had done their job properly, we would have inherited a situation on which we could build positively into the future, but that has sadly not been the case.

I will deal with the issues raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesman first. We take victims and victims’ voices very seriously, and we will continue to do so. Anyone convicted of offences linked to domestic abuse, such as stalking and harassment, are presumed unsuitable for HDC. Exclusions under SDS40 have to be based on specific offences, and domestic abusers are prosecuted under many powers. Our exclusions send a clear message about how seriously the Government take domestic abuse and, unlike the end of custody supervised licence scheme, we have taken specific action, and we will continue to do everything we can to ensure that victims’ voices are well represented on these issues. Victims eligible for the victim notification scheme or victim contact scheme are properly informed during the process; that is taking place. The sentencing review will look at other things, and we have made sure that there is a victims’ voice on its panel.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, rightly asked whether the electronic monitoring system is doing its job effectively. Again, we inherited a contract from the previous Government that was not performing to the level we would have wished. It is improving, but it is still not where we want it to be. It is at a point at which we are confident that it can handle the coming additional workload, but we need to continue to work hard to make sure that the contractors deliver, as they should always have been delivering; we should not have inherited a situation where they were not performing to the level that they should have been.

The shadow Minister asked when SDS40 will be reviewed. When he raised that in the Chamber, the Lord Chancellor assured him that it would be reviewed after 18 months and that it would come back to Parliament at that point.

I do hope, having had this discussion, that the Committee will support—

[Dr Mullan]

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

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

As he probably realises, all impact assessments have a 10-year focus. The impact assessment is nothing to do with intention; it is about the impact if things went on for that period of time. It is the normal process. The hon. Gentleman is confusing the impact assessment with the Government’s intention. The Government’s intention is not for this provision to continue for that period of time.

Question put.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Today the focus is rightly on Back Benchers, so I will limit my remarks and—mindful of your advice on time, Mr Speaker—I will not be taking any interventions.

It is not for me to make the case for His Majesty’s Opposition, because we have not taken a collective view, and, like many other Members, I have struggled greatly with this decision. I do not believe there is a perfect choice to be made today, just different versions of imperfection, and my time working as a doctor in A&E has made me sympathetic to both sides of the argument. I have seen the pain in the eyes of relatives who want to ease the suffering of their dying loved ones, but I have also held the hand of frail elderly people, forgotten by their families, feeling themselves to be nothing but a burden. When we reduce it to its core, we are facing a difficult dilemma.

Access to assisted dying could reduce suffering for the terminally ill. That is a choice that some people would like to have, and some people would make that choice without any undue pressure. If we vote against this Bill today, they will not have that choice. I caution against avoiding facing up to this hard moral reality by arguing that whatever people may fear about dying can always be managed by modern medicine. For all that it can achieve, modern medicine cannot achieve everything. We have heard examples today of the worst illnesses that do more than cause pain. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) and my hon. Friend the. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) described dying from a catastrophic bleed that takes a person’s life in a panicked final moment.

Of course, the treatments we may use to help people with pain often rob them of what they may sincerely feel to be their own independence and dignity. Some people may not want to spend their final days in a drug-induced state of semi-consciousness to manage their pain. Those minded to vote against the Bill should give that the greatest possible consideration. I do not think that the Bill’s opponents can deny it, any more than its proponents can deny that if this law is passed, it will represent the crossing of a significant legal, societal and moral Rubicon. Every other expectation that we have of the state is for it to help to extend and protect life, but we will instead be asking the state to procure the medicines, provide the staff, and sign off through the courts a process that is designed to lead—and will lead—to someone’s death.

A deep respect for the sanctity of life is not the preserve only of religious thinkers. Opponents of the Bill place great weight on that consideration. They argue that once we accept that the state and its citizens can play a proactive role in causing death, the debate will shift from whether it should do that at all to how and when it should. It may be that we pass this legislation and no other in future, but those who have the utmost concern about even the possibility of an expanded Bill may vote against this one as the surest way for them personally to prevent that from happening.

The Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), argued that coercion is not limited to the selfishly motivated relative directly pressuring a vulnerable person. It can be as simple as knowing that people in the same position as oneself could and did choose to die. Some Members worry that people will then ask themselves not just “Do I want to die?”, but “Should I want to die?”

So where does this leave us? All of us can make a sensible and reasonable case for our positions, and even point to care and compassion, as we see it, in support of our view. Taking all this together, I think it means that one thing more than anything else should be our guiding principle today: we should, above all else, vote with great humility, and with respect for each and every vote cast in whichever direction. I want to direct that sentiment to the country at large. There are passionate campaigners on both sides of the debate, with their own perspectives, who fear greatly the outcome today if it turns out not to be the one that they want. I say to them that as well as being MPs, those voting today are also sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, parents and grandparents. Each Member will have in mind what they would want for their families and themselves.

Our final decisions will come at the end of a great deal of thought and careful consideration. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) said, if people listened closely enough today they will have heard us all speaking with one voice—the voice of passion, for those people and causes that we are trying to aid with our vote, even if those people and causes are different. That passion represents this House at its very best. That should not be forgotten. I hope that it is something on which we can all agree.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I begin by sending my condolences to the family of Lord Prescott, who was the sort of political figure who cut across party lines. As a teenager with just a passing interest in politics, I fondly remember seeing that punch and thinking, “Good for him!” As a shadow Minister, I should clarify that by saying he was exercising his lawful right to self- defence. May he rest in peace.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of the Opposition. We are debating an issue that is always a challenge for any democracy: how do we ensure that bad actors do not exploit important protections that have been put in place for our benefit, and how do we prevent measures that are meant to act as a shield from being turned into a weapon? These tensions find sharp expression in the misuse of our legal system through SLAPPs. They are not just frivolous lawsuits or the expected robust exchange between solicitors and their clients; they are a serious, deliberate tactic used to stifle voices that expose wrongdoing or hold the powerful to account. They are designed to intimidate, drain resources and create a chilling effect that suppresses important public discourse.

It has been positive to hear contributions from Members that demonstrate a deep understanding of this issue and its importance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) drew on his experience of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and of being a former Secretary of State in discussing all the key issues that we have considered today, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy). My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East reminded us of the importance of ensuring that the other side of the debate is remembered when it comes to allowing people to fairly protect their reputation. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk talked in helpful detail about what happened to the former Member Charlotte Leslie, reminding us how much politicians are in the firing line. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), who has joined me on the Opposition Front Bench, is concerned about how SLAPPs can be used to stifle debate both locally and nationally.

Of course, all Back Benchers here today want to see action from the Government. Although the tone of the debate has been consensual, it is the job of the Opposition to hold this new Government to account. In what is becoming a familiar pattern, Labour Members, when in opposition earlier this year, supported legislation that would have built on our work in this area. Now that they are in government, however, reasons to delay have appeared. In the other place, the Government have said that they now think a further review is needed. Today, alongside an explanation for this change, I hope that we will hear a more concrete commitment and a clear plan from the Minister.

SLAPPs extend their impact far beyond the courtroom. Investigative journalists, whistleblowers, campaigners and even grieving families raising safety concerns have found themselves silenced. SLAPPs do not defend reputations; they conceal misconduct, shield wrongdoing and erode public trust in our institutions. In the previous Parliament, as a member of the Justice Committee, I had the welcome opportunity to join a one-off session of the Foreign Affairs Committee that did an excellent job of putting SLAPPs in the parliamentary spotlight. I got to hear at first hand from witnesses working across journalism, many of whom have been mentioned today, including Catherine Belton, the author of “Putin’s People”; investigative journalist Tom Burgis; Susan Coughtrie from the Foreign Policy Centre, who is co-chair of the UK Anti-SLAPP coalition; and Arabella Pike, who is head of publishing at William Collins.

I distinctly remember Catherine and Arabella talking powerfully about their experience of the sustained legal attack that “Putin’s People” came under, and it was clear that it took real courage to persevere with its publication. Tom described his experience across Africa, and the wider network of oligarchs and corrupt Governments working together to suppress journalism that would have held them to account. He has direct experience of successfully defeating SLAPPs relating to his own book, as others have mentioned. Susan described how individuals take advantage of good journalistic practices, whereby giving a right to reply is used to start to overwhelm journalists, and highlighted that this sort of activity is undertaken by not just legal professionals but other, unregulated individuals. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has documented numerous cases where SLAPPs have smothered stories of profound public interest—stories exposing safety failures, corruption and malpractice. Such cases deserved public scrutiny, yet they were buried beneath a mountain of legal threats.

Of course, the right to defend one’s reputation is important. It ensures fairness, prevents the spread of harmful falsehoods, and protects individuals from malicious attacks. Like others who have spoken today, I have first-hand experience of that. A journalistic blogger decided that they had proof that my time spent volunteering as a policeman was made up, and that I had committed a criminal offence in lying about it. At the height of an election campaign, I saw that story spread across social media and reach tens of thousands of people. It was only through my taking the available legal steps that stopped it spreading further. Shoddy journalism should not find shelter in anti-SLAPPs legislation, but when SLAPPs turn the scales of justice into tools of suppression, they undermine the very principles that they claim to protect.

Sadly, the UK legal system is seen by some people as a favourable domain to stifle debate. Although it is not a watertight source, a 2020 survey by the Foreign Policy Centre revealed that the UK was the most frequent single international origin of legal threats against journalists, accounting for 31% of cases. By comparison, 35% of SLAPP threats originated in the US and the EU combined.

Recognising the threat of SLAPPs, the previous Conservative Government introduced important legislation that the current Government said represented a significant step forward in this area. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 defined SLAPPs in law for the first time, introduced swift dismissal mechanisms and implemented cost protections in claims relating to economic crime, reflecting the then Government’s belief that 70% of SLAPPs are linked to financial corruption and the scope of the original Bill. The last Government also established the SLAPPs taskforce, a group of legal and media professionals tasked with improving our understanding of SLAPPs and equipping stakeholders to combat them. As others have mentioned, during the previous Parliament the former Member for Caerphilly, Wayne David, introduced the strategic litigation against public participation Bill, a private Member’s Bill that presented further possible steps to address SLAPPs.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I will introduce my own Bill, which is based on that Bill, in early January. Will my Bill have the support of the Conservative party Opposition?

[Dr Mullan]

That is an important point and, notwithstanding my hope that the Government will introduce legislation, I expect that we will be able to support a Bill that is suitably similar to the one originally presented.

Mr David’s Bill proposed a robust framework to combat SLAPPs, including a wider early dismissal mechanism, and a requirement on claimants to demonstrate a greater likelihood of success for a trial to proceed. Additionally, the Bill called for new civil procedure rules to protect defendants from adverse costs when SLAPP claims go to trial. Crucially, it would have empowered the Lord Chancellor to extend this framework to other courts or tribunals if SLAPPs were being used to circumvent these protections.

The Conservative Government recognised the Bill’s value, supporting it as a complement to the steps we had already taken, and importantly, so did the then Labour Opposition. Unfortunately, despite its potential, the Bill fell away during the wash-up before the general election, as is sadly too often the case.

The proposals had cross-party support. There was no call from the then Opposition for a review or for things to be considered further, which they have now decided is necessary. In a recent article, the co-chair of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, Susan Coughtrie, expressed her disappointment that Labour has not developed a clear plan for similar legislation:

“This could have been a relatively ‘easy win’ not only for the new government, but for the protection of public interest speech and the democratic health of our society.”

She is right, of course, and I cannot think of a new Government in more dire need of an easy win than this Labour Government.

With all this in mind, I urge the Minister to address several pressing questions. Given the Government’s support in opposition for the private Member’s Bill and its measures, why have they now determined that a further, delaying review is needed? When will this review be complete? Even if the review recommends some changes to the approach outlined in that Bill, do the Government commit in principle to introducing comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation next year? If not, when will they bring forward legislation?

Will the Government commit to further and ongoing work with the Solicitors Regulation Authority to see whether its work could be reformed to deter law firms from taking on SLAPP cases? Finally, will the Minister commit to supporting the ongoing work of the SLAPPs taskforce? Ahead of legislation that has been unnecessarily delayed, this would send a strong signal of the Government’s commitment on this issue.

The balance we must strike is clear. Our legal framework must protect the right to defend one’s reputation while safeguarding freedom of speech and ensuring that public interest journalism can thrive. I urge the Government to pick up where we left off, as they have a detailed and comprehensive private Member’s Bill ready to go. The powerful must not be allowed to misuse the legal system to suppress scrutiny and silence critics.

In opposition, Labour Members were clear on what they supported and what needed to be done. Somehow, entering government has brought uncertainty and hesitation to their thinking. At a time when too much of this House’s legislative capacity is left unused, and when this Government desperately need a positive story to tell, they have changed course. I encourage them to build on our work and deliver in this area so that we can reaffirm our commitment to justice, accountability and the public interest, and ensure that the UK remains a beacon of free speech and fairness under the law.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Heidi Alexander)]

I associate myself with the shadow Minister’s lovely remarks about Lord Prescott. John was a political giant, and I am sure I speak for the whole House in sending our thoughts and condolences to his family.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to debate this vital subject so early in this Parliament. We have had a good debate today, and I have always thought that Backbench Business debates lend themselves well to issues where there is general cross-party consensus that a problem exists but where we need thoughtful, forensic consideration about how to move forward with sensible, workable proposals.

I echo the comments of the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), on how good it is to hear the wisdom of long-standing Members, such as the right hon. Members for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), while also hearing powerful contributions from newly elected Members, particularly the hon. Members for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) and for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell).

I am happy to meet the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, although I would also like to discuss with the Department for Business and Trade whether it might be more appropriate for him to meet a Minister from that Department, given that the matters he raised relate primarily to non-disclosure agreements.

SLAPPs represent an abuse of our legal system. They curtail free speech, have a chilling effect on public interest journalism and pose a threat to our democracy. As we have heard today, they are characterised by the use of threatening tactics or actions to silence those who exercise their right to free speech on issues in the public interest. These cases often involve an acute imbalance of power where those with deep pockets use their wealth and influence to silence journalists, academics and others who are committed to raising issues that need to see the light of day. These powerful actors do so by abusing the legal system to suppress information on which we collectively rely. True accountability and transparency in a functioning democracy can be achieved only through free speech and a free press that upholds the highest journalistic standards while challenging abuses of power without fear of financial ruin. As the Prime Minister recently wrote:

“This is a government that will always champion press freedoms. We believe in being held to account.”

That must apply to everyone, irrespective of wealth or position.

The Government understand the profound financial and psychological impact of SLAPPs. Such actions have enormous consequences for the wellbeing and the very livelihoods of those on the receiving end of them, because SLAPP conduct is not about winning a legal argument or remedy. Instead, a SLAPP seeks to exhaust a defendant so that they withdraw their investigation or public commentary. That was very clear in the responses received to the 2022 call for evidence run by the previous Government.

SLAPPs also impact the standing of our legal system. That system, underpinned by the quality of our legal services and independent judiciary, is held in the highest esteem internationally. The legal services sector contributes £34 billion to our economy each year. We must not allow our world-renowned system to be abused for improper purposes. I must emphasise that the vast majority of legal professionals in this jurisdiction operate with the utmost honesty, professionalism and respect for the rule of law. However, the small minority who abuse our system by bringing SLAPP claims risk undermining its integrity and reputation.

By their very nature, SLAPPs rarely reach court. Claimants ensure that by racking up pre-litigation costs so as to make defending the case beyond the reach of those targeted, often journalists investigating wrongdoings in the public interest. There are detailed accounts of how aggressive letters put pressure on targets to remain silent, proceedings are brought in multiple jurisdictions to ramp up risk for defendants, and disproportionate costs are claimed in relation to the remedy sought. Apart from the distress obviously caused to those exercising their right to free speech, in media cases resources are diverted as press outlets’ in-house lawyers are forced to spend hours poring over a defence, instead of publishing material of real interest. In the case of freelance journalists without insurance or academics, there is often no legal resource at all for them to get advice from when a threat from a SLAPP claimant comes in.

Defendants are often unable to take on the risks associated with fighting the lawsuits in court, usually because of the exorbitant costs they would have to pay to the claimant if they were unsuccessful in defending their case. Time-sensitive reporting is also hindered when a SLAPP is issued, as it prevents the journalist from revealing critical information while the case is ongoing. We cannot accept that chilling effect on public interest journalism and the prevention of other information in the public interest seeing the light of day.

To their credit, the previous Government introduced legislation to tackle SLAPPs that relate to economic crime in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which received Royal Assent towards the end of last year. We supported the SLAPPs provisions in the Act in opposition, and I am proud that we are the first country to legislate against SLAPPs at national level. The Act introduced a statutory definition of a SLAPP and required the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to develop a new early dismissal process to strike out SLAPPs without merit, and to develop rules providing cost protection for defendants who are subject to a SLAPP.

I thank the CPRC’s SLAPPs sub-committee, which has been working hard on developing these rules. We expect its work to conclude early next year. The CPRC will then consider the matter, and once recommendations are adopted there will be clear court procedure in place to deal with these abusive lawsuits where they relate to allegations of economic crime. The measures will go some way towards tackling this abusive practice.

The Government understand that SLAPP claims are used to suppress public interest information beyond just economic crime. We have heard many examples today that illustrate the range of subjects they can cover. The right balance has to be struck between access to justice and the right to free speech. There will always be legitimate defamation claims, and any intervention must be proportionate and targeted appropriately. I am clear that this is a complex area and we should not legislate in haste, only to find ourselves with unworkable legislation with unintended consequences. We do not currently intend to legislate in this parliamentary session, but we are continuing our work to consider how best to tackle wider abuses of the system in the longer term.

[Dr Mullan]

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

[Heidi Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts the next section of my speech. We saw, during the passage of the private Member’s Bill before it fell on Prorogation, that there are strong and differing views on SLAPPs. I understand that there were still unresolved issues before Prorogation. The former Member for Caerphilly, Wayne David, the promoter the Bill, was a very good friend to me when I was previously in this House. I know there are current Members who would like me to just pick up where he left off, but I do not think it is quite as simple as that. I have read Hansard carefully and deliberately to ensure that I am aware of views across the House on this topic. I will also be meeting colleagues from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Home Office shortly to ensure we have a robust and joined-up response across Government.

This is an important and complex issue, where fundamental principles of free speech and justice are at play, so it is imperative that we take the time to get this right. Our immediate focus, therefore, will be on the implementation of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act provisions. Our future approach to SLAPPs reform will be informed by monitoring the operation of the new procedural rules when they come in. We continue to build our evidence base, taking into account the views of stakeholders that were raised during debates on the private Member’s Bill. I also invite parliamentarians to continue engagement with us as we consider longer-term options to tackle SLAPPs beyond economic crime.

Draft Judicial Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. As the Minister explained, this legislation is somewhat technical, so I do not intend to add anything beyond the minimum necessary to the time that colleagues are required to be here. I know that the Prime Minister is a particular fan of pensions law and is lucky enough to have his own one, but I do not think he expects his colleagues to be equally enthusiastic about it.

As the Minister said, the Judicial Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2024 make essential updates to our judicial pension schemes. Those changes originate from the previous Government and were always expected to garner cross-party support. The regulations are a crucial part of the ongoing reform process and are aimed at ensuring not only fairness, clarity and efficiency in the pension system for judges, but compliance with legislative and actuarial recommendations.

The regulations address several key areas in the judicial pension schemes. To reiterate, the first is the introduction of an employer cost cap, which is a critical measure required under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013. Importantly, that mechanism will trigger adjustments only in response to significant and unpredictable changes, ensuring that alterations to the pension scheme are made cautiously and only when absolutely necessary. The second is the extension of eligibility for pension benefits to additional judicial officers within the FPJPS. That ensures that judges in newly clarified or newly created judicial roles can now access pension benefits in a way that properly reflects their service. The regulations also address the complex issue of the transfer of service between different pension schemes, ensuring that judges receive their full and correct pension entitlements.

In addition, the regulations extend the deadlines for member elections within the FPJPS. The additional time provided will allow judges to make informed choices about their pension options, ensuring that no one is rushed into a decision without understanding the full implications. There are further measures, but I need not repeat them as the Minister has outlined them.

In conclusion, the regulations represent a significant step forward in the reform of judicial pensions. The judiciary plays an absolutely vital role in the functioning of our justice system, and it is imperative that we continue to support and incentivise talented individuals to join and remain in the judiciary. The regulations will ensure that our pension system remains attractive, fair and sustainable, offering security to judges in their retirement, while also protecting taxpayers. I am conscious of my pledge to be brief, so I can confirm that the Opposition support these changes. I have nothing further to add.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Wanting to see justice delivered more consistently for victims is the key reason I sought election to this place, so it is an enormous privilege to take up this role today.

In response to concerns raised last month about offenders who have been released early not being promptly tagged, the Secretary of State assured the House that she will monitor performance daily. Can the Government now provide concrete assurance to the House and the public that all offenders are being tagged as they should on release?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I welcome the shadow Minister to his place. I have always enjoyed his contributions to justice debates, so I look forward to working with him where appropriate.

After the Department’s daily monitoring—indeed, monitoring many times a day—I can confirm that the performance of Serco on tagging has improved significantly. As of 28 October, 98% of all tranche 2 SDS40 release visits to install tags had been completed, with a small number of prearranged alternative fittings also scheduled. They are now all covered.

[Dr Mullan]

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

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman’s question is really about rates of recall, which is what happens when licence conditions are breached, including breaches of curfew. Recall rates for SDS40 releases are tracking similarly to recall rates for other offenders. We will publish those statistics once they have been assured in the usual way, which I believe will be immediately after Christmas.

Sentencing Review and Prison Capacity

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the support prisoners receive in prison must be tailored to take account of needs such as neurodivergence and autism, much of which has gone undiagnosed in the life of prisoners, and often does not even get diagnosed within the prison estate. We must obviously turn that around, and I am confident we can make progress in that area. First we have to deal with the capacity crisis, because when prisons are very overcrowded offenders are locked up for 23 hours a day, and in that one remaining hour little good work can be done. We must deal with the capacity problems so that we can then deal with the underlying issues that prisoners face before they can make the positive choices that we all want.

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

The Secretary of State has identified a good set of principles for her review. On the Texan approach, does she think that it would be fairer to victims if, rather than us looking at extending early release further, we used the reward of the existing access to early release? She talked a lot about evidence, but she will understand that it is harder to evidence victims’ feelings about justice, and that risks greater weight being given to statistics on reoffending, and other information that the Ministry of Justice has to hand. How does she propose to close the gap in evidence relating to how victims and their families feel about sentencing?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman makes good point. The Texan model is of interest because it sought to incentivise the positive behaviour that reduces reoffending and ultimately cuts crime, and Texas saw some pretty spectacular results. There is no exact read-across from that model to our system, and it will be for the review to consider that model and others around the world to see what approaches might work here. It is imperative that any measures we take retain the confidence of victims and the wider public. Any punishment that takes place outside a prison needs to still look and feel like proper punishment to every community in our country. That is non-negotiable. Public confidence must be maintained, and that speaks to the hon. Gentleman’s second point. Evidence is important, and in my experience, when victims are engaged in the process, they appreciate the need to reduce reoffending, because they do not want other people to be victims. Their voice will be heard in the review; I hope that reassures him.