Prison Capacity Strategy
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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.
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—
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 ExcerptsFriday 29th November 2024
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Criminal Law
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to see you in your new and much-deserved place.
I rise to support this difficult proposal from my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary. I made a speech in the King’s Speech debate two days ago on the subject of prison conditions, including overcrowding. I do not intend to repeat the whole of that speech, although it is tempting to do so, especially for the bits I had to leave out, but even by the standards of this place that would probably be pushing it. However, I would say that my right hon. Friend and her team—including the new Prisons Minister in the other place, Lord Timpson—have set out with a clear and serious intent to solve the problems left by the previous Government.
I am afraid we saw from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), exactly why the Conservatives got us into this mess. There was no attempt to be accountable—he did not allow one intervention during that speech, which I think is almost unknown—and we can understand why. It is because there are no answers to the questions that can be put to the Opposition. They have left our prisons in an absolutely disastrous state: at 99% capacity for the past 18 months. It is a complete dereliction of duty. There are acute capacity pressures, and the impact assessment says that if we continued without taking this action,
“prisons would shortly run out of places and the justice system would no longer be able to function as intended, e.g. the police would be unable to make arrests and the judiciary may not be able to impose immediate custodial sentences.”
What an indictment of any Government.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
If the hon. Member thinks that the Labour Government are now going to have to release 5,000 prisoners they would not want to release, how would he describe the fact that the previous Labour Government had to release 80,000 prisoners they did not want to release?
Andy Slaughter
If that is really the best the Opposition have got, I understand why the shadow Minister did not take any interventions. The Conservatives had plenty of money for the Rwanda scheme and other gimmicks over the past 18 months, but they had no money, no resources and no intent to deal with this, and we have heard the reason for that: they thought they would win votes by leaving prisons in a crisis situation. I am afraid that was another miscalculation.
It is true that this is not an easy decision. I was reassured by what my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary said and by the SI’s supporting documents, in that recall will continue as before, the length of sentences will not change, sexual and serious violent offences are excluded, and the intention, contrary to what the Opposition allege, is that this will run for no more than 18 months. Those are all important safeguards.
It is also true that, although there will of course be cost savings, this will put pressures on the Probation Service. The explanatory memorandum states:
“There is a package of measures to alleviate Probation pressures including limiting Post-Sentence Supervision to non-Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements…eligible offenders.”
So there are consequences here. There are consequences for post-custody accommodation services, as we have heard, which are not working terribly well at the moment. There are also consequences for the police if there are situations of reoffending or recall that need to be dealt with.
This will mean a reduction, from September onwards, of a minimum of 5,000 prison places for a period of time, and that is simply necessary. That is not really debatable, and I think that is probably why the Opposition have not debated it today. It is not possible for this to continue. I hope this short-term measure will be successful, and I think it will be. I hope the safeguards will be in place and will be secure. I am also encouraged by what my right hon. Friend said about the longer-term prospects. We have to address the prisons crisis over the longer term in this country. We have to reduce the number of people in custody by reducing reoffending.
It is good that we are building modern prisons to modern standards, but I would like to see those modern prisons not supplementing but replacing some of the disgusting and disgraceful Victorian prisons, such as Wormwood Scrubs, which until a few weeks ago was in my constituency. I advise all Members who do not have a prison in their constituency or who do not regularly visit prisons, irrespective of their interest—if they are attending this debate, they must have some interest—to go and look at the conditions that persist, because they are inhumane and intolerable. That is not just a matter for staff, inmates and others who work in prisons; it is a matter for all of us as citizens, because we are not rehabilitating prisoners, but letting them out on to the streets to reoffend without any support.
The need for today’s SI is an indication of just how low the previous Government have brought the system. This is a national crisis. I have no doubt that it was one of the reasons for the previous Prime Minister calling an early election, because they simply could not face the consequences of their own actions. Thank goodness we now have a Government who will grasp these nettles firmly and resolve the issues.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary, who I know is passionate about this, that this is not about just a short-term fix; this is about a long-term change in how we use the criminal justice system in this country, all parts of which are in crisis at the moment. If we can get into a virtuous spiral, rather than the downward spiral we have been in for the last 14 years, there is hope to improve the courts system, access to justice, and the service provided, including for victims, and to deal with the crisis in our prisons.
Prison Capacity
Kieran Mullan Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend. I did read those reports in The Guardian. Of course, none of us has had sight of any of those papers. If those reports are true, it is very worrying indeed. As I said in my opening remarks, I did not use the phrase “the guilty men” lightly when I spoke about the crisis we have inherited and the change we are being forced to make. I believe it was a serious dereliction of duty by the previous Government. I could hardly believe the state of the prison system that I inherited, and I think we have been forced to make the changes that we have because of that failure.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I welcome the Lord Chancellor to her post. I just want to push her slightly on the description of this scheme as a temporary scheme. Whatever she may say, the legislative impact of what the Government are doing will be a permanent change. If she wants to be subject to scrutiny and to have a temporary scheme, there is absolutely no reason why she cannot sunset the legislation to be a genuinely temporary change, and come back later if she thinks she needs to reintroduce it. That is a way to welcome scrutiny and be true to what she says about its being a temporary scheme.
Shabana Mahmood
It is a temporary scheme. We will revert to the usual 50% level as quickly as possible. I think 18 months is the right period for me to return to this House. The hon. Member will have many opportunities to scrutinise these changes because this Government will be different from the previous Government, because we will be transparent all the way through. I anticipate many moments in this House when I will be challenged. It is a temporary change. It will always be a temporary change.