UK-EU Summit

Debate between Kieran Mullan and Judith Cummins

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to be able speak in this Opposition day debate ahead of next week’s UK-EU summit. I campaigned for, believed in and continue to believe in the promise of Brexit. At its core, Brexit was a vote for the importance of national democracy, a vote for national sovereignty and a vote against regionalisation and government by bureaucrats. I believe strongly in international co-operation, but I do not believe in institutionalisation. I do not believe that decision making gets better in aggregate. My experience has taught me that it only gets worse. It gets more remote, less well informed and riddled with compromises that barely satisfy anyone and please no one. I continue to believe that the UK—its people and its Government—deciding its own future, not locked into continental bureaucracy, provides the best possible future for us.

Behind all the carefully choreographed language from Ministers about resets, there is one inescapable truth: this Labour Government risk laying the groundwork and taking the first steps to betraying the full promise of Brexit. That should not be any surprise, given that they are led by a man who campaigned for the leadership of the Labour party on the basis of restoring freedom of movement. He supported a second referendum and he voted against Brexit 48 times. We on this side of the House are not prepared to watch this slow train wreck in silence.

Many issues have been raised by many Members, but I want to raise just two that are of particular importance. First, on the youth mobility scheme, the fundamental issues that made freedom of movement so unpopular would remain at the core of any youth mobility scheme. The level of economic disparity across EU member states is fundamentally incompatible with the scheme becoming anything other than yet another route for mass low-skilled migration, at a time when the Government tell us they want to drive that down.

Secondly, there can be no dynamic EU rule taking or ECJ oversight. Any agreement on food standards, services or carbon trading must not come at the price of automatic alignment. We did not leave the EU to find ourselves bound to it in everything but name. We must demand mutual recognition and independent dispute resolution, and that is the only thing we should accept. That would reflect a relationship of mutual respect. These are not unreasonable demands. They are the bare minimum that any sovereign state would expect when engaging in talks with a foreign bloc.

The United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, whether the Prime Minister and his Ministers like it or not. Is it any wonder that they are looking for answers internationally when we look at their domestic picture? They are restricting winter fuel payments, inflation is still biting us, business confidence is shaken, working families are being hammered with job-destroying taxes, and growth is stalling. We must not allow this to serve as a diplomatic distraction from their domestic failure. We will not allow Labour to turn a reset into a roll-back, and any future Conservative Government will not be bound by any agreement that breaches these clear red lines. We will not allow Brussels to disguise control as co-operation, and we will not let the democratic choice of the British people be eroded by stealth.

Brexit was not a pause; it was a pivot. It was a huge opportunity for our country, and I believe that the benefits will accrue for decades to come. The Government might be able to hide their true intentions this week but they will not be able to hide them forever, and we will be here to make sure that the British people know what they really believe in. It is not the freedom and sovereignty of Brexit.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With regret, it may not be possible for all Members to speak in the debate, even with this time limit.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Debate between Kieran Mullan and Judith Cummins

Committee of the whole House & Report stage
Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Mullan]

I rise to speak in support of amendments 3 and 4 in my name and in the name of the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and of Conservative colleagues.

As MPs from across the House have made clear, the draft guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council would have led to an unacceptable two-tier justice system in which defendants were treated differently on the basis not of their crimes, but of their racial, cultural or religious identity. In fact, the record will show that two-tier justice did exist for several hours, because this issue was managed so shambolically that the guidance came into effect ahead of its formal withdrawal. That is not justice—it is a betrayal of the fundamental principle of equality before the law. It would have happened under the watch of this Labour Government and this Lord Chancellor but for the intervention of the Opposition, and in particular the shadow Secretary of State for Justice.

This Bill is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Instead of acting decisively to restore public confidence, after the Labour Government have been dragged to this Chamber to act at all, they now bring forward a half measure—a meagre response that falls short of what it should be. That is why the Opposition have tabled two important amendments.

Amendment 3 would ensure that in future, sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports cannot simply be issued by the Sentencing Council without democratic oversight, and would instead require the consent of the Secretary of State before coming into force. Why is that now necessary? The Sentencing Council has proven itself not just in the initial measures it proposed, but in its attitude and response towards parliamentary and public scrutiny, to be unable to sustain public confidence in its work in this area. It is one thing for a public body to possess operational independence and to seek to exercise that independence on a day-to-day basis; it is quite something else for a public body to choose not to exercise good judgment and make use of that independence to act with restraint in the face of widespread Government, Opposition, parliamentary and public concern. While they do, of course, have their merits, the actions of the Sentencing Council have brought to life the potential pitfalls of unelected quangos that are deaf to the concerns of the people who pay their wages and the politicians who represent them.

While this whole affair has no doubt been humiliating for the Lord Chancellor and the Government, the damage to public confidence in the leadership of the Sentencing Council is just as great. Despite what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) said in his remarks on Second Reading, the Sentencing Council did not agree to pause the implementation of the guidelines to allow for a period of reflection—it outright refused to do so. He has misunderstood the sequence of events. The council paused only because we would have otherwise entered into a constitutionally unsustainable situation where people were being sentenced in the courts, with guidelines being legislated against in Parliament through emergency legislation. It was that direct threat alone that caused the council to pause and demonstrated its lack of judgment.

I am afraid that we must therefore act more broadly to constrain the Sentencing Council in future, pending any wholesale changes that may be forthcoming. That is why the shadow Secretary of State put forward a Bill that would have taken the necessary steps to return accountability of the body through the Lord Chancellor while wholesale reform could be undertaken. Labour chose to oppose that Bill. Today, it is out of scope for the Opposition to seek to introduce a similarly wide amendment, and we are therefore restricted to seeking to at least restore accountability where we can in this field.

The amendment would require that guidelines on pre-sentence reports drafted by the council must be expressly approved by the Secretary of State before they come into force as definitive guidelines—a basic safeguard of democratic accountability, ensuring ministerial oversight on sensitive sentencing matters. Without our amendment, history may repeat itself: the same council will be free to bring forward ideological frameworks that Ministers will be powerless to stop before the damage is done. Had these guidelines gone unchallenged, we would have tilted sentencing based on identity politics, undermining public confidence in the entire system.

Our amendment would create a crucial safeguard, ensuring that no future set of guidelines in this field, at least, could bypass ministerial accountability. I encourage those on the Government Benches who have made clear that they wish to see accountability restored across the work of the Sentencing Council to vote in support of amendment 3; doing otherwise would make clear that they are unwilling to follow through on their concerns with action.

Amendment 4 would make clear that sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports must not include consideration of a defendant’s status as part of a group that has experienced historical or intergenerational trauma. Why is this necessary? It would be deeply wrong to allow collective historical grievances to influence the sentencing of an individual today. This area is the latest frontier of identity politics, with the public being told that what should be given disproportionate focus in all sorts of domains—that what matters more than what is happening today, with the whole variety of challenges facing people of all creeds and colours—is, in fact, the past. Sentencing must focus on the actions, culpability and direct personal circumstances of the defendant before the court, not on sweeping assumptions based on historical events.

We are not able in this Bill to legislate across all the workings of the criminal justice system as much as we might like to. The events of the past few months have shown that what has happened with these guidelines was not a one-off. There is a creeping, systemic attempt to inject identity politics into our judicial processes, bail decisions, probation, and even training materials. If we do not confront this now, it will embed itself deeper and deeper into the foundations of our system. It is fundamental to the rule of law that justice looks to the individual, not to the group. It is fundamental that we deal in evidence, not in ideology.

Taken together, our amendments are designed to strengthen this Bill, to ensure that it is not merely a reactive measure, but, in this narrow area at least, provides lasting protection of the principle that justice must be blind, and must be seen to be blind. The public expect justice to be equal, not preferential. Our amendments will go further in helping to secure that.

We are in this Chamber today because the Lord Chancellor was not paying attention, and was then humiliated by the recalcitrant leadership of an unelected body turning its face against parliamentary and public concern. The Government should have acted decisively and immediately and we provided them with an opportunity to do so, but they failed to take it. Even now, we are faced with a Bill that does not do the full job. Our amendments are closing the gap between what the Lord Chancellor is offering and what is necessary—decisiveness in place of timidity. I urge the whole House and the Government to support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition on Third Reading, following on directly from the Committee of the whole House, where Government Members rejected our amendments to strengthen the Bill. We now know the strength of the appetite on the Labour Benches to tackle this challenge properly and comprehensively here and now: there is not one. In truth, we knew that already.

The Government had an opportunity weeks ago to restore democratic accountability to the Sentencing Council through the private Member’s Bill of the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). They rejected that opportunity, and earlier today they rejected even the more modest strengthening we proposed. That should not be a surprise. Labour has a Prime Minister who is first and foremost a lawyer, not a leader. He is a lawyer steeped in the philosophy of securing political change through legal activism. That is the very approach that the Lord Chancellor has been forced to bring in emergency legislation to curtail. That approach is why the appetite for proper action is so limited. The legislation before the House is a fig leaf to hide the truth that a Labour party led by Keir Starmer will always have to be dragged kicking and screaming to tackle the judicial activism that he has long championed—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. The shadow Minister must be heard.

[Dr Mullan]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; they do not want to hear it.

The root cause of the issue is that the Prime Minister appointed an Attorney General—the Government’s own Law Officer—who is steeped in judicial activism. The Prime Minister himself practised in a chambers that relished it and wholeheartedly supported its expansion case by case.

For anyone interested in a treatise on the risk of this approach—from someone much more qualified than me, as I am sure the House will agree—I encourage them to listen to Lord Sumption’s Reith lecture. His analysis on the divide between matters that should properly be the domain of politics and matters for law could not be more pertinent. He said:

“It is a vice of some lawyers that they talk about law as if it was a self-contained subject, something to be examined like a laboratory specimen in a test tube, but law does not occupy a world of its own. It is part of a larger system of public decision making. The rest is politics. The politics of ministers and legislators of political parties, of media and pressure groups, and of the wider electorate.”

Lord Sumption went on to say:

“The Courts have developed a broader concept of the…law which greatly enlarges their own constitutional role. They have claimed a wider supervisory authority over other organs of the State. They have inched their way towards a notion of fundamental law overriding the ordinary processes of political decision-making, and these things have inevitably carried them into the realms of legislative and ministerial policy. To adopt the famous dictum of the German military theorist Clausewitz about war, law is now the continuation of politics by other means.”

Be in no doubt: this whole sorry episode has been an exquisite further example of that mentality, this time from the Sentencing Council and its members as part of the wider judiciary establishment. The Lord Chancellor has failed to act decisively today. If she continues to refrain from taking decisive action, we will be here again and again, with the Opposition making sure, on each and every step of the way, that voters know where the sympathies of the Labour party and its leader lie: not with the ordinary, law-abiding citizen who expects equal treatment under the law and the democratically elected politicians of this country deciding on policy, but with activists and campaigning lawyers who want to wrestle control from them.

The Bill is barely adequate—barely. We will not oppose it, because it is better than nothing—and at least it tells the public everything that they need to know about those who sit on the Government Benches, and about the mentality of the man leading them.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.