Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lauren Edwards Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

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

It is a privilege to open this debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—a Bill that will give dying adults, under very stringent criteria, choice, autonomy and dignity at the end of their lives.

What is being asked of MPs today? It is a fair question, given that this House already voted to send the near identical Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) back to the House of Lords in June last year. On Second Reading, we vote on the principle of a Bill, but we did that in November 2024. It is a broader principle that the House must consider today: who ultimately decides the laws that govern our nation?

Many Members would no doubt prefer to be working in their constituencies today. They are not because a small number of peers in the other place chose to prevent any votes from taking place on the substance of the Bill in the last Session.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Lauren Edwards]

I will once I have concluded my opening remarks.

That decision by those peers means that one of the most significant national conversations that we have been having as legislators was brought to an abrupt halt. Who suffers detriment as a result? Clearly, the terminally ill and their families, who had a fair assumption that the will of the people they elected to represent them in this Chamber would be respected, but also those who must navigate our current, unclear laws. They are laws that do not protect or guide those who work in our health system, laws that do not contain safeguards against the risks of coercion, laws that criminalise and traumatise families who simply want to be with their loved one at the moment of their death, and laws that four Directors of Public Prosecutions have urged need to change. If we do not vote today to allow this Bill to continue its passage through Parliament, we accept those outcomes as the cost of maintaining the status quo, and who knows how long it will be before we get the opportunity to consider the introduction of assisted dying laws again, despite consistent polling showing that it receives majority public support?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady is setting the scene for what the Bill hopes to achieve, but she cannot ignore the overwhelming 68% of the public who believe that it must be paused, or the 73% of people who say that it should be rejected outright. The public see the danger. This House must halt the process, pause the Bill and instead focus on properly funding world-class palliative care.

[Lauren Edwards]

I think we need to be very careful when we are quoting polling. For instance, we know that Whitestone Insight has been criticised heavily by the British Polling Council in recent weeks for failing to meet its standards in terms of disclosing who has been funding its research. The reference I am making in my speech is to those very robust, independent polls, such as the British attitudes survey, which in 2024 found that 73% of the British public supported assisted dying and have done so over the last 20 years.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Lauren Edwards]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier).

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend talks about who makes our laws, and she has talked in articles that she has written about the primacy of this place. If the Bill goes forward, is she willing to accept amendments? She has brought forward a Bill that is exactly the same as the previous Bill, despite its sponsor in the House of Lords himself saying that there needed to be 77 amendments to make it safer.

[Lauren Edwards]

It is not quite the exact same Bill; it incorporates two amendments that were agreed without a vote in the House of Lords last time. We have had our conversation in this Chamber about this Bill in 2025, and we have had an interrupted conversation as a nation. I am asking Members of this House to send the Bill back to the House of Lords so that they can continue their important work of amending and scrutinising legislation.

[Rachel Taylor]

Does my hon. Friend agree that unless this House makes it absolutely clear that it is outrageous and unacceptable for a very small number of unelected peers to block legislation, supported by the elected Chamber, then the same tactic could be used again with any private Member’s Bill that comes forward in this House?

[Lauren Edwards]

Absolutely—it would set a dangerous precedent. Those Members who want to come in on the specifics of the Parliament Acts will have ample opportunity to do so later in my speech, and I will be willing to take interventions on that matter.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley for the courage, courtesy and openness she showed during the passage of her Bill. Her engagement with those from all sides of the debate, particularly in Committee, delivered a stronger Bill that this House voted for on Report and Third Reading. One strengthening factor was the introduction of a requirement for the Health Secretary to report regularly on the availability, quality and distribution of palliative care. In asking parliamentarians to consider assisted dying, my hon. Friend also prompted a national conversation about how we improve and fund palliative care. We saw more funding for hospices, as well as Government action to develop a new framework to improve palliative care and end-of-life care.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I chair the all-party parliamentary group on hospice and end-of-life care, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend shares my concern. Given that an estimated 170,000 people die in this country each year without access to palliative and end-of-life care, there can be no choice until hospice and end-of-life care are properly funded.

[Lauren Edwards]

It is absolutely right that, for instance, the Prime Minister and the Government have said that improving palliative care must be a priority—I think that is something we can all support. Everybody should have access to good-quality palliative, hospice and end-of-life care in their final moments.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Lauren Edwards]

I will make some progress. As acknowledged by organisations that provide that care, though, their services cannot address pain and suffering in all circumstances. During the passage of the Bill in the last parliamentary Session, we heard examples of the limits of palliative care from Members with medical expertise themselves.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Lauren Edwards]

No, I will make some progress. We heard difficult stories about patients with bile duct cancer facing the prospect of faecal vomiting as their illness progressed. We listened as Members recounted memories of watching patients bleed to death while conscious, cancer having eaten away at their carotid artery. We felt their frustration when the maximum dose of sedatives could not alleviate the choking and suffocation of someone with peritoneal cancer. Those people deserved choice and a dignified end, too.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

As a practising surgeon who deals with bile duct cancer, I can reassure my hon. Friend that there is almost never a reason that someone should be in that state, with feculent vomiting, if they were treated appropriately and all the relevant palliative care measures were in place.

[Lauren Edwards]

The position that I take is that we can, and must, both improve palliative care and support assisted dying. We must grasp the opportunity that is in front of us to create a holistic end-of-life care system that will deliver choice and dignity for every single one of our constituents.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

On the specific point of hospices, I absolutely understand what the hon. Lady is saying; I have visited our local hospices, and I have sat beside my father when he was dying, but not in a hospice. The point about palliative care absolutely matters, but the Government do not recognise the funding that the sector needs. There is a postcode lottery, and the Ministers are not even answering written parliamentary questions, so does the hon. Lady agree that until this is fixed, we should not be having this debate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lauren Edwards]

I point out that if this Bill received Royal Assent, the four-year implementation period provided for at the end of the Bill would give us the opportunity to work together to improve palliative care and assisted dying, creating the holistic end-of-life care system to which I have referred.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Lauren Edwards]

I am going to make a little bit of progress. The four-year implementation period means that nobody would be receiving assisted dying until 2031 at the earliest. That would be too late for many people, but it would be plenty of time to make improvements to palliative care, which would go hand in hand with providing the choice of an assisted death for those who still need it. We can, and should, do both.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a principled argument that the House must listen to and respect, but she has spoken about choice and dignity, and the one thing I have never understood about this Bill is the importance of the specific time period—that it would apply to adults who have six months or fewer to live. If there is to be choice and dignity, and if people are in pain and the condition is terminal, what is the sanctity of six months? If the principles of choice and dignity underpin the Bill, surely six months is way too narrow.

[Lauren Edwards]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Obviously, Members have previously raised concerns about doctors getting their prognosis wrong when it comes to how long someone is able to live. My understanding is that, given the international evidence, six months was seen a reasonable line to draw, because as the time of death gets closer, the accuracy of the diagnosis is increased.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lauren Edwards]

I am sorry, but I will not give way.

I thank all those who took part in the debate on the Bill in this Chamber during the last parliamentary Session. We showed politics at its best through our robust but courteous debates. We did our job, and we did it well; now it is time for us to send this assisted dying Bill back to the House of Lords, so that it can finish what it started. Whatever our respective views on the form and composition of the second Chamber, I hope we can agree that peers play an important role in scrutinising, refining and strengthening the legislation that we send there.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She has outlined the will of this House, but she may remember that, during the passage of the last Bill, I asked the then Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions to do what has happened with similar Bills in the past—on homosexuality, on abortion and on the death penalty—which was to give time on the Floor of the House for Committee of the whole House. That would massively strengthen amendments that are made by using the whole House to approve them. That is a choice for Government Front Benchers, so is the hon. Lady going to lobby her own Government to give everybody in this House the opportunity to properly scrutinise the Bill in Committee?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lauren Edwards]

The Government have been clear, as the Government of the previous Prime Minister were, that they remain neutral on assisted dying, but that they have responsibilities to make sure that the legislation we bring forward is workable. We received those assurances on Third Reading of the previous Bill, when we voted in favour of it as a Chamber.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Lauren Edwards]

I will not give way. I am asking Members today to start the process of sending this Bill back to the House of Lords, so that they can continue their important function of fulfilling their constitutional role.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for making an incredibly strong speech. I was part of the Bill Committee, and we gave about 200 hours of assessment to this Bill, which is much more than most Government Bills get. Indeed, the Lords had an enormous amount of time to consider it, too. Saying that there has not been enough scrutiny is simply wrong.

[Lauren Edwards]

Members should be in no doubt that the Bill we sent the Lords last year was robust.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lauren Edwards]

No. The Bill was expertly drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and developed with comprehensive technical advice from officials in both the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lauren Edwards]

No, I will make a little bit more progress, please.

Although the Government are neutral on the issue of assisted dying—then, as now—they have a duty to ensure that any legislation that Parliament passes is effective, legally robust and workable. I am confident in saying to this House that the Bill before us today is a well-designed, safe piece of legislation.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a good case for this Bill, but she will know that when the Bill was introduced in 2024, no equality impact assessment was carried out. Recently, the Government have published the assessment, and it highlights the disproportionate impact that the Bill will have on black and ethnic minority communities and on disabled people. There is nothing in the Bill to address that point.

[Lauren Edwards]

I would start by saying that the Bill is explicit that it does not apply to people with a disability.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

What we are considering today is not the general principle, “Do we or do we not agree with assisted dying?”; it is this Bill. We are not a debating society; we are a Parliament. I therefore ask my hon. Friend why it is the case that virtually no disabled people’s organisation in this country supports the Bill. Disabled people often feel voiceless, and I think it is important that their voices are heard today. They are outside Parliament, so I would like her to address that point in her speech.

[Lauren Edwards]

I would be happy to address that point. There is not a uniform view among disabled people on assisted dying. Like with anything, within organisations there are people who arrive at different views. It is important that we are giving disabled people the same rights as other people. It is very clear in the Bill that it is for adults aged over 18 who have a terminal illness and who only have six months to live. It specifically makes clear that it does not apply to people who have a disability.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Lauren Edwards]

No, I will not give way. I will make some progress—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The Member has made clear that she is not taking interventions at this point.

[Lauren Edwards]

As has been mentioned, the Bill has been subject to hundreds of hours of scrutiny, and amendments have been made to strengthen its safeguards, but that does not mean it cannot be strengthened further. As with any Bill, it will benefit from additional scrutiny. The Bill before us today already includes an important clarification on eating disorders that was agreed without a vote in the House of Lords last time. Together with the co-sponsor of the Bill in the House of Lords, Lord Falconer, who is in the Gallery today, I have recently met representatives from medical bodies and hospice organisations to discuss further amendments that could be made in the other place.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. She mentions that the Government have a responsibility to ensure this legislation is lawful and workable, yet she is the Bill’s sponsor—that responsibility rests on her, too. Yet despite knowing that the Bill’s sponsor in the previous Session brought forward over 30 amendments and eight new clauses of her own and the Bill’s sponsor in the Lords brought forward 77—a recognition that the Bill is manifestly unworkable—she has chosen not to amend her Bill. What is before us today is for a political—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Interventions must be short.

[Lauren Edwards]

I disagree with the position that any time we amend a Bill in this place, it is ultimately deficient and unworkable. That is not how it works. All I am asking the Chamber to do today is to send the Bill back to the House of Lords so it can continue its work, which was interrupted, of scrutinising the Bill.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; she is being very generous with interventions. Is she willing to share with the House what, if any, amendments the Lords made, besides the two she has mentioned, that she thinks should have been added to the Bill, and, if so, why they were not?

[Lauren Edwards]

There were a number of amendments around points of clarification—some external organisations wanted some words made a little clearer, although they seem robust to me—that I certainly believe could be made in the House of Lords.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Lauren Edwards]

No, I will make some progress.

Taking the approach I have outlined respects both the will of this House, as expressed in June 2025, and allows the usual parliamentary processes to continue.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

“Erskine May” gives this House a way to send what are called “suggested amendments” to the Lords as a separate motion alongside the Bill, when it goes to the other place. It has not been used since 2004, but does she recognise that if some Members of this House think certain amendments are crucial to the Bill, they can do so?

[Lauren Edwards]

That is a part of our usual parliamentary process and the hon. Lady is right to raise that point.

By sending the Bill back to the Lords as it stands, we will prevent that same small group of peers who talked it out last time from doing the same thing again. It is my fervent wish that all the peers—

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lauren Edwards]

No, I am sorry; I will make some progress.

It is my fervent wish that all the peers in the House of Lords will accept that important distinction between their Chamber and ours, and fulfil their role in the usual way. In doing so, they can consider and send an amended Bill back to us for a final vote before Royal Assent.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Lauren Edwards]

No, I will make some progress.

If, at that point, Members of this House decide to vote the Bill down, I and many others, in this Chamber and outside, would be upset and disappointed, but I would accept that as a result of the proper democratic processes being followed. What I cannot accept, and what many people both inside and outside the Chamber cannot accept, is the current situation, where a small number of unelected peers filibustered legislation that was supported by this Chamber. That is not how our democracy is supposed to function.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, whose speech is a series of oxymorons: she does not like polling that is against the Bill, but likes it when it is in favour; she feels the Bill should be amended in the House of Lords, but not with amendments that would improve safeguards. On that subject of safeguards, will she explain to the House why the previous legal safeguards to assuage doubts about efficacy were entirely dropped from the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lauren Edwards]

They were dropped in favour of a stronger safeguard, which was a multidisciplinary panel of people with different perspectives who were trained in spotting coercion—a psychiatrist, a legal expert and a social worker, bringing other people in with different perspectives—to ensure that the person taking the assisted death decision was doing so in an informed and settled way, free from coercion. That was a strengthening of the Bill, not a weakening.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Lauren Edwards]

I will make some progress.

Members took the best part of a year to grapple with this issue: spoke to constituents; engaged with the organisations that would be affected; read the materials; thought deeply; consulted their conscience. They arrived at a decision—whatever that decision was and however they voted or, indeed, did not vote at all—but it was a difficult process. It is not acceptable that the outcome of those deliberations has not been respected. We owe it to the people we represent to find a resolution on this issue one way or another within this Parliament.

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way a second time. This is the democratically accountable House; I think we would all agree on that point. On that basis, is she prepared to accept in Committee and on Report, if this Bill secures its Second Reading this afternoon, amendments authored, debated and voted upon by Members of Parliament?

[Lauren Edwards]

We have been through that process. There was a Committee that had hundreds of hours of scrutiny and properly kicked the tyres on the robustness of this legislation. What we need to do as a House is send the Bill back to the House of Lords so that they can finish their job. We did ours.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Lauren Edwards]

I will make some progress.

As important as a democratic point of principle is to the argument I am making, we must not lose sight of the people who are relying on us most: the terminally ill and their families. The Gallery today is filled with inspirational people campaigning for this much-needed change in the law—people who are themselves terminally ill and who, due to the passage of time, may never get the opportunity to choose a dignified death surrounded by their loved ones, but who nevertheless spend the time that they have left campaigning so that others in future may have that choice.

[Marie Goldman]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Lauren Edwards]

I am sorry; I will not.

Those people include Christie Arntsen, who has lived for more than a decade with incurable metastatic breast cancer, which has sadly returned for the fifth time. She is undergoing what may be her final treatment of chemotherapy. Christie speaks eloquently about how her fear of a difficult death has weighed on her mind since her diagnosis and affected her life:

“For me the scariest part of having the diagnosis was that I had no control over the last few weeks of my life…If I had known that assisted dying was an option, a weight would have been lifted from my mind for the last 10 years.”

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Lauren Edwards]

I will make a little more progress.

This is the cost of accepting the status quo: the fear and worry for those who know that palliative care may not be enough to avoid a difficult and painful death. It snatches away their final moments, which, as I know from speaking to friends and family in Australia, can be much better spent when there is a safe voluntary assisted dying system in place.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for being so generous with her time. Is she aware of the sheer number of palliative care consultants who are not prepared to take part in assisted dying, and the impact that that will have on the palliative care system? In my constituency, all three palliative care doctors who work in Plymouth’s Derriford hospital are against assisted dying and are saying that they would leave the profession. How can we offer palliative care at the same time as assisted dying?

[Lauren Edwards]

I would point out that there is a range of views among those in the palliative care community. It is specifically for that reason that the Bill allows them not to be involved in the process if they do not wish to be.

[Imran Hussain]

Will my hon. Friend be generous enough to give way on that point?

[Lauren Edwards]

No, I am sorry.

I end with the words of Elise Burns, who, like me, called Kent home, and who sadly died in July with secondary cancer of the lungs, liver and bones. She said she would love peers

“to look me in the eye and tell me why me and my friends, and anyone with terminal illness, don’t deserve to die with dignity and to have the choice to die…without pain.”

We owe it to terminally ill people like Elise, who are relying on us and who were so filled with hope when we voted in favour last time. Quite rightly, they cannot understand how, having secured the support of the people they elected to represent them, the issue that is so important to them has been frustrated by a small group of people with no democratic mandate.

The important conversation that we have been having on assisted dying, as legislators and as a society, has been interrupted. To leave it so would have a profoundly negative impact on people’s trust in our political system. If we fail to support the Bill’s Second Reading, are we not saying that it is fine for a minority of unelected peers to defy the will of the House of Commons? Are we really prepared to cede that point and accept the consequences not only for this vital legislation but for future legislation too?

I ask hon. Members to join me in sending a clear message that the will of this Chamber should be respected, on behalf of all the people that we represent, and to support this Bill on Second Reading.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lauren Edwards Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

As I said to the hon. Gentleman in a statement, he must have a short memory, because we were brought to this House to discuss this matter. The Hillsborough law will be a landmark moment for this Government. It will be a Bill for the victims, written by the victims who have been through those heinous experiences. We will ensure that national security is upheld, and we will bring this Bill forward when it has the full backing by everyone and when it is ready.

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to ensure that education and training programmes support the rehabilitation of people leaving prison.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

Prison education builds skills for life, including reading and numeracy, alongside work-focused training. We are expanding prison apprenticeships and prison industries, providing work-ready skills to support rehabilitation.

[Lauren Edwards]

I thank the Minister for the work he is doing in prisons to improve literacy, but last week the Government confirmed to the Justice Committee that core prison education provision has been cut by a quarter nationally under retendered contracts. The independent monitoring board recently raised concerns about the impact that that will have in prisons, including Rochester prison in my constituency, on prisoner rehabilitation. We know that stable work is one of the top factors in preventing male prisoners from reoffending, so education and training are therefore key to reducing our prison population in the long term. How will the Minister ensure that this will remain a priority?

[Jake Richards]

It was fantastic to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency with her just last week to visit a facility in the youth custody service, and I look forward to visiting Rochester prison with her in the future. She is right to raise this issue. There are real fiscal pressures when the two twin strategic objectives for this Department are dealing with a prison capacity crisis inherited from the previous Government and pressures in our courts, but that does not mean that we are going to overlook the importance of educational work in the prison system. We are looking at working with the third sector and the private sector to ensure that we can provide adequate provision while maintaining our two strategic aims of stabilising the prison system and solving the backlog.

Victims and Courts Bill

Lauren Edwards Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

What a privilege it is to follow those powerful speeches from the hon. Members for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet). They are clearly two very formidable parliamentarians, and it is a privilege to be in the same debate as them.

I stand today to speak on behalf of my constituent Bethan and her parents, who are in the Gallery today. I am going to do that rare thing on the Opposition Benches of thanking the Government for making changes to restrict the parental responsibility of convicted sexual offenders. It is hugely important and clearly the right thing to do. When Bethan, whose story was covered by the BBC, learned that her ex-husband had been convicted of some of the most serious child sex offences imaginable, she also learned that he retained access to her child. I am sure it is not lost on parliamentarians across this House that in those instances, for those paedophiles and sexual offenders, that access is the last bit of coercive and toxic control that they retain.

In the previous Parliament, when Baroness Harman and the Minister for Violence Against Women and Girls, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), pushed for a new clause on this matter in the Criminal Justice Bill, I had the privilege of watching with my constituents from up in the Gallery. Sadly, that Bill did not make it through the parliamentary wash-up, so the work was not completed at that time.

Bethan’s family had to spend £30,000—not a resource accessible to all—of their own money to get their case through the family courts. They have gone on this journey so that more victims—parents and mothers—can take advantage of this legislation and be protected even if they do not have that resource. I speak to be the voice of Bethan and her family. Although I will not take up much of the House’s time, they wanted me to place on the record their gratitude to Baroness Harman and to Alex Chalk, the former Secretary of State for Justice, who stayed in touch with them while there was work to be done. I am pleased we have got to Report stage. They also wanted me to place on the record their thanks to Laura Farris, to both Ministers present, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley, and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and to the Justice Secretary, because they really have protected vulnerable mothers and innocent children and spared them from excruciating distress.

While I do place on record my gratitude, it would be remiss of me not to ask a couple of questions on behalf of Bethan and her parents. They have queried the restriction to four-year sentences and the sexual harm prevention orders, which kick in with a two-and-a-half-year sentence. Could the Minister provide clarity on that? The measure refers to the children of sex offenders and the restriction of parental rights, but I do not think it refers to future children. [Interruption.] I see the Minister nodding her head. Perhaps she will state that on record for clarity.

Today I have the very easy task of being the voice of Bethan and her parents in saying thank you. This Bill is a really important measure to pass.

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

I really welcome this Bill, which delivers long-overdue reforms to protect victims and goes a long way to rebuilding confidence in our judicial system. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for their powerful contributions to the debate.

I also thank the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) for tabling new clause 12, relating to UK citizens who are murdered abroad. The previous Conservative Government failed to address this issue in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, so I thank him for raising this important issue once again. As he has explained, the lack of any statutory support for the families of British nationals murdered abroad is a glaring gap in our legal system. Families who find themselves in this deeply distressing circumstance must deal not only with their immense grief but with difficult practical issues, such as navigating a foreign legal system—often with language barriers—and unfamiliar police forces and judiciaries.

New clause 12 would address that anomaly by creating an appendix to the victims code that sets out how it applies to close relatives of British nationals resident in England and Wales who are the victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide committed abroad. The hon. Member for Maidenhead is right that families in those awful circumstances need more support and are being failed by the current system. At the very minimum, they deserve the same recognition and support under the law as those whose tragedies occur within the UK. Currently they are only able to access discretionary support that may be given by local chief constables, Government Departments and national services, such as the National Homicide Service and the victim contact scheme.

That is not good enough. We need statutory rights for families in these circumstances to be treated and supported as victims themselves. Rather than just an appendix to the victims code, we need a framework that is more bespoke, offering tailored help to families who need to navigate a particularly difficult set of circumstances. That could include help with the repatriation of their loved one or keeping them informed about the police investigation or court process that may be happening on the other side of the world, often in a different language.

Although I wholeheartedly agree with the principle behind new clause 12, I cannot support it. I think we need to go further, with both Justice Ministers and Foreign Office Ministers working together on a specific framework to support UK families who have lost loved ones while abroad. I am afraid I also cannot support the new clause because, by my reading, subsection (1) to proposed new section 2A is too narrowly drawn. I am currently supporting the family of a constituent from Strood who has died in suspicious circumstances abroad in India. They have struggled to get the right support from the Foreign Office and came to me in desperation as they did not know where else to go for help. Kent police has been helping them through its missing persons unit, as distressingly the first they knew of anything having happened to their father was when they were sent a video of his cremation, received at 3 am UK time. However, there are obvious limits to what Kent police can do in this situation.

As there is currently not even a murder or manslaughter investigation, since it is unclear what happened, the family would not be covered under subsection (1) to proposed new section 2A, despite needing the same support as families in those situations who the hon. Member for Maidenhead is nobly trying to help. Rather than pushing new clause 12 to a vote, I urge the hon. Member to join me in welcoming the Minister’s opening comments about action in this space and calling for her to commit to working with her Foreign Office equivalent to design a specific framework that will give statutory rights not only to the families of UK residents who are the victim of murder, manslaughter or infanticide but to the families of those who have died in suspicious circumstances. That way, everyone who is facing this difficult set of circumstances can get the support that they need.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this raft of very important changes. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards). I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) to address the points raised—I am not qualified—but I imagine that the purpose of new clause 12 is to make technical changes so that the measures are even more effective, which, clearly, we would all support. In any case, my understanding is that it would require the Secretary of State to bring forward such changes rather than stipulating what those changes are in detail.

Like others, I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) on a very impressive and powerful speech. I know that the Minister congratulated her in advance on the campaign she has run. Equally, the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) made a very powerful speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead made strong cases as well.

I repeat the reminder of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) that the primary purpose—this is certainly what I have always said—of custodial sentences must be public protection. It is on that issue that I wish to concentrate. My remarks are entirely informed by a case I have been pursuing on behalf of my constituent Tina Nash. The Minister is aware of this, because I have corresponded with her on the subject. Tina was horrifically attacked by her former partner in 2012 for a 12-hour period until she managed to escape. In that time she was battered and had her eyes gouged out and her jaw and nose broken. It was an appalling beating that she was lucky to survive—and a survivor she is.

The following year her former partner was jailed for life with a minimum term of six years. However, earlier this year he was moved to a category D prison, with open conditions. My constituent was not consulted about this and was only informed about it after the decision had been taken. Bearing in mind that she is blind, it is understandable that she fears that, if she went out shopping, he could be in her company without her knowledge. She is incredibly scared as a result of the decision. She had no say in it, and nor was she consulted.

I tabled new clause 17 to urge the Government to accept that victims have a right to a veto in reasonable circumstances for their own protection—not in all circumstances and not in every condition, but we should certainly ensure that they are properly consulted. As a result of this experience, I think there are a number of other failings in the system that require the Government to ensure belt-and-braces support for victims throughout the process.

Tina wanted to pursue this matter with the Parole Board, but it did not respond to her until my intervention, and then there was an offer of a meeting. That is not good enough. It should not be down to a Member of Parliament to force a response. She was given the support of the victim contact scheme, which I will come to in a moment.

My constituent was given the opportunity to complain—the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman provided her with a complaint form—but months after she had completed the complaint, she was informed that the ombudsman had assumed she was the prisoner, not the victim. Can that level of incompetence or her treatment throughout the process be believed? She was treated appallingly, while the process wasted her time and stressed her out. Her complaint was rejected as outside the PPO’s remit—that fact was not initially communicated to her—which caused her enormous distress and confusion. Despite circumstances in which she was blinded by her perpetrator, she still somehow has to navigate and overcome all these processes and problems. Of course, the PPO apologised for its error, but with a lack of empathy for my constituent in an officious response that directed her to the Victims’ Commissioner.

Work for Serving Prisoners

Lauren Edwards Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine Atkinson]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. That is one of the reasons that the RFA has created its tracking system: to have tangible evidence of the efficacy of the work that we intuitively know must be successful in preventing reoffending.

The businesses that I have met that are utilising release on temporary licence schemes or have workshops in prisons often act from a really strong ethic and a strong sense of social responsibility. There are also economic benefits and evidence—a clear business case—for providing work in prisons. I thank the East Midlands Chamber for its work with businesses in this area. I was told by their chief executive, Scott Knowles, that

“those employers that can successfully navigate the administrative burden to employ prisoners or offer placements on temporary licence, frequently comment that these members of the team rapidly become their most productive team members.”

A lot of the work taking place in prison is not for the private sector at all. Some 90% of the work at HMP Ranby is for the public sector, in a range of things including building beds, lockers and furniture for use not just in other prisons but in the wider public sector. That means that it does not have to be bought in, providing significant savings to the public purse as a result.

The success of schemes such as those that have been mentioned and those at HMP Ranby raises an important question: how can we scale up the model across more prisons and employers? The goal should be to reach a point where, upon release, prisoners can return to their communities anywhere in the country and find employment that builds on the skills that were developed inside.

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

I completely agree that all the evidence points towards the need to invest in prison training and employment programmes to reduce reoffending. Doing so is good for society and for the public purse, but does my hon. Friend agree that we should reform the system to support shorter, more modular learning in our prisons, in line with the Government’s approach to the growth and skills levy? Rochester prison in my constituency runs a successful stonemasonry course, but the length of time it takes—18 months—makes it difficult for prisoners to complete it, due to shorter sentences, prisoner moves across the prison estate, and early release.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Having a range of options for people is really important, but she also makes it clear that shorter sentences can prevent rehabilitative work being done, which is why it is so important that we are trying to move to a presumption against shorter sentences.

A range of things can be done, and there needs to be a co-ordinated effort to ensure consistency and opportunity across the prison estate. Perhaps that could involve asking different Government Departments to look at the goods and services that they procure from prisons, to ensure that there is that option, or building on the brilliant work being done on procurement to ensure that employers who provide meaningful work opportunities to prisoners see the wider benefit, thereby reinforcing the Government’s commitment to rehabilitation and reducing reoffending.

There is a popular myth that the poorer the quality of a prison, the greater the punishment, but that has been well tested over the last 14 years. His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons suggests not only that purposeless prisons are harmful for prisoners, but that that harm could extend to wider society. We cannot isolate, bore or humiliate someone into being rehabilitated. It is far better that they are able to make amends through work. The idea that giving more people—perhaps people who have never had it—access to good work might strengthen society comes naturally to me as a Labour MP, because Labour is the party of work. Without it, boredom, frustration and despair can thrive.

Work in prisons benefits prisoners, yes, but it also works for those who risk their life and their safety as frontline prison officers and probation officers. It works for companies, and not just because they are keen to do their part for society. It can help us to meet the skills challenges that industry faces, to onshore manufacturing jobs, and to create more funding for victims through the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996 levy. Job or jail? If we truly want to break the cycle of crime, and give people in my constituency of Derby North and across the country the safety and opportunity that they deserve, this is how we begin.

Legal Aid Agency: Cyber-security Incident

Lauren Edwards Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that incidents such as this perpetrated by cyber-criminals represent an attack on our justice system and are corrosive of trust. He is also absolutely right that, in so doing, they are hitting some of the most vulnerable in our society. That angers me, frankly, and the response needs to be commensurate to the damage that they have done not just in stealing people’s private data, but to the wider system in undermining trust.

We are taking a proactive approach to communicating with people and with the sector. As soon as the risk and the exposure of the system to these hackers was identified, legal aid providers were updated on their exposure and told to take proactive security steps. That communication has been updated, and, as well as today’s public statement, we are in constant communication with those legal aid providers. They are really the most important point of contact, because they have a relationship of trust with their clients, and they will be invited to pass on the warnings and messages coming from the Government. Where we know of particular individuals whose data may have been exposed and who may be particularly vulnerable, we are communicating directly with them. I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of an advice line, but for now what I have described will be the most important and effective way of disseminating the warnings and keeping people up to date as the situation evolves.

Turning to the wider security threat to Government and other vulnerabilities, before this attack we had indicated in any event that we would have a new national cyber strategy across Government by the end of the year. Obviously, we also intend to introduce the cyber-security and resilience Bill, which aims to improve and strengthen Government cyber-defences and Government responses to attacks just like this one. All of that is going to be important to improving the resilience not just of the Legal Aid Agency but of cyber-systems right across Government.

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

A recent Public Accounts Committee inquiry found that the Government still have substantial gaps in their understanding of how resilient their IT estate is to cyber-attack. It was really helpful to hear from the Minister about the work that is ongoing, but in the light of this very serious incident, will she and all Departments urgently assess the robustness of cyber-defences, not only in arm’s length bodies such as the Legal Aid Agency but in legacy IT systems and the supply chain—which the Committee found to be known areas of weakness—to ensure that our cyber-defences in Whitehall are as strong as possible?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Whether in Government, local authorities or other bodies such as universities and businesses big and small—as we know, some of the most famous businesses in this country have recently been exposed to these sorts of risks—and whether the cyber-attacks come from state actors or from organised crime, as appears to be the case in this instance, legacy IT systems are one of the most serious vulnerabilities. That is precisely what today’s incident highlights, and it is why that national cyber strategy is going to be so important. It will identify how we build up our resilience at pace and protect against these vulnerabilities, which are system-wide and affect public and private actors alike.

IPP Sentences

Lauren Edwards Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate. The introduction of IPP sentences was well intentioned but in reality it has gone badly wrong. That is not only my view but the view of Lord Blunkett, who was Home Secretary when IPP sentences were introduced.

We know that two of the key failures were that IPP sentences were intended for only the most serious violent and sexual offences but in practice captured many of the lower level criminal offences and were applied to shorter sentences, and that the practical implications of the recall provision were not properly appreciated or considered at the time of introduction. From what I understand, we have cross-party agreement on that assessment and on the intention to correct it. I view today’s debate as being about how we can best and most quickly achieve that aim and address, as others have said, a gross injustice.

As a MP for only a matter of months, I am already acutely aware of the toll those sentences have taken, not only on the prisoners who are affected but on their family members. I have at least two constituents who are currently recalled to prison because of non-criminal breaches of their licences and who are dealing with post-traumatic stress and other mental health challenges. That is driven to a significant extent by the uncertainty about whether they will ever be released or even about when their next parole hearing will be. As I and others have mentioned, that also significantly affects the family. I am sorry to say that I have been made aware that one of their partners has committed suicide in recent days. Her family’s view is that her losing her partner and her main source of support, while he was on one of those sentences, has been a contributing factor.

I know the Minister and the Secretary of State are taking action to implement the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, passed by the last Government, and I really welcome that. The new automatic termination process and the presumption to terminate, and reducing the associated qualifying periods, will help a significant number of those currently on IPP licences. I ask the Minister to consider what additional steps the Government could take to accelerate the safe release of IPP prisoners who are still in custody, and to prevent the recall merry-go-round which many have experienced.

Recalled prisoners are a growing proportion of the total number of IPP prisoners in England and Wales. Many of the reasons for recall speak more to the need for mental health provision than for a recall to prison. For instance, one of my constituents was recalled for things he said to the police during a mental health crisis while intoxicated. Having served 17 years on an IPP sentence, he will now be in prison for an indeterminate length of time while waiting to be seen by the Parole Board, having committed no further criminal offences.

As far back as 2008, the chief inspectors of prisons and probation were highlighting the lack of resources necessary to rehabilitate IPP prisoners and the enormous strain IPP sentences placed on the prison system and the Parole Board. We know we inherited from the last Government a prison estate and a criminal justice system that is now in even worse shape. It is teetering on the edge and requiring the early release of some prisoners where it is considered safe to do so. I certainly welcome the action the Minister and his colleagues have taken to begin to clean up the mess.

Last week in the main Chamber we were told that IPP sentences would be excluded from the sentencing review announced by the Secretary of State. I understand the reasons why, but the actions that are being taken for those on IPP sentences and the new sentencing review must speak to each other, particularly where they are addressing common challenges such as the need to focus on rehabilitation and support in the community and to free up prison places across the prison estate.

Key to this will be the IPP action plan. We have a plan, but as yet no report to Parliament on its effectiveness. My understanding is that that was due in March, but was delayed to May by the previous Government and has still not been published. I therefore urge the Minister to bring forward that publication as a matter of urgency, together with the annual report by the Secretary of State on steps taken to support those serving IPP sentences with their rehabilitation and progress towards release.

I also urge the Minister to consider the ways in which the IPP action plan could be improved, reflecting on some of the feedback on its inadequacy that has been highlighted by previous Justice Committees and other civil society organisations. We must understand the adequacy of the current support available to prisoners serving IPP sentences or who have been recalled and have clear measures of assessment. We cannot continue to have IPP prisoners languishing in our overcrowded jails.

As of March this year, 80% of unreleased IPP prisoners had been in prison for over twice their original tariff length. I previously mentioned that IPP sentences had been attached to offences other than the most serious offences that were intended in the original legislation. I note that around 190 IPP prisoners are still in custody more than 10 years after completing their original tariff of two years.

As the Justice Committee, the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prison Reform Trust have said, there are high rates of self-harm and recall to prison among IPP prisoners. That should cause us to look very closely at the adequacy of the support they are receiving, both in prison and when out on licence, and make improving it a priority for the new Labour Government. It is self-evident that those two things are linked, and that it will be very difficult for IPP prisoners to show that they no longer present a threat to the public if they are not receiving intensive support to deal with the psychological effects of believing they may never leave prison despite, for instance, having passed the end of the two-year tariff more than a decade previously. Lord Moylan has in the past described IPP sentences as

“a form of mental torture”,

as other Members have referenced today. I agree with him that we have a moral responsibility to administer justice to IPP prisoners, who have been neglected for too long.

Some Members have today raised resentencing. I know from her answer to my question in the Chamber last week that the Secretary of State is not in favour of resentencing. However, it is not clear to me why it could not be done in a way that balances the protection of the public with justice for the individual offender, as recommended by the Justice Committee in the past, via an expert committee that could correct any disproportionate sentences while considering public safety. A wide range of respected organisations consider that that could be done and I would welcome more clarity from the Minister on that point.

Just as I opened with words from Lord Blunkett, so I will end with them. He has described the current situation concerning recalled IPP prisoners in particular as “unequal”, “unjust” and “immoral”. The coalition Government took the right step in ending IPP sentences in 2012, but they left unfinished business. Those still serving IPP sentences, or who have been recalled, need a system that will be fairer to them and give them the necessary support to leave prison while preserving public safety. It is our issue to fix as the new Labour Government.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.

Sentencing Review and Prison Capacity

Lauren Edwards Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me assure my hon. Friend that the answer to his question is yes and yes. Part of the reason for doing the review is to ensure that this country is never again on the brink of running out of prison places, and that dangerous offenders who need to be locked up to keep the public safe will always be locked up.

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

I welcome the sentencing review and thank the Secretary of State for her explanation of why IPP sentences are not included in the review. What steps will she take to accelerate routes out of custody for prisoners serving IPP sentences, including a re-sentencing review that can be done without prejudice to public protection, to end an injustice once and for all and to increase capacity on our prison estate?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I hear the point my hon. Friend makes, and she makes it very well. We are not considering a re-sentencing exercise for IPP prisoners, because that would automatically release a number of people who we do not believe it would be safe to release. I am not willing to compromise public protection. I know that there is a huge injustice at the heart of these issues and that IPP sentences have rightly been abolished, but we have a problem with the cohort, in particular those under an IPP sentence who have never been released at all. I am determined to make more progress, wherever it is possible to do so safely, on releasing more IPP prisoners, but never in a way that compromises public protection.