Criminal Justice

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £8,813,378,000, be granted to His Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Sir Nicholas Dakin.)

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee to open the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

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

As a member of the Select Committee, you will want to be accurate in what you say about prison places—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Dr Mullan, there is no “you” in the Chamber; you are talking through the Chair.

[Dr Mullan]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member will want to be accurate in what she says about prison places. Does she accept that we added 13,000 prison places during our time in office?

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I recognise that prison places were created, but we are talking in net terms, and net, there were 500 extra places. [Interruption.] We are certainly not happy with only 500 places, net, over 14 years. That is why this Government are taking action to increase prison places in real terms.

We must sort out the cycle of reoffending, which places a massive strain on the system. Almost 60% of those receiving a prison sentence of 12 months or less reoffended within a year, and in those instances, focusing on what happens after a crime has been committed is the best way to prevent future offending. We do not need a justice system that is bigger; we need one that is fairer and more effective. Our ambition and reforms to make our streets safer cannot be achieved by enforcement alone. They must be backed by proper sustained funding, particularly to support the Probation Service, which is at the heart of a functioning and fair justice system.

That takes me back to a project in Nottingham that I was proud to be involved with in the early 2000s. It was the community justice initiative under the last Labour Government’s “respect” agenda—yes, I am that old, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. For the record, I did not comment on the lady’s age.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for the fact that you did not; I am very conscious of my age myself. The community justice initiative brought the community into the justice process. It allowed community impact statements to be made for certain offences, such as antisocial behaviour, and took a holistic approach to sentencing. It aimed to tackle drivers of offending, including drug misuse, unemployment, and poor education. Although the initiative worked, it was unfortunately short-lived because it lacked the resources and funding that would have made it sustainable in the longer term.

Just like the community justice initiative, the reforms set out in the first year of this Government offer enormous promise. I do not have a crystal ball and do not claim to see into the future, but as we look ahead to the Ministry of Justice’s prescribed spending for the following year, it seems that, as ever, two possible scenarios are before us. In the first we learn from the past; in the second, we repeat its mistakes. Let me be clear: we cannot allow history to repeat itself, and we must not allow ourselves to return to crisis point because we are unable to resource initiatives that will help us to reform the justice system.

As a prosecutor, I saw the same individuals pass through the courts again and again. I saw how the cycle of reoffending devastated lives, clogged up courts, and cost the taxpayer millions. I therefore wholeheartedly welcome the shift from short prison sentences, which are proven to do little to reduce reoffending, towards community sentences, which get to the root of the offending behaviour. I am pleased that we have a research-based sentencing review, through which we can work to reduce the problem and tackle the causes of crime, but that work must be financed in a sustained manner if it is to succeed.

The Probation Service is at a crossroads, and its future will be decided by the adequacy of resourcing, staffing, and funding. The Government have promised that it will receive an increase by 2028-29 of up to £700 million to support the reforms set out in the independent sentencing review, and the Minister responsible for prisons, parole and probation has set a target to recruit 1,300 probation staff in the next year. The Ministry of Justice’s budget for 2025-26 shows other welcome increases, including nearly £800 million more for day-to-day spending, £523 million of which is allocated to prisons and probation, and a huge 32% increase in capital expenditure.

The justice system has suffered from years of underfunding and under-resourcing, which has resulted in overcrowding and overburdening. Justice reform is about protecting communities, supporting victims, and giving offenders the opportunity to transform their life and reintegrate into society. If we are to avoid a return to the crisis we inherited, the Probation Service must receive the resources that it desperately needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really important point. I welcome the work of the charity and the charities in his area, as I welcome the work of charities in all our areas. He puts his finger on the issue.

Charities are able to do things that the Probation Service is not. They can create trust in people and refer that trust on to statutory services. They can provide bespoke support that treats individuals as human beings seeking education and skills training, employment support, mental health and addiction support, housing assistance and peer support—in some cases the most powerful support. In providing that bespoke support, charities can help not just to reduce offending rates and rehabilitate and get people into work, but to bring down crime rates and the cost to the public purse of our criminal justice system.

I will say one point on that issue: we need to recognise the link between poverty, exclusion and offending rates. I want to be very clear that that is not to say people who grow up in disadvantage ought to commit crime, but we need to recognise what the evidence shows. There is a correlation and a causation, and as a Government we therefore need to tackle the root causes of poverty and exclusion. In so doing, we can tackle the reasons why people may offend.

I thank the Minister for what he is about to say, which I am sure will be excellent, and I thank hon. Members for their contributions. If our democracy feels fragile, it is because of the record of the last Government in this area. If our democracy is to recover, it will be because of the prompt and proportionate action that I believe this Government will take, building on the action that they have taken to truly address the challenges we face. The British people know what they want—they tell us often enough. It is our job to listen and provide the competence, progress and better outcomes that they are crying out for.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde]

I agree with the point that my hon. Friend makes. This is about much more than just the spend: it is about the efficiency of the spend. Taxpayers deserve far better than what they are getting at the moment from the Serco contract, under which, as I said earlier, many offenders are being left without the proper, robust monitoring that victims, survivors and our communities need and deserve.

Let me come on to reoffending. The Gauke review offered many recommendations to unlock supply in our prisons, but it was fairly light on what can be done to stem the demand going into our prisons. Preventing crime and reoffending was the Cinderella of his review. It may be out of scope in some respects, but it is critical that our criminal justice system is reformed in a holistic way. That is the true means of being able to make our criminal justice system more efficient.

When it comes to victims and survivors, commitments around reversing the damaging impact of the national insurance increases for employers were missing from the spending review. Victims’ charities have written to me to say that the increase in those taxes, as well as cuts to police and crime commissioner core budgets, are tantamount to a 7% real-terms cut in their budgets. This means that victims’ services—services not dissimilar from the independent sexual violence adviser services that I once accessed at SurvivorsUK—will be compromised. I urge the Government to look again at this issue.

The status quo of more reoffending at an exponentially high cost to the taxpayer is both immoral and unsustainable. While this investment will go some way towards reducing backlogs, increasing prison capacity and improving our probation services, vital challenges are still unmet. As I have said just this week—in fact, it may have been yesterday—directly to the Minister, Liberal Democrats stand ready to work constructively with the Government. We will scrutinise their measures, but also give credit where it is due in order to help achieve more justice for victims, survivors, and our communities.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition to this estimates day debate on Ministry of Justice expenditure as it relates to criminal justice. I thank the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for securing and opening the debate. We are in Armed Forces Week, and those of us who have been involved in the criminal justice system in various guises over the years know that in our prison service, around a quarter of prison officers have an armed forces background. In that sector alone, we see the ongoing contribution that people from the armed forces community make to our public services in different ways. It is a pleasure to be able to pay tribute to them on the record today.

Criminal justice is, of course, a very important topic for discussion. Our courts, prisons and probation services are the bedrock of our criminal justice system. This Government have been in charge of these key areas of public expenditure and activity for almost a year now, and we have heard from Members about the challenges that those who are in contact with the criminal justice system continue to face. We all know that, almost from day one, this Government have lurched from crisis to crisis, and sadly the Ministry of Justice has not been spared. As we consider the estimates for expenditure and the Government’s linked plans to overcome challenges in the criminal justice system, we can only have a meaningful debate if we consider the journey we have been on to reach this point.

I will begin by responding to the points that have been raised about the inheritance that this Government had. Their inheritance can only be fairly considered in the light of what we inherited, what we delivered despite the challenges, and what challenges remain. Labour Members talk about challenging inheritances in the criminal justice system, but what did we face upon arriving in office? We have heard a lot in recent months about Labour being forced into early release schemes for prisoners as a sign of the pressures on the system, but what exactly was happening with early release at the end of Labour’s last period in government? Under the last Labour Government, an astonishing 80,000 prisoners were released early—a huge number—with those releases stopping just before the election for purely political reasons. We were left to pick up the pieces across the prison estate that we inherited. During our 14 years in office, we released just 6% of that figure. If the number of prisoners that Labour Members say they have been forced to release since they came into office is a barometer of failure, what exactly do they make of releasing 80,000 prisoners early after more than a decade in charge?

Perhaps Labour had a good excuse for releasing that many prisoners early—maybe it happened because Labour had been spending its time in office rightly toughening up sentencing for the worst offenders. I am afraid not. In fact, in what I consider to be an enormous historical mistake—the consequences of which we are still battling today when it comes to delivering proper punishment through the justice system—Labour introduced automatic halfway release for essentially all offenders when it was last in government. Those offenders were not included in the figure of 80,000 released early under the emergency schemes I have spoken about. Essentially, all offenders were released early, yet Labour still managed to have a sustained crisis in prison capacity, so I do not take any lectures from Labour Members about the history of the Labour party and the criminal justice sector.

Under the previous Conservative Government, we worked to restore public confidence that serious offenders would face the punishment that their crimes deserved, and worked hard to ensure that—unlike when Labour was in government—we did not have to release 80,000 prisoners early through emergency release schemes. We brought in serious reforms. We reduced automatic release from halfway through a sentence to two thirds of a sentence for the most serious offenders, which was a huge step forward in introducing a greater degree of proper punishment into the criminal justice system. Building on that, we introduced whole-life tariffs for the premeditated murder of children. We increased maximum sentences for the worst child abusers through Tony’s law; for killers of emergency service workers through Harper’s law; and for those who kill through driving in memory of victims such as Violet-Grace. I am proud of all those reforms, and make no apologies for them.

Such measures do create challenges for prison capacity, but as I will go on to explain, those changes were necessary. More than any other factor, it was covid that created the challenges we now face. Of course, we had to tackle the enormous challenges presented by covid, which have left a long legacy in the criminal justice arena. We prioritised the right to jury trials in a way that the rest of the world struggled to; we had one of the shortest suspensions of sittings of trials, and did what we could to support the continuation of jury trials. We increased sitting days, allowing the courts to sit at maximum capacity for three years in a row; we invested £220 million in essential modernisation work for courts up to 2025; and we extended the use of 20 Nightingale courtrooms in 2024-25. That kept our justice system moving, despite what Labour now claims.

Undoubtedly, the backlog still presents challenges, but again, I am happy to compare records. Labour MPs are now deeply concerned about the backlog, but how concerned about Crown court backlogs were Labour MPs when they were last in government? I can tell Members that pre-pandemic backlogs in the Crown court reached higher levels during Labour’s time in office than they did under us. The increase in the remand population of approximately 7,000 above the historical average, which is directly linked to covid, is a major factor in the prison capacity challenges we now face.

What has Labour done to make a decisive difference since coming into office? Did the Government rush to maximise sitting days to get the backlog down? No, they did not—they have repeatedly dragged their feet. For almost six months, they did not take the Lady Chief Justice up on her offer of further sitting days, and even now, there are more days available to the Government that they have not funded. With each month that has passed, that has meant more lost court days, more people waiting and more pressure on the system than if they had just increased sitting days from the outset. What has been their biggest celebration when it comes to prison building? It is the opening of a new prison, HMP Millsike, which was planned, paid for and largely built under the previous Conservative Government.

Despite what Labour says, we created 13,000 prison places during our time in office, including in two new prisons, HMP Five Wells and HMP Fosse Way. I am not aware that any of Labour’s projected plans for prison places use net figures, which Labour Members want to use when looking at our record. The Government have announced plans for 14,000 prison places by 2031, supported by £7 billion, but 6,500 of those places were already in the pipeline, having been announced by the previous Conservative Government. Four of their new prisons were already planned or under construction, so this announcement is less a bold new strategy than it is a tired re-announcement. Even more concerning is the funding gap. The Government have allocated £7 billion, but the National Audit Office reports that the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service expect the cost of expansion to be closer to £10 billion. That is a £3 billion shortfall, placing a serious question mark over how the promised places will be delivered.

How are the Government building on their legacy of releasing over 16,000 prisoners early just in their first six months, which is 11,000 more than planned? In the name of what they call sustainability, they are embedding even greater levels of early release into the system, unpicking the positive steps we took in government to turn around Labour’s legacy of weaker punishment. The Government are doing this on the back of a sentencing review carried out by David Gauke, based on the premise that increasing prison populations were unsustainable. I am clear that that review was an insult to the views of victims and their families—many have told me so directly—and it is unfortunate that so many Members speak positively about it. Imagine launching what you describe as a “landmark review of sentencing”, and then giving almost no consideration in the pages of that report to what victims and their families actually want from sentencing.

Worse, instead of a serious attempt to engage with what victims and their families might want, Mr Gauke chose to deploy the all-too-common patronising talking points of those who want us to believe that victims and their families simply do not understand sentencing, and that if they did, they would undoubtedly feel much better about it all. This might be of particular interest to the Chair of the current Select Committee, because Mr Gauke, in particular, cherry-picked quotes from our excellent report from a previous Session on public understanding and expectations of sentencing. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick might remember, that report very much engaged with what the public wanted and how to determine that more effectively. It takes a particular type of intellectual approach to go through a report full of rich detail and just pick out what suits you, hoping no one will notice. Well, I noticed, as did representatives of victims and their families such as Justice for Victims.

That half-baked exercise in considering sentencing has now served as the launch point for the Government’s sentencing policy. If halfway release was not an appalling enough legacy from the last time Labour was in government, the Government are reducing release to a third of the sentence for most offenders, and turning our two-thirds release for the worst offenders back into halfway release. Let us be clear: prisoners will now be rewarded for doing what should be expected of them. Obeying prison rules and engaging in education or working are the basic behaviours of any law-abiding citizen. They should not qualify offenders for early release, and they certainly should not allow them to serve as little as one third of their sentence. That is not justice.

Labour’s model rewards serious offenders, does little to protect the public, and is a dereliction of duty. All the while, our Crown court backlogs have increased by more than 10% and stand in excess of 70,000 cases. Our remand population sits at more than 17,000 people. Wherever we look, problems that Labour promised to fix in opposition are just getting worse. How does the Lord Chancellor now plan to tackle this challenge? The £450 million committed to the courts in the spending review is a perhaps useful, if not fully adequate, indication, but how will the money be spent? Unfortunately, that is where the Government fall short.

The Government have no substantial ideas of their own, with 14 years apparently not long enough for them to think of their own innovations. While we await the findings of yet another independent review that they hope will solve all their issues, they have announced that custodial sentences of under 12 months will all but vanish, replaced by community sentences. The consequences are staggering. Up to 43,000 offenders, including burglars, shoplifters and knife carriers, will avoid jail altogether. I have met local businesses at their wits’ end. They tell me about the rise in shoplifting, staff who are afraid and customers who no longer feel safe. Removing custodial sentences for repeat offenders does not send a message of reform; it sends a message of impunity.

Labour has chosen the easy way out. It is tackling the prison population not with long-term reform or capacity investment, but by quietly reducing sentences and downplaying criminal behaviour. It is short-term thinking that puts public safety at risk. In fact, just last week it was reported that the Government declined to move forward with building a new prison block. They say they are doing everything possible to avoid releasing prisoners early, but how does that square with that decision?

We might think that the Government would grab opportunities that cost nothing, but we have seen them stand in the way of reforms we put forward as amendments to the Victims and Courts Bill this week. Labour did not support making sure victims are awarded compensation equivalent to their losses, or allowing victims the freedom to speak their minds in victim personal statements. Labour did not support increasing the time available to collect courts fines, or giving victims and families a better chance to appeal unduly lenient sentences. All their lofty spending plans will be of little use if this Government’s ongoing mismanagement of the economy leaves us with even less money to spend on the Ministry of Justice.

Across nearly every single major economic metric, Labour has made things worse. Unemployment is up, inflation is up and all the projections of economic growth it inherited from us have been downgraded. Is it any wonder why? The Office for Budget Responsibility is clear about the damaging impact of the Government’s jobs tax, and businesses can see what is on the horizon with the Employment Rights Bill. The costs of borrowing are soaring. The MOJ’s expenditure pales in comparison to what we will be paying on interest in ballooning debt over the course of this Parliament.

I will finish with three short questions. First, given the funding allocated to probation and the increasing reliance on it and given that, as the Justice Committee member, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) highlighted, the number of probation officers has gone down since Labour came into power, how do the Government plan to ensure that money is delivering effective services? Secondly, how do they plan to close the £3 billion gap in the prisons budget? Thirdly, given that so much of their own thinking is relying on it, when will Brian Leveson’s report be published? The British people deserve a justice system they can trust—one that protects victims, punishes offenders and keeps our communities safe. This Government’s approach fails on every single count.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Hopkins]

I am sorry, but we are short of time.

The changes that have been made, including many proposed by Members who do not support a change in the law but which have been adopted by the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), as well as those proposed during the process she has led in response to evidence submitted during the scrutiny process have led to a better Bill. The Bill has greater safeguards for more vulnerable people, with mandatory training requirements, including in relation to coercion and capacity. The Bill ensures judicial oversight of decision making by a range of experts, including psychiatrists, social workers and senior legal professionals. The Bill will set out statutory protections for those workers who do not wish to take part in the assisted dying process on the basis of conscience, and quite right too.

The Bill will provide for one of the tightest, safest assisted dying laws in the world. Importantly, the Bill has compassion at its core by affording dying people choice at the end of life. I thank every one of my constituents who shared their views with me, whether for or against a change in the law. I particularly thank all those who have disagreed with me, because good democracy and the right to disagree respectfully is hugely important; perhaps it is a debate for another time.

I also thank all those who have shared their personal stories of loved ones’ deaths, some brutal, painful and traumatic—a stark reminder that the status quo is simply unacceptable. Others have shared experiences with loved ones who, in other jurisdictions, such as Australia, were able to have a peaceful death, surrounded by loved ones and at a time of their choosing.

As I come to a close, although not everyone would want to choose an assisted death, I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to choose one if they so wish. It really is time that this House takes the important, compassionate and humane step towards making that a reality by voting for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That was a four-minute speech—thank you very much. I now call the Father of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Colleagues can see how busy the Chamber is, and will understand that not everybody will get in, but if speeches are longer than five minutes, even fewer colleagues will get in. I call Dr Beccy Cooper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor]

I will continue.

Nothing I say, however, is intended to simplify the issue, and I acknowledge the fears of many that the palliative care sector is not funded sufficiently for there to be a rational and viable choice between managed care at the end of life and the choice to end one’ own life. I therefore welcome the inclusion of amendment 21, which matches my priority of the improvement of palliative care.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Ahem.

[Luke Taylor]

In conclusion, in the heart-wrenching words of Decca Aitkenhead, who wrote in The Times last week, and which I found particularly moving:

“critics of the bill have begun to frame the debate as if leaving the law as it stands does not hurt anyone. It does.”

She said that opponents

“worry about speculative, hypothetical victims—but the status quo creates indisputable, real life victims”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

If colleagues do not want me coughing at the end of their speech, it is best to keep them under five minutes.

Points of Order

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that today we have had the heavy assent from the Foreign Secretary that, ahead of the Palestinian state discussions led by Saudi Arabia and France at the UN in June, the British Government are on their way to recognising a Palestinian state, which I would welcome. But ahead of that, may I seek your guidance on how Members across this House who feel very strongly about this issue will have an opportunity to vote ahead of that meeting in order that the Government have full authority from this Parliament on the issue of recognising a Palestinian state?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I think the right hon. Member knows that that point of order is a matter not for the Chair, but for the Government. No doubt the Foreign Secretary and those on the Front Bench will have heard him and will respond in due course.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can remind the House what the processes are for us to obtain an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 24, on the basis that this situation is so dire and so acute that a number of us may wish to apply for such a debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I and the right hon. Member both came into Parliament together. He knows how to obtain a Standing Order No. 24 debate, so he does not need me to remind him of the process. He will get much advice from the Speaker’s Office. Without doubt, the strength of feeling has been heard repeatedly, in the statement and in those two points of order, by the Foreign Secretary and Ministers on the Front Bench.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that I and other colleagues have been raising the issue of UK residents in Northern Ireland, many of whom have lived here for decades as taxpayers and voters, but who were born a few miles across the border in the Irish Republic. They have not been able to avail themselves of a UK passport in the same way as others who live in Northern Ireland can obtain an Irish passport. This was brought to a head by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) exactly one year ago this week, when his Bill received Royal Assent and became law. Despite my repeated parliamentary questions to the Home Secretary, I have been unable even to get a date by which the first UK passports will be issued to people in Northern Ireland. Has the Home Secretary or a Home Office Minister indicated to the Speaker’s Office their intention to make a statement to the House, to finally announce when this injustice will end?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of this point of order. I have had no indication from Ministers that they intend to come to the House to make a statement on this matter, but I note that it is Home Office questions on Monday and he still has time to table an oral question to the Home Secretary.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, which I chair, is responsible for examining cross-cutting issues of national security. You will appreciate that the UK faces a great range of external threats and internal challenges around resilience and the choices it makes about its relationships with allies and partners. The JCNSS is following the Government’s efforts to address these matters very closely, and the work of the National Security Adviser is central to that success.

Since the role’s creation in 2010, every NSA has appeared before the Committee for a public accountability session—until now. Of course, some more sensitive conversations need to be held behind closed doors, but the public sessions are an essential way in which the Prime Minister’s primary adviser on issues of national security is held to account by Parliament.

Despite their commitment to transparency in numerous exchanges, the Government remain steadfast that the NSA will not be accountable to Parliament. I am concerned that the Government are using a quirk of his appointment—as a special adviser rather than the permanent official—to erode democratic norms, which future, less benevolent Governments could exploit. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise me on how my Committee can get the Government to prove that they are committed to increasing transparency, to recognise the dangerous precedent that they are setting and to allow the NSA to appear before us?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The attendance of witnesses before Select Committees is not a matter for the Chair. However, it is surprising that the current National Security Adviser has declined to appear before the Joint Committee when all of his predecessors have been willing to do so. The Government’s own guidance on the matter states:

“Parliament has powers to call any individual to give evidence… When a Select Committee indicates that it wishes to take evidence from any particular names official, including special advisers, the presumption is that Ministers will seek to agree such a request.”

I am sure that the Clerks will be able to advise the hon. Member and his Committee on how best to pursue the matter further.

Bill Presented

Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Lisa Smart, supported by Ben Maguire and Josh Babarinde, presented a Bill to amend the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 to make provision about the interpretation of that Act in relation to domestic abuse.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 246).

Victims and Courts Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I agree with the point that my hon. Friend has made. Given that the threshold of “grossly disproportionate” is an available and established concept in law, why not apply it in these circumstances, so that we can equip the criminal justice system with the standard it needs to ensure that in all bar the most exceptional circumstances, these individuals are brought to court if it is the wish of the victims of crime?

Secondly, Ministers say that clause 3 protects children from predatory parents, but the devil is in the detail. Only abuse of an offender’s own child counts—a point understandably made by the Labour party when it was in opposition. If a man rapes a neighbour’s child, he keeps full rights over his own infant daughter. The BBC this morning highlighted the case of Bethan, who was forced to spend £30,000 in the family court to strip her ex-husband, jailed for the gravest of offences, of parental responsibility. Bethan’s family call the Bill very disappointing, because it would not protect them.

Additionally, offenders jailed for three years and 11 months, which is still a grave sentence, retain their rights. Where is the logic behind four years? Thus far, that is unexplained. Where is the child’s best interest? Conversely, the Bill states that the order

“does not cease to have effect if…the offender is acquitted”

on appeal, so an exonerated parent may still be barred for life unless they marshal funds to return to court. That is neither proportionate nor principled. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s view that that may well be a starting point, but let us get this clause right. This is the opportunity, and it may well be the only one for some time.

I turn to clause 11. The unduly lenient sentence scheme is the last safety valve for victims when a judge gets it badly wrong, and I know how important that is. Just last week, a case that I referred to the Attorney General alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) was heard in the Court of Appeal, and three defendants had their sentences increased. Today, a victim has only 28 days from the date of sentence to request that the Attorney General make a referral. That clock starts even while they are still waiting for the official transcript to land.

Everyone in this House has met families who discovered the scheme after the deadline, who will forever wonder whether justice slipped through their fingers because they Google-searched the rules a week too late or did not reach out to their lawyers or friends in the system who were more knowledgeable. I have been very struck recently when speaking to victims—even victims of some of the most prominent and heinous crimes of modern times, who one might have thought would have been equipped with the very best legal advice and support—who simply did not know that the scheme even existed, let alone that it had such a short time limit attached to it.

Clause 11 gives only the Attorney General, not the victim, an extra 14 days when the paperwork arrives on day 28. Officials get six weeks; the mother of a murdered child still gets only four. Ministers claim that this is levelling the playing field, but it is nothing of the sort. Victims’ groups, from rape and sexual abuse centres to the Centre for Women’s Justice, have pleaded for a straightforward fix: double the victim application window to 56 days, and require the Crown Prosecution Service to notify every complainant in writing of the existence of the scheme and of that deadline on the day of the sentence. Those groups asked for time; on this occasion, the Government have delivered bureaucracy. That is clause 11 in a nutshell—a lifeline for Whitehall and the Attorney General’s staff, but not for the people we are sent to Parliament to defend.

Let me now turn to what the Bill does not try to do. The court backlog is spiralling, and the Ministry of Justice cannot yet provide a date by which it will start to come down. Going before the Justice Select Committee, its permanent secretary could not answer that most basic question for an official charged with leading the service. When is this going to start getting better? Cases are being listed today for as far away as 2029; meanwhile, victims are in limbo with their lives left on hold. Justice delayed is justice denied. Today, 74 courtrooms across the country are sitting empty because the Justice Secretary still has not taken the Lady Chief Justice up on her offer of extra sitting days. There is barely anything in this Bill that will put a dent in the court backlog—nothing that maximises court sitting days. Not one clause addresses listings, disclosure or digital evidence.

For many people, our justice system is opaque and secretive. I am a firm believer that sunlight is the best disinfectant—that greater transparency drives change and enhances confidence—but there is nothing in this Bill that enhances transparency on the court backlog, such as publishing the number of courtrooms that are not sitting each day and why they are not sitting. It falls to start-ups producing websites and apps to provide that information, not the Ministry of Justice itself. Nothing in this Bill increases access to court transcripts, so that victims, the press and the public can see justice dispensed. That issue was recently given further prominence by the public’s shock and anger when they heard or read fragments of the transcripts of grooming gang trials. As technology transforms the ability of the courts to provide reliable transcripts using artificial intelligence, we should provide a better and more transparent service to the public and the media. That is possible, so why not use this Bill to establish basic standards in law for the benefit of every victim across our country?

There is also nothing in the Bill that mandates the publication of data on offenders’ visa status or asylum status, so that we know where offenders are coming from. We need that information in order to design a criminal justice system and, above all, an immigration system that protects the British public. The London Victims’ Commissioner has said that the £1 billion of unpaid court fines is “truly astounding”, and that the failure of the Courts and Tribunals Service to recoup outstanding offenders’ fines must come under greater scrutiny. Again, the Bill is silent on that—it contains no extra powers to recoup that money. At a time when the Ministry of Justice’s budget is unquestionably under strain, why not do everything to recoup unpaid court fines, beginning with those? Victims are suffering as a result.

We welcome legislation in the name of victims, but it must be worthy of that title. Victims have asked for justice that is swift and certain; in many respects, this Bill is slow and tentative. I urge the Government to amend it—to strengthen it—so that it really does put victims first, in practice and not just in prose. Where it does, the Secretary of State and the Government will have our support, for justice and for the victims.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

This Bill builds on the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, passed by the last Parliament, to improve the experience of victims in the criminal justice system, the functions of the Victims’ Commissioner and, more generally, the administration of criminal justice. Like its predecessor, this Bill is published against the backdrop of significant court backlogs, with victims of crime too often waiting years for their cases to come to court, and with criminal legal aid advocates turning away from the profession. This Government have taken steps to tackle those deep-rooted problems, built up over years by the last Government’s failure to invest in the criminal justice system, but until they are resolved, victims will continue to suffer harm for too long.

On 27 March this year, the latest criminal court statistics were published, showing a record high of 74,651 outstanding cases in the Crown court, as at the end of December 2024. Also in March, the Victims’ Commissioner published a report entitled “Justice delayed: The impact of the Crown court backlog on victims, victim services and the criminal justice system”. The report concluded:

“With the increased number of victims held in the system because of the backlog, victim services are under increasing pressure which impairs their ability to provide the accessible, high-quality support that victims need.”

It called for

“The government to explore how victims whose cases are going to trial might be given a single point of contact to improve communication and ensure their Victims’ Code entitlements are delivered… The restoration of an independent Courts’ Inspectorate so that the operation of the Court Service is subject to rigorous independent scrutiny… Providing emergency funding to victim support services to help them cope with increased caseloads arising from the court backlog crisis.”

My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor wrote to the Select Committee in April, in response to concerns that changes proposed in Sir Brian Leveson’s review would not have a direct impact on delays in the Crown court for a considerable time. My right hon. Friend noted:

“The system requires substantial reform, and the department looks forward to receiving the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts’ recommendations on longer-term structural reform options later this spring, followed by recommendations on the efficiency and timeliness of court processes by Autumn.”

It is against that challenging background that we debate the Bill today. I welcome the measures in it, and I know that the ministerial team will use the leverage that it gives them to improve the lot of victims in the criminal justice system, but, as in every other aspect of the work of the Ministry of Justice, they have been set a difficult task by past neglect.

Let me comment briefly on the main provisions in the Bill. First, it deals with attendance at sentencing hearings. It will give Crown court judges an express statutory power to order the attendance of offenders at their sentencing hearings and to sanction those who refuse to comply with such an order, or who attend but then commit contempt by misbehaving or disrupting the proceedings and are removed as a result. They may receive up to two years’ additional imprisonment and/or the imposition of prison sanctions. Those proposals have been welcomed by advocates for victims and organisations working in the violence against women and girls sector. However, there are some concerns about how these provisions will work in practice and about the implications for judges, court staff, prison officers, prison escort officers and prison governors.

Secondly, the Bill deals with restricting parental responsibility. Concerns have been raised that people convicted of serious crimes can retain their parental responsibility unless an application is made to the court to restrict or terminate it. That means, for example, that they can potentially ask for school reports, be consulted on medical issues, and withhold their consent to a child’s going on holiday or being issued with a passport.

In last year’s King’s Speech, the Government committed to legislating to restrict parental responsibility for child sex offenders. The new provisions automatically restrict a person’s parental responsibility when they are sentenced to four or more years in prison for a “serious” child sexual abuse offence against a child for whom they hold parental responsibility. This means that instead of the non-offending parent or carer having to drive the process, the offender’s parental responsibility will be automatically restricted at the point when they are sentenced.

Thirdly, I will discuss victims’ rights. The Bill will: update the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to expand the eligibility criteria to victims of more offences, who will then be covered by the victim contact scheme; create a victims helpline for some victims who are not covered by the scheme; expand the definition of “victim” for the purposes of the scheme; and ensure greater consistency for victims of offenders who are subject to a hospital order.

Fourthly, I will address the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. In their manifesto, the Government committed to increasing the power of the Victims’ Commissioner. The Bill achieves that by allowing the Victims’ Commissioner to exercise their functions in individual cases that raise public policy issues, placing a duty on local authorities and social housing providers to co-operate with the commissioner for the purposes of supporting victims and witnesses of antisocial behaviour, and empowering the commissioner to report independently on the victims’ code.

Fifthly, I will speak to prosecutions. The Bill seeks to increase the flexibility of the director of public prosecutions in appointing Crown prosecutors. It will remove the legislative barrier that is preventing CILEX lawyers, who have specialist qualifications and more limited rights of audience, from becoming Crown prosecutors.

Sixthly, I will discuss the cost of private prosecutions. In June 2020, the Justice Committee launched an inquiry into the fairness of private prosecutions and the need for procedural safeguards, following a request from the Criminal Cases Review Commission that arose from the Horizon scandal. The Committee recommended that the Government should

“urgently review funding arrangements for private prosecutions in order to address the inequality of access”

and

“ensure a fair balance between the prosecutor and the defendant”.

In March 2021 the then Government accepted the Committee’s conclusions and agreed that

“costs recoverable from central funds by a private prosecutor should be limited in the same way that costs so recoverable by an acquitted defendant already are, by being capped at legal aid rates.”

They said that this would require amendments to the existing legislation, and I am pleased that, through clause 10, the Lord Chancellor is able to make regulations to achieve that aim.

Finally, the Bill introduces greater flexibility into the unduly lenient sentence scheme, as requested by, among others, the Victims’ Commissioner for London. There are other technical changes in the Bill, but those are the major proposals and I welcome them all. In aggregate, they both assist victims in their progress through the criminal justice system and reform that system to make it more consistent and user-friendly.

The Bill is not a panacea for the troubles afflicting the criminal courts—that will require more radical root-and-branch reform, and for that we await the findings of the independent review—but it is a step along the road towards a fairer and more humane criminal justice system for victims.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

One of my constituents, a victim of domestic abuse, has written to me about the work Sarah has done, which has resonated across the country. My constituent said that access to transcripts was difficult. She welcomed the pilot from the Ministry of Justice but said that the communication around that for victims was not good enough. Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever work is done, we need to ensure that victims are communicated with so that they know what powers they have to access the information they need?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I remind Members that we refer to colleagues not by their first or second names, but by their constituency.

[Josh Babarinde]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is absolutely right; it is critical not only that victims’ rights are strengthened, but that victims have the knowledge of those rights and entitlements so that they can invoke them, enforce them and, fundamentally, benefit from them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park has been urging the Government to make permanent the pilot scheme that affords victims of rape and other sexual offences a record of their sentencing remarks free of charge. She has campaigned on this issue for years, not just since the populist bandwagon has been in town, like some others in this House.

With the pilot scheme ending imminently, we must not return to a world in which some victims are charged up to a staggering £22,000 just to see a write-up of their case. This is exclusionary justice, delivered at an eye-watering price. As well as campaigning for the pilot to be extended, we would therefore push the Government to expand it to cover a far wider pool of victims and survivors.

On a similar note, as a constituency MP, I encourage the Government to take steps to encourage not just written but audiovisual records of court proceedings to be made available to victims and survivors. A mother came to a recent constituency surgery to share with me that her son, who has special educational needs and is non-verbal, was restrained on home-to-school transport, and legal proceedings were kicked off as a result. The mother did not get to see the video evidence of the incident until the court case, and has had no access to that harrowing and traumatic evidence since. She ought to have the right to it, so I hope the Government will be able to help us on that matter.

A third gap is on national insurance contributions. We need support for victims’ charities, who have said that the hike in contributions in the Budget will take their services and the victims who rely on them to the brink. A fourth gap is on family courts. We need measures to prevent abusers from using parental alienation proceedings to perpetrate their abuse. A fifth gap is on the court backlogs, which leave so many victims in the lurch for years—when can victims expect to see measures to tackle them?

In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats are concerned that these gaps in the Bill risk overshadowing many measures that I know Ministers have been working hard on. We look forward to supporting the Bill and its efforts to ensure that victims are heard, protected and respected. We will challenge the Government to go further and faster to ensure that victims and survivors get the support they deserve and that they do not pay the price for the neglect they were subject to under the previous Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

There are many colleagues hoping to contribute; to enable hon. Members to prepare, I inform the House that after the next speaker there will be a speaking limit of four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to rise in support of the Government’s Victims and Courts Bill, an important and overdue piece of legislation that puts victims where they should always be: at the heart of our criminal justice system.

For too long, victims in towns such as Horwich, Westhoughton and Bolton in my constituency have been treated as bystanders—forgotten once the police investigation ends, let down by poor communication and denied a voice in the system that should be shaped to uphold their rights. I am pleased that the Bill will go some way to fixing those issues.

Indeed, the Bill will give the Victims’ Commissioner tools to better hold the system to account and stand up for victims, and therefore to deliver on this party’s manifesto commitment made at last year’s general election. In particular, I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s remarks on new powers for judges to compel offenders to attend their sentencing hearings. Too many families have watched in disbelief as those convicted of the most appalling crimes refuse to face the consequences of their actions in court. This legislation is about upholding dignity in the courtroom and giving victims the right to see justice done.

Crucially, the Bill will also help to tackle the interminable delays and appalling inequality of access to justice left by the Conservatives, after 14 years in power, for this Labour Government to sort out. It will remove legislative barriers that prevent qualified practitioners from being appointed Crown prosecutors, thereby making our system more efficient, flexible and, crucially, diverse. It will empower the CPS to recruit from a broader talent pool, ensuring that cases are prosecuted more swiftly and reducing unacceptable backlogs, enabling the Government to finally ensure quicker justice for my constituents in the magistrates court and the Crown court at Bolton.

Finally, I welcome the provisions in the Bill to close loopholes in the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which have been remarked on by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). The Bill will ensure that the Attorney General will always have at least 14 days to consider a referral, even if it is made at the end of the 28-day limit. These provisions will guarantee that victims and the public are not denied proper scrutiny of lenient sentences due to late submissions. This Bill is thoughtful, robust and, above all, victim-focused. I look forward to supporting it during its passage through this place.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We now come to the Front-Bench speakers for the winding-up speeches. I call the shadow Minister.

Coroner Services: West Midlands

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

On coroner services in the west midlands, I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon]

I spoke to the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) before the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker; he and I were in a debate in Westminster Hall just this afternoon. Coroner services, whether it be in the west midlands or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, are an issue. I told the hon. Gentleman what my intervention was going to be, by the way, and he okayed it; I was happy to do so.

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that there are only three full-time coroners in Northern Ireland. With the historic legacy of the troubles taking up time and the coroner stepping outside his remit, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, in both his constituency and mine, the need for the coroner must be focused on and that they should be available to those who need them most? Furthermore, does he agree that there is a need to increase the number of coroners in order to allow families to have the facts of the case when they need them, to allow the healing to begin?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ayoub Khan]

I agree, but I am conscious of the time, so I will swiftly wrap up my speech.

This is not a partisan issue. It is not even a religious issue. This is a human issue. It affects people of faith and of no faith. No one deserves to wait weeks or longer to say goodbye to those they love. Let us act not just with policy, but with purpose. Let us fund, reform and rebuild a system that respects every community, honours every tradition and puts compassion first once more.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With my own father’s Islamic funeral taking place very recently in Birmingham, I too am very interested in the Minister’s response.

Arbitration Bill [Lords]

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

A tour de force. I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive history of arbitration in the United Kingdom. It has been a long time since I have considered John Locke, having studied him as part of a history of political thought paper, which feels almost as long ago as the starting point of the Minister’s survey.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the reintroduction of the Bill and its wide support across the House. As the Minister said, the Arbitration Act 1996, which governs arbitration in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, is more than 25 years old. As he also said, the Law Commission estimates that there are at least 5,000 arbitrations annually in England and Wales, worth at least £2.5 billion to the economy in arbitrator and legal fees alone. Arbitration is also important in supporting a whole range of business activities, as has been outlined.

An effective legal and dispute resolution process is one of the underpinnings of a successful democratic and trading nation, and something of which the United Kingdom has historically been proud. The Bill will help to maintain that status, based on recommendations from the Law Commission and, as the Minister has said, particularly that of London as one of the great centres of international arbitration. The Bill implements recommendations made in a 2022-23 Law Commission review of arbitration law to support more efficient dispute resolution. The legal sector has widely supported the targeted reforms in the Bill, with positive feedback from public consultations held by the Law Commission.

Two key issues were raised in Committee in the other place, which we are happy to see resolved. The first was on the subject of corruption risk. The Liberal Democrats pressed the Government to provide more information to ensure that confidential arbitration is not abused to hide corruption from public scrutiny. We thank the Minister for detailing the actions being taken by arbitral institutions to militate against the risk of arbitration being misused and we were satisfied with the reassurance given. The second concerns the right of appeal. The Liberal Democrats were glad to support the two amendments tabled by the Government to correct the drafting of clause 13, following concerns that the original clause provided a more limited access to the Court of Appeal than was established in case law.

In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats are pleased to support the Bill. Given some of the other discussions in this House today, we welcome an uncontroversial contribution to the economic growth that this country needs.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We now come to the wind-ups. I believe the shadow Minister has a few comments he wishes to make.

[Dr Mullan]

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Minister.

Violence against Women and Girls

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will take every opportunity to commend Dawn Dines and the work of Stamp Out Spiking. Both the Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), and I have met Dawn Dines many times. We will, of course, be working with every single agency to ensure that we crack down on this abhorrent crime.

In November, we announced pilots of domestic abuse protection notices and domestic abuse protection orders with Greater Manchester police, in three London boroughs and with the British Transport police; North Wales police and Cleveland police will come on board early this year. Domestic abuse protection orders will impose tough restrictions on abusers and keep victims safe, making it a legal requirement for perpetrators to inform the police of any change of name or address, with the option to impose electronic tagging to keep tabs on offenders. They will also enable assessments for behaviour change programmes to be ordered to prevent the cycle of abuse from being repeated. We need to stop this behaviour.

Fourthly, we must ensure that victims are given the right support, wherever they are in the justice process. We need them to be empowered to come forward in the first place, whether to make a report or just to obtain the help that they need to rebuild their lives. Every woman should know that she is seen, heard and taken seriously—that is the kind of justice system to which we should aspire—but sadly that is not always the case, especially for those who have endured rape or other sexual offences. We are determined to improve women’s confidence in the justice system by ensuring that it focuses on perpetrators rather than pointing the finger of blame at victims. No one who has been burgled has been told, “Maybe you gave the wrong signals, and he thought you wanted to be burgled.” No one who has had their wallet stolen has been asked, “What were you wearing at the time?” For far too long, the way in which survivors of rape and sexual offences have been treated has been unacceptable, and this Government are determined to stamp out those harmful, misogynistic stereotypes. They are a threat to justice, and a threat to women in all aspects of our society.

My colleague the Lord Chancellor has announced the introduction of independent legal advisers who will offer free legal advice to victims of adult rape at any point from report to trial, helping them to understand their rights in relation to, for example, the use of personal information, such as counselling details or medical records, to which access can be gained during an investigation. As will have been said in the House before, such demands have sometimes gone too far, causing unnecessary upset to victims, compounding their trauma and, on occasion, resulting in their dropping out of a case altogether. Requests of that kind should be made only when they are relevant, necessary and proportionate to the case. The advisers will not undermine the right to a fair trial or prevent evidence from coming to light; they will simply help victims to understand and, if necessary, take steps to protect the rights that they already have.

More broadly, the Government will ensure that all victims know their rights and that those rights are upheld, and that they are supported as they go through the justice process, not retraumatised when their day in court finally arrives. The victims code helps victims to understand what they can expect from the criminal justice system, and sets out the minimum level of service that they should receive. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 has the potential to improve awareness of and compliance with the victims code by ensuring that the victims know about their rights under the code, and it sets out a new compliance framework to ensure that agencies will be held accountable for delivering those rights. The Act also places a duty on local commissioners in England to collaborate in the commissioning of support services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and serious violence. We will soon consult on a revised victims code and the duty to collaborate guidance, and we will ensure that the right data and systems are is in place to monitor compliance with the new code. The Government have also pledged to increase the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner so that there is more accountability when victims’ needs are not being met.

Let me emphasise that while women may suffer these horrific crimes more often, I am well aware that many men are affected by domestic abuse and sexual violence. They too deserve every protection and support, and these measures will of course apply equally to them. Let me also take a moment to thank victim support organisations. I am sure the House will agree that they are vital to the justice process: without them, many victims would struggle to see their cases through, which means that many more perpetrators would get away with their crimes.

As I have said, this Government inherited a criminal justice system under immense pressure, and a black hole in the nation’s finances. While we have had to make difficult decisions to deliver the justice that victims deserve, through the courts and across the system as a whole, I am pleased that we have been able to protect dedicated VAWG victims spending in the Department by maintaining the 2024-25 funding levels, which have been ringfenced for sexual violence and domestic abuse support next year. We want to ensure that help is available to survivors of these awful crimes as they seek to rebuild their lives. That includes funding for independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic abuse advisers, and is in addition to the core funding that the Department provides for police and crime commissioners to allocate at their discretion on the basis of their assessment of local need.

As I have also said, the answer to these appalling crimes does not lie with a single Government Department or agency. It demands a united effort across Departments, across the system and across society. We must all commit ourselves to ambitious change, and I know that everyone here today shares that view. I look forward to hearing from Members in all parts of the House, and to a productive debate that will move this important conversation forward as we collectively say, “Enough is enough.” Violence against women and girls can have no place in our society, and every woman and girl deserves to live her life free from violence, abuse and harassment.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister and my Sussex neighbour, Mims Davies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her work. We in this House will go wherever this issue takes us in every community. What is crucial is that victims and, equally, perpetrators know that VAWG will be tackled and that we will act in uniformity where we can.

Rightly, the Minister mentioned that we banned upskirting and ended the so-called rough sex defence. We introduced the offence of non-fatal strangulation and, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, ended the automatic halfway release for serious violent and sexual offenders. From my time at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, I remember that we extended the “positions of trust” focus on sports coaches and faith leaders. The Minister rightly talked about the courts process and the feeling of justice; what would be the point of letting people out halfway through their sentence?

I remind the House that, sadly, the Labour party did not always support us, but now it is in government. Women’s charities have continued to express concerns about the Government’s early release scheme, including Women’s Aid back in October. Following the first wave of releases last month, we have seen our long-standing concerns come to fruition. On behalf of Women’s Aid, I ask Ministers to reiterate the importance of tackling this matter. On the early release of perpetrators, the issue is not necessarily finance but the mental health of their victims.

In this afternoon’s debate we need to think about the women and girls—our constituents—growing up in our communities and families. We will continue to have a thoughtful examination of the facts, find a way forward to tackle this set of horrendous crimes, and give women and girls the confidence to come forward and have it tackled.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Owen]

Yes, and that is why I want to talk about why society needs to move on. We can implement all these measures in the criminal justice system to make sure that the right people get the right support when they need it, but ultimately, we need to see the societal changes that the hon. Member outlines to ensure that we are not here having the same discussion 10 years down the line.

It is so important to address how society views not just women but men. What makes a good man? What makes a good boy, and which men should he aspire to become? I am looking forward to hearing more about the men and boys ambassador, but who are boys aspiring to become at the moment? Unfortunately, it is the men who shout the loudest and have the most money, even if they got their money, power and influence through the sex trafficking of women or by starting new political parties for “bros”.

This is nothing new, sadly. Whether it is the Harrods scandal, Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Epstein, we see the same pattern, time and again, of influence, power and money making them unaccountable to anybody until it is far too late. The answer to that is good role models, and there are plenty of them. There are so many. Being a strong, good man is very different from being the men I have highlighted. I am lucky to work alongside some of them, I am lucky to call some of them my friends, and I am really lucky to have some of them in my family.

It is also about holding up a mirror to the men who use their power, position and money to try to crush women and girls, and who see it as a badge of honour, rather than the badge of shame that it should be. What path leads a man to conclude that it is okay to rape someone? What path leads a man to believe that women are just commodities to buy, sell and traffic to please his needs? What kind of man uses his body to kick, punch and strangle women? How hollow is the shell of a man who gets his kicks from sending intimate videos or photos of a girl to embarrass or degrade her?

Unfortunately, just as we know many good men, we also know bad men. We work alongside them, and they are around every day of our lives, in every part of our lives. We like to paint rapists, perpetrators of sexual assault and predators as monsters or something “other”, but if we think about the statistics of sexual violence and rape that were highlighted earlier, we see that those men walk among us. Young boys need better role models than those promoted on X, Telegram and soon, I fear, Meta.

I want to end by talking about the people who embody the mirror that ensures shame is reflected on those who deserve it: Gisèle Pelicot and every other victim of abuse who steps forward. Gisèle Pelicot was drugged by her husband and raped by 51 men—betrayed by the person who should have loved and cherished her. As with so many cases of violence against women and girls, it was a supposed loved one—a close one. She waived her right to anonymity because she felt the “shame must change sides”. She could not be more right, but are we up to that challenge? Will women and girls stop being blamed and shamed, and will male perpetrators actually be held to account?

We are seeing action, but with technology we are always playing catch-up. The founder of the website that hosted the ads placed by Gisèle Pelicot’s husband to recruit his wife’s rapists has just been arrested in France. I am grateful that this Government are introducing measures to tackle online abuse and violence against women, but we cannot let up. We have to continue.

During my Committee’s most recent inquiry into non-consensual intimate image abuse, we heard that police officers were handing devices containing intimate images back to the perpetrators. That was a ludicrous situation, so I am grateful that the Minister outlined that there will be strengthening of the codes to ensure that no perpetrator of NCIIs will have devices or materials related to the original offence returned to them. We need to continue the fight against violence against women and girls, because it was never won in the first place. Perpetrators are using new technologies to evade justice and to inflict greater harms.

I will end with the words of Gisèle Pelicot after the verdicts against her husband and her rapists were given. She said:

“I now have confidence in our capacity to find a better future where everyone, women and men alike, can live in harmony with respect and mutual understanding.”

My goodness, I wish I shared her confidence, but I do share her hope. Much of that rests on the Government’s aim to halve violence against women and girls, and that the next generation of women have fire in their bellies, and a hunger for change and equality in their hearts.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That was very powerful indeed. I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.

Prison Capacity Strategy

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before we come to the statement on the Government’s 10-year prison capacity strategy, I note that it was published yesterday, the day after Justice questions in the House. This timing was unfortunate, as publishing it a day or two earlier would have given hon. Members an opportunity to put topical questions to Ministers on the new strategy, so I am very pleased that the Minister has come to the House today to make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I hear your comments. With your permission, I will make a statement on the 10-year prison capacity strategy and annual prison capacity statement that the Government published yesterday. As the House will be aware, publishing these documents makes good on a pledge made to this House by the Lord Chancellor in July when she came before the House to set out the emergency measures that we were forced to take to prevent our prisons from filling up entirely.

Let me begin by setting out some context on prison places. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, on 4 December, the National Audit Office published a scathing report, “Increasing the capacity of the prison estate to meet demand”. That report is unequivocal in its criticism of the previous Government’s approach to the criminal justice system, including their failure to deliver on their commitment to build 20,000 additional prison places by the mid-2020s. Only 500 additional cells were added to the overall stock of prison places. While the previous Government continued to promise prison places, there were significant delays to projects—in some cases, they ran years behind schedule—and a failure to address rising demand has left the system thousands of places short of the capacity it requires.

The expected cost of the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service’s prison expansion portfolio to build the 20,000 additional places is currently estimated to be £9.4 billion to £10.1 billion, at least £4.2 billion higher than the estimate in the 2021 spending review carried out by the previous Government. None of this was revealed by Ministers at the time; it only came to light when the Government were elected in July of this year.

It is now clear that even the original mid-2020s commitment was not sufficient to keep pace with the expected demand on prison places, according to the last Government’s own projections. This put the viability of the entire system in jeopardy. Had we run out of prison places, police would not have been able to make arrests and courts could not have held trials. It could have led to a total breakdown of law and order in our country, with all the associated risks to public safety. That is why we were forced to take emergency action, releasing some prisoners earlier than they otherwise would have been—in most cases, by only a few weeks or months. That bought us precious breathing space, but if we do not act, our prisons will fill up again. We must therefore act, including by building more prison places as a matter of urgency.

Integral to our plan for change is ensuring that we have the prison places we need to lock up dangerous criminals and keep the public safe. The 10-year prison capacity strategy sets out how we will deliver that. The strategy is detailed, setting out our commitment to build the 14,000 places that the last Government failed to deliver as part of their 20,000 prison places programme, with the aim of getting that work completed by 2031. It further sets out what we will do: where, when and how we will build new prisons and expand existing ones through additional houseblocks, refurbishments and temporary accommodation.

The strategy is also realistic. As the House knows, prison building is an extraordinarily complex and expensive undertaking. In particular, the planning process to get sites approved for development is complicated and time-consuming. That is why our delivery plans include contingency prison places, which will provide resilience in our building programme should a project become undeliverable or provide poor value for money that cannot be taken forward. We are also ambitious; the strategy sets out how we will work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to streamline the delivery of prison supply, including important reforms to the planning system and delivering on our commitment to recognise prisons as nationally important infrastructure. It is also this Government’s ambition to secure new land, so that we are always ready should further prison builds be required in the future.

We are committed to improving transparency, now and in the future. As such, when parliamentary time allows, we will legislate to make it a statutory requirement for the Government to publish an annual statement on prison capacity like the one we have published. That annual statement will set out prison population projections, the Department’s plan for supply, and the current probation capacity position. It fulfils our transparency commitment for 2024 and, crucially, will hold us and future Governments to account on long-term planning, so that decisions on prison demand and supply are in balance and the public are no longer kept in the dark—as they have been—about the state of our nation’s prisons.

Finally, we are being honest with this House and the public about what must happen next. Building enough prison places is only one part of a much wider solution; as the Government have already made clear, we cannot simply build our way out of these problems. In the coming years, the prison population will continue to increase more quickly than we can build new prisons. That is why in October, we launched the independent sentencing review chaired by the former Lord Chancellor, David Gauke, alongside a panel of experts including the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett. That review will take a bipartisan look at an issue that has been a political football for far too long, punted about by both sides.

The aim of the review is to ensure that we are never again left in a position where we have more prisoners than places available. It will help us to ensure that there is always a prison place for dangerous offenders, that prisons help offenders turn their lives around and bring down reoffending rates, meaning fewer victims, and that the range of punishments for use outside of prison is expanded. The review will make its recommendations in the spring. The Government look forward to responding as quickly as possible so that we can begin to implement any necessary policy changes urgently.

When this Government took office just five months ago, we inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. Instead of dithering and delaying, we have taken the difficult decisions necessary to stop the criminal justice system from grinding to a halt altogether, which could have led to a total collapse of law and order in our country. However, this is not an overnight fix, and the journey ahead of us is long. This 10-year prison capacity strategy and annual statement, along with the independent sentencing review, are critical steps on that journey. The last Government left our prisons in crisis, putting the public at risk of harm. We will fix our prisons for good, keeping the public safe and restoring their confidence in the criminal justice system.

I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I welcome the prison capacity strategy. Given the crumbling condition of much of the prison estate, it is right that the Government are pressing ahead with the delivery of modern prisons. I also welcome the explicit linking of this strategy to the independent sentencing review, and the recognition that, without changes to sentencing policy, prisons could be full again in a year’s time, which would mean extending early release. Does the Minister agree that a long-term reduction in prisoner numbers in a way that best protects the public requires a strategy for rehabilitation to reduce reoffending, and when will the Government share their proposals for achieving that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement, and I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for the point of order that I think helped to bring the Minister to the House with this statement today.

Years of neglect under the previous Conservative Government have left our prisons overcrowded and unequipped to provide the tough rehabilitation required, which has let down victims and survivors in my patch and across the country. In fact, as recently as this week, the Conservative Opposition let down those victims and survivors by voting against the measure to exclude people such as stalkers and murderers from the early release scheme.

The result of the Conservatives’ incompetence is the SDS40 scheme—the standard determinate sentences early release scheme—which has seen thousands of ex-offenders released early to unlock emergency prison places. The Minister knows my concerns about that scheme, particularly in relation to domestic abuse, and I hope she will support my proposals to patch it up. Will she, however, confirm what the criteria will be for reviewing the scheme next year?

Ultimately, Liberal Democrats believe that we need a sustainable solution to tackling this problem, because more prisons mean more offenders, more offenders mean more victims, and more victims mean more failure. With 80% of people in prison being reoffenders, we know that reducing reoffending must be the key. I know that from having spent my career before reaching this place supporting kids out of crime and gangs, so why, in a prison capacity statement of over 1,000 words, was reducing reoffending mentioned just once? Will the Minister reaffirm her commitment to that effort, and can she provide more details on how she will reduce reoffending to protect victims and survivors across this country?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesman for his comments, and he is right to raise the issue of reoffending. It is important to note that we have prison capacity available to protect the public, to lock up high-risk offenders and to ensure we have public safety measures available, but we obviously see tackling reoffending as a serious priority. We are looking at it across Government and pulling every lever available to us. Every Department must come together to tackle it, and part of that is the independent sentencing review. As he knows full well, however, when we have a prison population that is running at boiling hot, we cannot get into our prisons and do rehabilitation work. Yesterday, I was really pleased to visit His Majesty’s Prison Downview and see the vital work being done with the women in that prison, which is really important to achieve rehabilitation on the outside, prevent reoffending and protect the public.

On SDS40, the hon. Member will know that we had to take immediate action within days of coming into office to protect the public, and to ensure we had places in our prisons to lock up high-risk offenders and keep the public safe. Legally, we could only exclude offences, not offenders, and we did introduce a wider set of exclusions than under the last Government’s early release scheme. All offenders released under the scheme are on licence and are subject to recall. We are working to ensure that we never again get into the position of having emergency releases, and that we have prison places available and can work on rehabilitating our prisoners so that they can serve a vital role in society.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Justice Committee member Alex Barros-Curtis.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I was just going to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a qualified solicitor, and I am also a member of the Justice Committee under the excellent chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter).

I thank the Minister for the statement and the commitments she has made. I must admit that my head is still spinning from the extraordinary response from the Tories’ spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), given their absolute failure over the last 14 years to build the prison places that they legislated for, so we will have no more of that hypocrisy.

I welcome the publication of the 10-year prison capacity strategy, which I know the Justice Committee will scrutinise carefully. Concerningly, however, it notes that we could run out of prison spaces by as early as November 2025. Aside from the findings of the independent sentencing review, when they come, what other steps does the Minister anticipate the Department taking to bridge the potential gap in prison places?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Honestly, the display from the Conservative party is staggering given the inheritance we were left with, and there is still no humility whatsoever. We have published a realistic strategy for how we plan to deliver this, with contingency timelines built in, offering real solutions. As I said, this is less of the rhetoric than we got from the Conservative party, and more actual action on delivering these places. You failed to build—[Interruption.] The Conservative party failed to build these places, but we are going to deliver them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Exactly. The Minister knows that “you” would refer to me, and that would not be appropriate.

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

The Conservative Government’s dereliction of duty meant that they failed to deliver 20,000 promised prison places, which exposes the hypocrisy in any Conservative claims to be the party of law and order. I welcome the new Government’s 10-year prison capacity statement. Does the Minister agree that publishing an annual statement on prison places will allow transparency, accountability, and affirm that Labour is the party of law and order?

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Colleagues will realise that we have only a few hours to go. Without absolute speaking limits, if colleagues could keep their contributions to shy of five minutes, I will do my best to get in as many speakers as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. In consideration of colleagues, please keep speeches under five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

A very considerate five minutes—thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Davis]

I am afraid not, as I have only five minutes.

I will pick one of those areas, as it is technical and awkward. Clause 4(2) appears to give doctors the right to initiate the process. But after the “Do not resuscitate” scandal during the covid crisis, I do not want that at any price—I do not want the state initiating this process. That is critical for me. I am really making the point that the decision on Second Reading is about principle, not outcome.

The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) has said that she will work hard to make the Committee work. I am sure she will, and she may succeed. But I say this to the Government. I understand perfectly well that they are trying to maintain a route of strict neutrality, but there is a distinction between neutrality and responsibility. They need to focus on responsibility. This Bill is more important than most of the Bills in their manifesto; I am not trying to be rude. Is the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) here? He got mobbed over breakfast by people talking about this. More people in the Dog and Duck care about this than they do about most other things that we are doing, so it deserves four days on Report in Government time over the course of several weeks.

We do not need a royal commission. The House can do this, but it needs to be given the option. I say to the Government that the path of responsibility is to give us the time to get this right. If we get it right, it will be one of the things that we can be proudest of in the coming years. I reiterate that I want the Bill to succeed. It is more important than most Bills that we handle. It cannot be dealt with in five hours here and a few hours in Committee. I will vote for it today, but I want the Government to help me be able to vote for a good Bill at the end.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I ask Members to please face the Chair, so that we can pick them up on the microphones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I start by commending the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for outlining some of the complications with the legislation as it stands. I also put on record my admiration for my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), who has, in my opinion, been disgracefully singled out in comparison with others for her view of the Bill.

The Bill could be the most consequential piece of legislation that has been considered during my time in this House, and is at the heart of the matter of why I came into politics. Many Members have spoken about coercion and about providing a voice for people who often do not have one. It is that principle which has guided my decision to oppose the Bill. I know there are sincerely held beliefs on both sides of the debate. They can seem completely at odds with each other, but it is my firm view that everyone speaking today shares the same goal: a more compassionate society in which everyone can live and die with dignity. But true compassion should have equality at its heart. It is for this reason that I cannot support the proposals as they stand.

We must recognise the hard truth that health inequalities are wide and persistent. We know that black and minority ethnic disabled people have far worse health outcomes than the national average. I saw that at first hand when caring for my mother, who suffered with sickle cell anaemia. As a teenager, I would be by her side when she was in excruciating pain, explaining to a doctor who would not believe her when she told him that she needed life-saving medication. Sadly, that is still the reality today. I am reminded of the death of Evan Smith on 25 April at North Middlesex university hospital. Evan suffered from sickle cell too. He was in so much pain that he had to ring 999 from his hospital bed, because he was denied oxygen and basic care by the doctors. Put simply, we should be helping people to live comfortable, pain-free lives on their own terms before we think about making it easier for them to die.

Colleagues will be aware of clause 15 of the Bill, which outlines the provision for signing by proxy. I am worried that this could create issues for vulnerable groups who are more prone to coercion by family members. As many Members have said, assessing beyond doubt whether someone has been put under pressure or coerced would be difficult. If this legislation is passed, even the legal experts seem to be in disagreement on this, so I do not believe that there has been enough scrutiny. The risk of coercion will be highest for some of the most disadvantaged people in our communities. As a society, we risk pushing people to seek an early death. I cannot, in good conscience, support this.

My late mother lived with chronic illness all her life, and I knew that one day her pain would be too unbearable for her, but she did not let that limit her. She wanted to live. I do not believe that the Bill would protect the wishes of people in her situation, because freedom in death is possible only if we have had freedom in life. How can we possibly be satisfied that this Bill will deliver equality and freedom in death when we do not yet have it in life?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

If colleagues continue to work with me, I will try to get in as many people as possible.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before the debate begins, I remind the House of the application of the sub judice rule. It is extremely important that we respect the function of the courts. It is also important that we are able to discuss important matters. In civil cases, which are the subject of this debate, the rule applies only when arrangements for a hearing have been made; for appeals, it applies when an application for leave to appeal has been made. I note that the motion refers to matters that do not reach the courts. In such cases, the sub judice rule does not apply. I remind Members that they should not refer to cases if they are aware that arrangements for a hearing have been made, as the sub judice rule does then apply.