Lasting Power of Attorney

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Fabian Hamilton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is what the campaign has been arguing for since it began. The publicity given to the cases that I raised on the Floor of the House last November, when I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill, led to a large number of people bringing forward cases from up and down the country, often through their local MPs, asking to be added to the list of abuses. In total, the number of abuses may not amount to more than a fraction of a percentage of the total number of LPAs granted; nevertheless, my hon. Friend mentioned 6 million people, and I believe it is more like 8 million, and a small percentage of 8 million is still an enormous number of people.

The issues go much further. Whistleblowers at the OPG have told me that no potential attorney is ever vetted, and that it is extremely easy to walk away with a signed document stating that someone is the attorney. Let me repeat that: no attorney is ever vetted. That is rather worrying. There is evidence of abusers producing fake religious documents to help them to claim they are married to people who are decades older than they are and who clearly lack capacity. Technically, that is still not against the law so, despite it being utterly immoral, there is very little that the OPG can do about it.

As I have said, hundreds of cases of potential abuse have been raised with me since I introduced the Powers of Attorney Bill to Parliament last November. I will highlight some more of them now, in addition to the cases I raised last year. Azhar Hayat lost his life savings as a donor through the granting of a lasting power of attorney. An alleged investment of £126,000 was transferred to his attorney, with most of the funds going directly into a company of which the attorney was the sole director. Mr Hayat’s funds were then converted into shares in the attorney’s name, and he subsequently lost everything in one fell swoop. In the same year, the attorney closed the company, leaving with all the funds. That has left Mr Hayat having to seek an order for the sale of his own home in order to survive financially.

The OPG took over four months to terminate the LPA, and by then, as ever, it was too late. It was only after an intervention from his Member of Parliament that Mr Hayat was able to seek to recover funds via insolvency. I am afraid that route failed, so he did not recover any of those funds.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Minehead has a very large elderly and deprived population. Could we, as Members of Parliament, help the hon. Gentleman in his best endeavours by encouraging our constituents, particularly if we live in or represent constituencies with large elderly populations, to come forward and talk to us as their MPs, so that we can pass on their representations to him, because he is doing an excellent job?

Sentencing Bill

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

Today I speak in favour of the eight amendments tabled by Reform UK. Simply put, the Bill is motivated by the desire to free up prison spaces, and not by what is the best way to administer justice. Its primary function is not the protection of the public, or the protection of victims of crime or abuse—in fact, it is the opposite.

Clause 1 is about the presumption of suspension of a custodial sentence of 12 months or less. We proposed an amendment to remove clause 1, which effectively discourages the magistrates court from imposing a custodial sentence. There are circumstances when a custodial sentence of 12 months or less is entirely appropriate, and the clause is tying the hands of magistrates, who will be under pressure from the clerks not to impose a prison sentence. What does that mean for those found in possession of a bladed article, namely a knife—an offence that currently attracts a mandatory six-month prison sentence?

With this presumption of suspension clause, is the Minister now suggesting that offenders who are found guilty of carrying a knife will now have their sentence automatically suspended? If so, what does this mean for knife crime on our streets and the protection of the public? Community sentence options are often limited due to defendants claiming anxiety and depression, meaning that unpaid work is not an option and that tagging may be limited. In addition, fines are often meaningless because so many defendants are claiming universal credit.

Let me turn to clauses 18 and 19. We have tabled new clause 24, which would abolish the Sentencing Council all together. The Sentencing Council was introduced to give statutory guidance to the judiciary to avoid inconsistencies in sentencing decisions. However, we believe that its work has become prescriptive and politicised, as shown by clause 19. We live in an era of two-tier justice. Let us not forget that in March, the Sentencing Council proposed treating ethnic minority offenders more leniently than white offenders. The Justice Secretary had to step in and overrule the Sentencing Council in order to stop this madness. For these reasons, the Sentencing Council should be abolished and sentencing powers should lie solely at the discretion of judges.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I sit on the Public Accounts Committee. Earlier this year, we investigated the state of our prison system and all the sorts of things that one should describe as restorative justice. The facts are that our prisons are overflowing, they are not making anybody any better or turning people around, and they do not provide restorative justice. As I know to my own cost, it costs four times more to keep a prisoner in prison for a year than it does to send a boy to Eton.

[Sarah Pochin]

I thank the hon. Lady for the Eton example. I am sure that will resonate very well with my constituents in Runcorn.

Theft of Tools of Trade

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Amanda Martin]

Absolutely. My dad was a policeman, so I will always want to thank the hard-working police. We have been working with the NFU on some of the areas that my hon. Friend mentions.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that the scourge of rural crime, especially the theft of essential agricultural tools and equipment, demands a two-pronged approach, with more bobbies on the beat who are known in their local area, as well as significantly harsher sentencing? Theft in our rural areas seriously affects people’s ability to earn a living.

[Amanda Martin]

I completely agree. Under 14 years of Conservative rule, the cuts to policing and criminal justice were shocking. We have to ensure that we put more police on the streets and work to enact the Bill.

Between 2010 and 2024, charges for theft and burglary plummeted. In 2015, police in England and Wales solved about 9.4% of all theft. In under eight years, that figure had dropped to 4.6%. For burglary, the figures are even worse: only about 3.5% of domestic burglaries have resulted in a charge being recorded in the past year. In practice, that means that for the vast majority of these crimes, nobody is held to account.

We are living with the consequences of 14 years of cuts to policing and to our criminal justice system. Since 2010, police numbers have been slashed, police community support officers have been gutted and community policing has been dismantled. As a result, court backlogs have ballooned. Theft, from tool crime to shoplifting, is now often met with a shrug. In fact, some retail chief executives and tradespeople report that shoplifters and thieves now openly brag that no one will even bother turning up. Why would our trades- people feel any differently?

As many hon. Members will know, I have been campaigning on the issue for more than six months. I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, the Theft of Tools of Trade (Sentencing) Bill. We are still running petitions, and we have had conversations with Ministers and many meetings and conversations with victims and with people across the sector.

Independent Sentencing Review

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I pay tribute to the organisations in my hon. Friend’s constituency; such voluntary organisations play a hugely important role in helping the justice system to succeed in rehabilitating offenders. We will continue to work closely and build on the review’s recommendations in this area.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Having sat on the Public Accounts Committee inquiry into prison overcrowding, I know full well the issue at hand and who to blame. Can the Lord Chancellor assure me and my constituents that they will not be placed in more danger by the Government not jailing criminals? When those individuals are in the community, the local community must have a voice in the effectiveness and planning of these new sentences, lest we end up with community concerns similar to those about bail hostels in Tiverton and Minehead.

[Shabana Mahmood]

What puts the whole country at risk, including current, future and potential victims of crime, is letting our prison system collapse, and I will never let that happen. The measures we are taking forward from the review today are designed to make sure that this country never runs out of prison places ever again. I will ensure that there is ample time for debate and discussion across this House as we bring our legislation forward.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Rachel Gilmour Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing the debate. I have listened with interest to all hon. Members, and it is a welcome exception that we are speaking in the House with unity and with one voice, from a shared sense of the value of free speech, to stop the bullies who use SLAPPs to intimidate people so horrifically.

I too have a story. It is about a lady called Carrie Jones, who received a legal letter from a “wealth creator”, Samuel Leeds, after she raised concerns about Leeds’s interactions with her brother, who had died of suicide after spending thousands on Mr Leeds’s controversial courses. Carrie lost her brother Danny, who was an Army reservist, to suicide in 2019. Before his death, he had attended a course run by Samuel Leeds, who still offers controversial courses on achieving financial freedom through property investment. Danny, who was vulnerable and in debt even before joining Mr Leeds’s course, attempted to secure a refund from Mr Leeds before he took his life.

Carrie attempted to contact Mr Leeds after her brother’s death to understand the effect that the course had had on him, but she never received a satisfactory response, so she spoke to some journalists and others who had handled Leeds’s courses—which sister would not? She wanted answers for her family, but she also felt that there was a serious public interest concern about Mr Leeds’s business, not least because his courses did not appear to be regulated by any professional or governmental body. A trading standards authority had ignored her attempts to raise concerns about wealth creators such as Mr Leeds.

Shortly after Carrie spoke to her Member of Parliament about Mr Leeds’s courses, she received a legal letter from Ellisons, a firm of solicitors representing Leeds in numerous legal disputes with his critics. That legal letter suggested that she had been participating in a campaign of harassment against Mr Leeds. It did not immediately threaten her with a lawsuit, but it warned that legal action could follow if she suggested that Mr Leeds and his course had had any influence on her brother’s suicide. Carrie responded firmly that she would not retract her criticism and would continue to raise awareness until her questions were answered. What a very brave woman! A YouTube channel on which she had featured asking questions about Mr Leeds’s involvement with her brother was subject to legal threats and closed down.

It will not surprise the House to hear that this is not the only instance of Mr Samuel Leeds sending threats. The Guardian has found some 15 individuals subject to legal threats from Mr Leeds, while The Economist has reported on the despair of attendees, who felt the course was a scam.

Another man, who asked to remain anonymous, attended a course run by Samuel Leeds and was dissatisfied. He later posted on the Facebook page of Mr Nick Fletcher —a former Member of Parliament—asking whether there were any safeguarding measures to protect vulnerable people from wealth creation schemes, which was not an unreasonable request. He wrote that he lives with disabilities and had seen people trying to manipulate the vulnerable into paying for these courses. That is all he said; he did not mention Samual Leeds.

Despite not naming Mr Leeds, the man received a letter from Ellisons Solicitors, on Mr Leeds’s behalf, citing the Facebook comment and warning:

“Any mention of our clients may be perceived as harassment and/or defamation.”

A spokesperson for Mr Leeds has commented:

“Danny Butcher's death in 2019 was a tragedy. Your account of the relevant events is one-sided and misses important context, which we have no confidence you will fairly represent”—

to fellow MPs. He continued:

“Our business and founder were subjected to a campaign of abuse and sustained attacks, including unwarranted defamatory and even obscene and deeply personal publications.”

What a sensitive soul. Along with Members of all parties, I, as a Liberal Democrat, resoundingly request that the Government build SLAPPs into any legislation that is coming forward, because it is desperately needed for this country, our citizens and our legal system.