5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

   Q I will move on to talk about the expansion of the victim contact scheme. Are there resource implications for the service in extending it, and what are your initial views on how capable you will be of meeting those expanded resource requirements? Chris Jennings: There are some resource implications, but not massive ones that are causing us particular concern at this stage. A lot of the legislation is about bringing work that we already do on to a statutory footing, so we are not adding a huge amount of new work into the system, albeit the helpline is an expanded service that will be new. However, for the victim contact scheme, there is nothing massive, and we have published an impact assessment that sets out our views on that, and the numbers of new staff and resources are not massive. Kim Thornden-Edwards: We already operate with a helpline that addresses some aspects of this. We would be looking to build on and expand the resources into that helpline. We already have resources in place, so it will just be about building out from that. As Chris says, our impact assessment so far does not indicate that a significant uplift in resources will be required, but we will keep that under review.

   Hansard source
2. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

   Q I will start by asking you to talk about the context through which the MOJ looks at what it can learn from international examples. For example, can you confirm that, in other elements of justice policy, you have looked at Texas to learn from what the United States does and have brought that over here? Alex Davies-Jones: Yes, indeed, and we look at other international examples. Of course, we look for best practice.

   Hansard source
3. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

   Q Great. What is your understanding of the US legal framework when it comes to the use of force, including, for example, restraining or gagging defendants in court? Alex Davies-Jones: It is very important to note that the judicial system in the USA is very different from that in England and Wales. It is not easy to operate a distinct comparison. In the US, as far as I am aware, they are able to use extensive force to compel perpetrators to attend hearings, court and so on, but I am not immediately familiar with all the intricacies of it.

   Hansard source
4. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

   Q Would you accept that Mr Jennings and Deputy Chief Constable Telfer, as they described, have expertise in the use of force and the physical management of offenders? Alex Davies-Jones: I would not want to speak for them. You heard their evidence today.

   Hansard source
5. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

   Q I think they said on the record that they consider themselves to have expertise in that area. Would you accept that they both agreed that it would be possible in principle to implement measures such as the restraining or gagging of an offender, even if they did not necessarily comment on the policy area? Alex Davies-Jones: In principle, along with extensive training and resource, I believe is what they said.

   Hansard source
6. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

   Q So can we agree that there is not anything in principle that would stop the Government instigating such a measure as is proposed in our amendment? Alex Davies-Jones: I would have to consult with other stakeholders, such as the Prison Officers’ Association, other potential legislation, and so on. It is not as black and white as that.

   Hansard source
7. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

   Q If you accept in principle that it can be done, and that it is done in other countries, why— Alex Davies-Jones: In the same way that anything can be done, but it is not as simple as that.

   Hansard source
8. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

   Q Fine. Great. Thank you for your agreement that it can be done. Moving on to the ULS scheme, you have mentioned, both in the Chamber and in your questions today, that the Law Commission is considering issues such as criminal appeals. What is your understanding of its consultation proposal of changes to the ULS scheme in relation to victims and others making use of it? Alex Davies-Jones: I am very pleased that the Law Commission has extended its time limit for the consultation in order to take into consideration the views and feedback of victims. The consultation has been extended until the end of June. It is really important that a range of views is taken into consideration. We have heard a range of views in the evidence today about how the ULS works and people’s different experiences with it. It is very important that the Law Commission takes that into consideration. I would like to put it on the record that I have met the Law Commission to discuss this and other parts of the work that the commission is looking at as part of the Ministry of Justice. The feedback has been taken on board that victims’ views should be considered.

   Hansard source
9. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

   Q Okay, but taking you back to the question, what is your understanding of what the Law Commission currently says are its proposals for changes to the ULS? Alex Davies-Jones: It is looking at a broad range of proposals around the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

   Hansard source
10. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Let me help you, Minister. It says that it should not change it. Its current proposals are that there should not be any changes to the ULS scheme from the perspective of victims and criminals. If the Government’s position is that we should not make any changes to it prior to the Law Commission completing its consultation, why have you chosen to make a change to the time you allocate to the Attorney General to make a referral? Alex Davies-Jones: I am happy to answer that question. To reiterate what we have heard throughout the evidence sessions today, there is a wide range of views, particularly on whether and how we could make an amendment to allow victims to appeal. It is important that that wide range of views is taken into consideration. With respect, we only have one Attorney General; therefore, there are not many people for us to consult with. The request has come directly from the Attorney General’s Office to allow it more time to review cases from this side of things. This is a measure that was in the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, which fell before the general election. There were no other measures in that Bill to change the unduly lenient sentence scheme. This Government have chosen to take that measure and put it in this Bill, while being aware that there is a range of views that need to be considered on the unduly lenient sentence scheme as a whole for victims.

    Hansard source
11. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

    Q The overwhelming weight of the evidence that we heard from witnesses today—it was almost universal—was in support of an extension of the scheme, but that was not enough to convince you that we can move ahead with this regardless of what the Law Commission says. Alex Davies-Jones: I agree that the vast majority of witnesses we heard from think that the scheme needs to be amended. There was a huge discrepancy in how they thought that should take place and what the time length should be. There were also a lot of views on the communication around the ULS and other victims’ rights, which need to be considered. That is why I think it should be carefully considered by an independent body such as the Law Commission rather than hastily changed in this Bill. It should all be considered as a whole.

    Hansard source
12. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Finally, you will have heard again the evidence that the witnesses gave in relation to changes to the personal impact statements. I know you are passionate about victims’ issues, and I am sure you will have been as affected as all of us by hearing those stories. Is there any particular reason why you would not support ensuring on a statutory basis that people can say what they want to say on impact statements, with the very minor exclusions that you might have to have in a courtroom in terms of language and so on? That is what our amendment does. Alex Davies-Jones: I am committed to ensuring that victims’ voices and views are heard and represented throughout the justice process. That is why we have introduced the Bill, and why we are committed to putting victims back at the heart of our criminal justice system. I think it is important for the Committee to know that, at present, a victim impact statement is considered a vital piece of evidence in a judicial proceeding or court of law, which is why it has to be quite tight in its formation. As we have heard today, that is why it is important to increase victims’ awareness of what they can put in the statement. I am always open to hearing how we can best convey the views and feelings of victims, and I have tasked my officials with looking at whether there is another way that we can make that possible. We are currently looking at that, but we must be aware of the parameters of a specific victim impact statement and the weight it is given by a judge and potentially a jury, which is why it needs to be quite specific and why we have heard that victims have been told or asked to change it.

    Hansard source
13. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

    Q I just point out that the statement is used post conviction, so it would not influence the jury—it is for the judge. Do you accept that our amendment, which emphasises that it is for the judge to distinguish between remarks that would or would not be rightfully taken into account in sentencing, will address your concerns about the wider use and impact of the statement? Alex Davies-Jones: I think it is important to note that it is considered by a judge or jury in sentencing, and it is still classed as evidence. It needs to be factual and there are also restrictions placed on what victims can say about a perpetrator. For example, they are unable to threaten a perpetrator in the victim impact statement. I agree that victims need more education and support in understanding what they can say, but I do not want to be in any position where I am restricting a victim in how they can put forward the impact that a crime has had on them. Therefore, I am actively looking at what mechanism is best to do that.

    Hansard source
14. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

    Finally, I just point out again that our amendment addresses the issue of making threats, for example. Those are things that you cannot do anyway, in terms of free speech, so our amendment covers that issue also. I encourage the Minister to look at our amendment again more closely, to see whether she can support it.

    Hansard source
15. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Health of the Elderly

    Last health questions, I asked about delays to crucial medications in A&E and the Secretary of State said he was interested to hear more, but his office said he would delegate it to a Minister and we still have not been offered a date, so could I encourage him to look into that, please? The U-turn on winter fuel will help the elderly to stay warm and healthy this winter, but another way to help elderly people would be to protect them from the respiratory syncytial virus. Will the Government extend the vaccination to the over-80s?

    Hansard source
16. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Health of the Elderly

    Many of those on waiting lists are elderly and have chronic conditions; rather than seeing consultants at regular intervals, which may coincide with them being relatively well, they are often kept on open appointments so that they can call when they are ill. This is efficient and responsive care. Is the Minister aware that this provision is being stopped in some areas in order to improve figures? I will quote from a letter about an elderly patient: “I regret cannot keep him on my waiting list under the open appointment” for treatment, and, “I have explained the politics of everything and where we are at.” Being re-referred to a GP each time is expensive and a waste of time. Can the Minister explain why doctors are being asked to make decisions for political reasons, instead of clinical ones?

    Hansard source
17. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During proceedings of the House on 2 June 2025, it became clear that some media organisations had been given access to the strategic defence review document before Parliament. We also became aware that the timing of such early access may have been different for different organisations. I asked a parliamentary question on the matter of who and when, and although the Government did not answer the question, they made clear that trade associations and think-tanks had also been given early access. I asked again, and they refused to answer but made clear that trade unions and “our people” had been given early access. Mr Speaker, Ministers are required to answer questions using the Nolan principles, which include accountability and openness. The principles state: “Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.” The Government have not followed these processes in answering the question, and that is particularly relevant to the Minister for the Armed Forces, because in his declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, he declares membership of the GMB and Unite, and that a family member is working as a constituent for Babcock International, and that—

    Hansard source
18. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Crime and Policing Bill

    I rise to speak in support of new clause 106, which stands in my name, but first I will speak briefly to new clause 1, which we have been discussing so far. The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) spoke about some pretty harrowing cases, and said how the first lady was utterly traumatised by having had her abortion at home, which she received via telemedicine. My new clause seeks to make women safer by ensuring that they are seen and given the opportunity for proper medical consultation before they get to the stage where they are given inappropriate medication because of a misunderstanding, and then end up traumatised, delivering a relatively mature foetus unexpectedly at home. The hon. Lady did not say during her speech whether she believes that a baby should be terminated right up to term, but I want to put on the record that I do not. I work as an NHS consultant paediatrician, and I have cared for and personally held babies in my hands from 21 weeks and six days’ gestation right through to term. I am very aware that babies from, say, 30 weeks upwards have a more than 98% chance of survival, so although I am supportive of women’s right to choose early in pregnancy, I am not supportive of similar rights in relation to healthy babies right up to term. Until the pandemic, women had to attend abortion clinics, where they would see a professional and talk through their desire for an abortion and the reasons for it. At the clinic, it would be checked that the woman was pregnant and how far pregnant she was. The hon. Lady raised cases of women who believed they were so far pregnant, but who turned out to be much further pregnant, which are well known; sometimes it goes the other way. One of the key reasons for this confusion is that women often bleed in early pregnancy, and they may believe that those bleeding episodes represent a period; when a woman thinks that she is 10 weeks pregnant, therefore, she may actually be 14 weeks pregnant. That consideration is important in the context of accessing an abortion because at-home abortions via telemedicine are allowed only up until 10 weeks. The reason for that is not to be difficult or awkward, or to make it more difficult for women to access abortions; instead, it is a safety issue, because we know that complications are greater later in pregnancy. What happens in the early stages is that the procedure essentially causes the foetus to be born. If that happens to a baby much later in pregnancy, the procedure will cause it to be born when it has a chance of survival, which can lead to a traumatic experience for the mother as they deliver a much larger foetus than expected. It can lead to bleeding and, in one case I am aware of, has led to the death of a mother who was given pills to take at home when she was much further along in her pregnant than she had expected.

    Hansard source
19. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Crime and Policing Bill

    I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I think we need to consider both. I remember a case involving a lady, Carla Foster, in June 2023. From my reading of the case, she admitted to lying about where she was in her gestation, saying that she was further back in pregnancy, at seven weeks, when she was actually much further along; she turned out to be around 33 weeks pregnant when her baby—her little girl, whom she called Lily—was born. In the papers I have read about the case, she described being traumatised by the face of that baby, which could have been prevented if she had been to a proper clinic and seen a health professional, as that health professional would have clearly seen that she was not seven weeks pregnant, and that taking abortion pills intended for early pregnancy was not a suitable or safe medical intervention. If one has a termination later in pregnancy, it is done by foeticide. Essentially, an injection of potassium chloride is administered to kill the baby, and then the baby is born in the usual way, but deceased. That is why it is important to know what the gestation is—because the termination offered under the law is done by a different route, to make sure that it is done safely. We know that the later in pregnancy a termination happens, the more a woman is at risk of medical complications.

    Hansard source
20. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Crime and Policing Bill

    Every jurisdiction has a democratic right to do as it chooses and I respect that, but it is a tragedy when we hear of cases where late-term abortions have not been supported by medical care or the law, and women and infants have suffered significant harm as a result. I want to raise the case of Stuart Worby. Some people say that this issue is about protecting vulnerable women, but in this case, which was prosecuted in December 2024, a man who did not want his partner to be pregnant, when she did want to be pregnant, decided to take matters into his own hands. He asked a woman who was not pregnant to get the pills for him. He put them in a drink and gave them to his partner, inducing a miscarriage. He has rightly been put in jail for that, but the case demonstrates that there are men out there who will obtain tablets with the help of a woman. That could not have happened if women had to have an in-person appointment, because the woman arriving at the clinic to get the abortion pills on the man’s behalf would be clearly seen not to be pregnant, so would not be able to obtain the medication. My amendment seeks to protect women—women who are wrong about their gestation or who are mistaken in thinking they have had a bleed or whatever—to make sure that they have a safe termination using the right mechanisms.

    Hansard source
21. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Crime and Policing Bill

    I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I shall come to coercion a little later. First, let me go back to new clause 1, which decriminalises the woman having an abortion in relation to her own pregnancy. It seems to me that what many wish to do is decriminalise abortion up until term. That is a legitimate position that some people take.

    Hansard source
22. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Crime and Policing Bill

    I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Currently, it is illegal for a woman to procure her own abortion between 24 weeks and term if the baby is healthy. If there is a problem, she has to have it done by doctors in hospital. Under the proposed new rules, we will have is a situation where a woman can legally have an abortion up until term if she wants to do so— [Interruption.] Yes, at any gestation. That is a completely legitimate argument. It is not one that I support or agree with, but it is a legitimate argument that people can make. If that is the case, they should have the courage of their convictions and make it.

    Hansard source
23. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Crime and Policing Bill

    The hon. Lady is right to say that we have seen an increase in incidences of people taking abortion pills late. Previously it was very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the pills—it was certainly impossible to obtain them through NHS clinics—but now it is possible, because people can use a telemedicine clinic. They say that they are seven weeks pregnant and ask for pills, and we have seen examples where people have asked for the pills much further on in their pregnancy—into the 30 weeks—obtained the medicine and made themselves very unwell in doing so. Turning to coercion, when a doctor sees a patient, they take at face value everything the patient tells them. When a lady uses telemedicine to have an abortion, it is not possible for a doctor or clinician to know whether somebody else is in the room with them, or sat the other side of the camera forcing them to say what they are saying. It is not possible for the doctor to know whether the lady is pregnant or not or whether the person asking for the medicine will be the person who takes it. That is very unsafe.

    Hansard source
24. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    Crime and Policing Bill

    The hon. Lady is correct that if a woman got the tablets at a clinic, she could give them to somebody else, but in order to get them in the first place she would need to be 10 weeks pregnant, and the clinician would check that she was pregnant. When the medication appears not to have worked, questions would perhaps be asked about where the tablets had gone, so I think there is an inherent safety feature there. The hon. Lady brings up the issue of bus routes. That is important, but the question is whether we should improve the bus routes or make medical services less safe. Most clinical services are accessed by individuals attending hospitals or clinics, and in some respects this instance is no different, because it is important that proper medical checks are done. I am not trying to limit people’s access to what is clinically legally available. I am trying to make sure that people are safe when they do so. I want to turn to women who have been trafficked or are being forced into sex work. We talked yesterday in the House about young girls who had been groomed and raped in the grooming gangs scandal. Would we put it past those evil, nasty men to have got drugs and given them to these young girls to hide the evidence of their crimes? I would not. What about those who want to preserve the honour of their family by preventing their daughter from being pregnant? What about those who think that the baby being carried by their partner is of the wrong gender—they would like a boy but are having a girl? What about those who are trying to cover up sexual abuse, particularly of teenagers and young girls, by causing a termination to hide the evidence of their crimes? What if a partner does not want a baby? Stuart Worby got caught, was prosecuted and is rightly in jail, but how many others have done that and not got caught? We simply will never know. No one knows who is taking these medications. If we have proper clinics, gestation can be checked, a clinician can ascertain more effectively if a woman is being coerced, and they can make the abortion medically as safe as possible. My amendment is not pro-life or pro-choice. It is pro-safety.

    Hansard source
25. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Crime and Policing Bill

    I rise to support amendment 19, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). I hope that the Minister listened to the compelling case that my hon. Friend made, and to the compelling case made by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) on the issue of spiking more generally. I want to put on record my support for my constituents, Colin and Mandy Mackie, and their organisation, Spike Aware UK. I do not think any of us can fully comprehend their experience: the police knocked on their door to tell them that their 18-year-old son had died at college from a drug overdose, but they subsequently found out that his non-alcoholic drink had been spiked by five ecstasy tablets. As other Members have said, there was no support or help for the family in that situation. The police assumed that he had died of a drug overdose although they did not know that, and they subsequently apologised to the Mackies for their treatment of them. What I particularly admire about Colin and Mandy is how they have focused their efforts on ensuring that their experience is not shared by anyone else. That is why I very much welcome the inclusion of spiking in the Bill, which is a continuation from the Criminal Justice Bill introduced in the previous Parliament. The point to be made is about certainty, and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East brings certainty to the situation. I have been in this House with previous Ministers who have been told by officials that spiking was already covered by legislation, and therefore there was no need for specific mention of spiking.

    Hansard source
26. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Crime and Policing Bill

    Given the strictures on time, I had better not. Previous Ministers said that there was no need for specific legislation on spiking, because it was already covered. Campaigning, including by your colleague, Madam Deputy Speaker, the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), and by my former colleague, Richard Graham, demonstrated that there was a need for a specific measure, and that if we are going to have a specific measure, it needs to bring certainty. Part of that certainty is for the benefit of the police and others. The police should know that that reckless behaviour is also a crime, and there should not be any dubiety when they arrive at a venue to find someone in a partially conscious state or unable to articulate what has happened to them. It will also allow campaigning to be clear that whatever the circumstances, a drink is spiked or a person is injected, and that is a crime. Amendment 19—or perhaps another amendment that the Government might bring forward in the other place—would bring clarity, which is important. That is what we need to bring about. As the hon. Member for Hitchin said, that can lead to the greater training of the police and NHS workers to be able to support people in a spiking situation. I hope the Minister will reflect on everything that has been said today. The final point I will make relates particularly to Scotland. We need to have a common approach across the UK; it should not matter whether somebody is spiked in Glasgow, Manchester or Cardiff. That is not to disrespect the devolution settlement and the different approaches of the criminal justice system. The effect and the impact should be the same wherever people are, and the criminality should most certainly be the same, whether the behaviour is intentional or reckless.

    Hansard source
27. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Danny Kruger

    Disabled People in Poverty

    I shall be as quick as I can. I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions. I fully recognise and share all the concerns that people have raised on behalf of constituents facing the cuts that are coming down the line. Nevertheless, the Government are right in their overall objective of trying to tackle the challenges in our welfare system, which traps too many people in economic inactivity and presents an unsustainable cost to taxpayers. We have seen an onflow to both PIP and the UC health element, which doubled in the last Parliament. The PIP budget alone will rise by 50% in this Parliament, to £35 billion. Those figures are not affordable over the long term. Nevertheless, the Government’s plans are crude and cruel. The Government are effectively proposing to scrap the standard rate of PIP altogether. Some 87% of people on the standard rate of PIP will fail the four-point test, so we are effectively doing away with that benefit altogether. Mention has been made of the 14 years of the last Government. The fact is that this Government had 14 years to prepare for government, and—in response to a fiscal crisis that they created—they are having to rush through these crude and cruel benefit plans.

    Hansard source
28. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Danny Kruger

    Disabled People in Poverty

    There were significant issues presented by the benefit reforms that the last Government introduced—again, in response to the fiscal crisis that they inherited. Many of those reforms were very positive in terms of getting people into work. However, I recognise that the axe fell disproportionately on certain members of the community, and I recognise many of the challenges faced by our constituents over the years. Nevertheless, I insist that the benefit changes introduced some important reforms to help people get into work, as well as significant increases in support for disabled people. Carer’s allowance and disability living allowance increased significantly, and the WorkWell programme introduced at the end of the last Government helped disabled people into work. Some genuinely positive measures were introduced.

    Hansard source
29. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Danny Kruger

    Disabled People in Poverty

    Let me come on to where I think the Government could be doing a better job. To conclude my concern with the current plans, we will not see significant savings, as hon. Members have said, because the costs will be shunted elsewhere in the system. We should be very concerned about what will happen to local authority budgets and the NHS. The cause is the Government’s failure to introduce the substantial reforms needed to the way our benefit system, and in fact our wider economy, works. The solution needs to be a much better assessment system. I am glad that the Government are proposing to review the assessment process for PIP and UC; I think they should be doing that before they introduce these significant cuts to benefits. We need assessments that recognise the fluctuating nature of many of the conditions that people experience. That is particularly the case with mental health, but there are also increasing numbers of young people who come forward with claims and the assessments do not take account of their conditions. We need a more human system, which is why it is important to introduce more face-to-face assessments. Most importantly, we need more support for people who are far from the labour market. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Clwyd North (Gill German); we need a process led by civil society. That was a key part of the reforms introduced under the last Government, but I do not think they went nearly far enough. A whole system of universal support, alongside universal credit, is the way to support people who are far away from the labour market. It is about not just the benefit levels, but the support that is given. We need to listen to disabled people, and I am grateful for the input that I have had from disabled people’s groups as we look forward to the coming changes. We also need to listen to employers and put them in the driving seat with the reforms. We have a real problem in this country: in the UK, only 12% of employers offer phased return to work support, whereas in Germany that figure is 34%. We could do so much better at helping employers to provide support for people who are trying to get back into work. I will conclude by stressing that Access to Work needs to be improved. We doubled spending on that in the last Parliament, but more needs to be done. Finally, and most of all, we need a growing economy. With unemployment up, inflation up, debt up and taxes up, we have a disjointed approach. Unless we get properly well-paid jobs, we will always struggle with the welfare bill.

    Hansard source
30. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Danny Kruger

    NHS: Wasteful Spending

    A good way to save money in the NHS is to invest in palliative and end-of-life care, because it averts costs that would otherwise go into the acute sector, including into ambulances. However, this Government are taking money from that sector through their national insurance rises. Given that integrated care boards are supposed to commission palliative care, will the Secretary of State commit in the 10-year health plan to a proper revenue funding model for hospices, and for a minimum service specification for palliative care?

    Hansard source
31. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Topical Questions

    It is nearly four years since Professor Sir Chris Whitty published his striking report on health in coastal communities. Covid inevitably delayed implementation, so will the Secretary of State look again at that report, deliver on the chief medical officer’s recommendations and ensure that my constituents in Bridlington and The Wolds can access the health services that they need?

    Hansard source
32. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Crime and Policing Bill

    Order. Before I call the next speaker, I inform the House that I plan to call the Minister at 3.50 pm, which would give the remaining Members bobbing about five minutes each.

    Hansard source
33. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Crime and Policing Bill

    Order. I remind the hon. Member that she should not have referred to the Minister by name.

    Hansard source
34. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Crime and Policing Bill

    Order. I am imposing an immediate four-minute time limit. Members will see that many colleagues wish to get in this evening.

    Hansard source
35. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting)

    Q Do you support the publication of sentencing remarks in the interest of transparency, supporting victims and their families, and wider public confidence in seeing justice delivered? Baroness Newlove: I certainly do. The media give out information, and I have learned more about my sentencing remarks because I never got them until very long afterwards. Every victim, not just those of sexual crimes, has a right to see those sentencing remarks, because it gives them time to digest. You leave the courtroom thinking that you know everything, but as your memory and emotions come, you start asking yourself questions. Sentencing is very technical: you hear a sentence, then it is reduced if they have been on remand—there are boxed-off things. Also, as I found out, there are tariff reviews for juveniles, which even the probation service was not aware of because there are very few of them. If you look at the crime rate, you will see that we are getting younger offenders in prison. We have to prepare families for the tariff review, which means that offenders go to appeal to reduce their tariff, so you go through that. It should not simply be a case of saying, “There are the sentencing remarks.” There are implications, and every victim has a right to see the sentencing remarks. It is about them, and it affects the decisions about what the offender will do, and it should be the victim’s right to have that information. They do not have any advocates to speak for them, and the prosecution pursue their own case. If the media can get things out there, why can we not give it to victims and families? Katie Kempen: From our perspective, accessing sentencing remarks is an issue for victims. They would like to be able to access them. We welcomed the pilot and its continued roll-out. I have a nuanced response because victims’ needs differ. If there is to be wider publication, we need to see whether any protection is needed for individual victims, rather than carte blanche, “Yes, publish them all.” A key issue is explaining the sentencing remarks to victims. Again, in our “Suffering for Justice” report, where victims did not have the sentencing remarks explained to them, it caused them real anguish and distress. They should be able to have the sentencing remarks explained to them, and where they do, it helps their recovery journey and brings closure. My answer is yes, with some nuance. We need the explanation, and we need to treat the victims like a human being who has gone through a traumatic experience. Dame Nicole Jacobs: I agree.

    Hansard source
36. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting)

    Q I just want to pick up the point on the Opposition amendment about the power to restrain and gag a disruptive offender. I am particularly mindful that we are talking about a sentencing hearing, at which point someone will have been found guilty and convicted. I think the general sentiment from victims and the public is that at that point the rights of the victim and their family come first, and that should be front and foremost in the projection of what goes on in the court, in order to see justice delivered. I am mindful that in other jurisdictions, including the US, there are powers to restrain and gag a disruptive offender. Do you have any further thoughts on that? Genna Telfer: I am not sure I can add any more to what I have already said. I have said that if the victim wants the offender in court, I agree with the principle of it. In terms of gagging people and dragging them into court, which is effectively what we are talking about, it just becomes really challenging. I am not saying that you would not necessarily do it; I just think there is a whole load of stuff that needs to be worked through to consider it.

    Hansard source
37. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Do you have a view on whether parental responsibility restrictions should be extended beyond those convicted of sexual offences to include those convicted of violent offences? Mark Brooks: The issue is where you would draw the line. It depends on the violent offences, and against whom they are committed. I mentioned the wider work I have been doing on men’s health and the criminal justice system. You do not want a situation where men who have gone to prison and are going through a rehabilitation process for violent crimes, but not against their children, are not able to rebuild their relationship with their children. We have found that a lot of men in prison want to be present dads, even when they are in prison, which means they want to re-engage with their children when they come out of prison.

    Hansard source
38. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

    Q As a quick follow-up, what if it was a violent offence against a partner with whom they share a child? Mark Brooks: I think that should be considered if it is against their partner and they share a child. Certainly that should be up for consideration, but no wider than that. Again, we have to make sure that men or women coming out of prison, who have been convicted of these offences, have the opportunity to be rehabilitated. One of the big concerns is that people go into prison for crimes such as domestic abuse and do not receive the support they should so that they can have a safe relationship with others when they come out, if that can happen. We need more work on perpetrators, and that is certainly a point worth considering.

    Hansard source
39. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Minister, do you agree that violent offences can be as serious as sexual ones? Alex Davies-Jones: Yes.

    Hansard source
40. 17 Jun 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

    Q I have a constituent whom I met a few months ago. Forgive me—you may have heard me mention this on the Floor of the House a couple of months ago. My constituent is probably in a unique situation. She is a serving detective. Her ex-partner, who was a detective, is serving a sentence in excess of 10 years for having raped her, and he continues to enjoy indirect parental access rights. My constituent is excessively concerned that the continuation of access rights in an indirect form—usually in the form of a letter that often conveys coercive messaging and veiled threats to her—is hindering not just her welfare, but that of their children. In addition, under the current arrangement, as she and I understand it, if she were to take a large life decision, she would still have to consult her ex-partner, because of the continued parental access rights and responsibility that he enjoys while serving his prison sentence. Do you agree that, if someone commits a violent offence against a partner with whom they share a child, their parental access responsibility should be restricted? Alex Davies-Jones: You have outlined some of the issues that we have come up against in trying to make this measure workable, and that is why we have chosen to keep it quite specific in the Bill. I am not aware of the details of your constituent’s case, which sounds horrific; my thoughts are with her and the family. From what you have outlined, although the perpetrator has committed a heinous act against the mother, we are unaware of any acts committed against the children. It is about where you draw the line. How many perpetrators do you bring in scope of the measure? The route is available to your constituent to remove parental responsibility via the family courts. That route is available to her now, and I would always suggest that someone takes that route if they feel that it is the most appropriate course of action. In the Bill, we are talking about parental responsibility being removed on a criminal conviction in court for an offence against the child, to keep the children safe. How broad do we make this measure, especially when it is untested and novel? We need to keep it quite specific, because we do not know what impact it will have on the family court system, how many perpetrators will appeal or the impact that that will have. The measure is therefore quite specific, and we feel that that is the appropriate course of action for now.

    Hansard source