Oral Answers to Questions
What steps he is taking to increase the number of magistrates.
The Secretary of State was asked—
Magistrates play a vital role in delivering local justice, and we value their contribution as volunteers. Up to 2029, we are increasing the number of magistrates to 21,000, which is a 50% rise. We have quadrupled investment in magistrate recruitment with a new national campaign, which I hope hon. Members have seen—it launched in the autumn—and we will have more frequent regional campaigns going forward.
Although I support the Government’s reform of the justice system to tackle the courts backlog, it is clear that more cases will be going to the magistrates court. Estimates suggest that will require the recruitment of an additional 6,000 to 7,000 magistrates by 2029, but previous attempts to increase their numbers have been unsuccessful. Will the Secretary of State please tell me what the Government are doing differently this time around? What practical steps is his Department taking to recruit and retain magistrates? Finally, what contingency plans are in place if the recruitment target is not met?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is true that our target is ambitious, but it is achievable. We are recruiting the same number of magistrates into the system as was the case back in 2014, so we have done it before and we can get there. What has changed this time is that there is a national taskforce to fast track the process and halve recruitment times, and we are working with the judiciary to ensure that magistrates feel more appreciated. It is also important to say that I will provide an update on the numbers, which will be published on 9 July, and while I do not want to pre empt that publication, it is good news that we are already seeing progress.
Magistrates are a humongous volunteer force, which the Magistrates’ Association says are close to breaking point. With the Government aiming to increase the number of magistrates to almost 21,000, what will the Secretary of State do to attract more young people and working age people in full time roles to that challenging volunteer role, for which they might have to give up some of their paid employment?
The hon. Member makes a good point. The reform of expenses in this area is important. We are seeing more self employed people come forward for the magistracy, and we are seeing good numbers in relation to ethnic minorities and diversity right across the country. It is important that younger people feel able to volunteer in this way.
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
I wish the Lord Chancellor luck with the recruitment campaign—I wish him luck generally—but even if he is successful, those magistrates will be newly recruited, and he is also asking magistrates to try much longer and more complex cases by increasing their sentencing powers. Those two things do not really square up. Is his solution to recruit a lot more district judges and therefore have a lot more judge only courts in the magistrates court as well as the Crown court?
My hon. Friend’s point is apposite and on the money. Alongside this recruitment, we are appointing more judges to the magistrates court. We are recruiting up to 30 new district judges to start sitting in the second half of 2027 in addition to the latest round of recruitment, which should result in more than 100 new judges sitting from December 2026 onwards.
Yesterday I joined members of the Justice Committee, including the Chair, on a trip to Nottingham as part of our review into youth justice. I want to press the Secretary of State a little further on the age of magistrates, because we were told that there is a real concern about recruiting people who have only a few years of work to go, as that is not a sustainable way forward. There was also a concern about the lack of legal advisers, which, although more are being recruited, is still causing a problem. Will he comment on the relationship between legal advisers and magistrates?
The hon. Lady makes a good point. We are reforming legal advisers’ pay and career progression. She is right that our magistrates courts need those legal advisers—they have to be in place across the country. We are funding more legal advisers and recruiting 100 new trainee legal advisers each year for the next three years.
You could always reopen the court in Chorley—plenty of magistrates.
I recognise the profound financial and psychological impact of so called SLAPPs and the threat that they represent to democracy and free speech. Last year we implemented new laws to tackle SLAPPs relating to economic crime and to stop wealthy elites from effectively silencing critics, journalists and activists. I have confirmed that we intend, when parliamentary time allows, to introduce legislation that comprehensively tackles all SLAPPs.
Within our ancient, unwritten constitutional democracy, e petitions have quickly established themselves as a way for the public to have their voices heard. So imagine the shock of my constituent Jason when he was served with a scary legal notice to desist by one of the world’s largest law firms, instructed by a megabucks developer, for collecting signatures on Change.org against a local planning application. Will my right hon. Friend tell me when the legislation will be introduced? I know that the Prime Minister wrote in The Guardian in October 2024 that the rich and powerful should not intimidate the little guy through such legal processes. Right now, this feels for Jason like a bit of a slap in the face.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for continuing to champion this issue. She is right that SLAPPs go well beyond journalism and issues of free speech; we have heard harrowing stories of SLAPPs being used to silence sexual abuse survivors, cosmetic surgery patients unhappy with the quality of their treatment, and even tenants who have complained to landlords. The economically related SLAPP measures represent a positive step forward, but there is more to do. We will bring forward legislation, and we are also working across the House to see what more we can do over this next period. We are determined to move in this area before the next general election.
Self swab rape kits are not admissible in court, yet the company Enough is using SLAPPs to attack rape charities and survivors who dare to speak out against it. This is exactly why we need the sort of legislation that has been mentioned to come forward: to protect the victims and survivors of sexual violence who have been ruthlessly targeted. I implore the Government to please bring forward the legislation at the earliest possible opportunity and to ban Enough from having its illegal equipment in our country.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that very serious issue. We are aware of it, it is hugely concerning and it underlines why we have to legislate. I hope that, by working cross party, we can move swiftly in this area.
I call the shadow Minister.
I am hugely concerned about the manner in which SLAPPs are being used to intimidate and harass individuals in public service. In my constituency alone, I have seen two separate instances of parish councillors being bullied out of public office. Both Hemingford and Ellington parish councils have been targeted due to planning concerns—one by a local company and one by a wealthy individual. Such an attempt to stifle democracy is unacceptable. Parish councils are the bedrock of democracy and the brazen attempt to railroad individual parish councillors is unacceptable. What are the Government doing to protect local councillors from being left exposed to SLAPPs, which deters people from participating in democratic representation?
The hon. Gentleman’s question shows the range of people we see being intimidated before the court. He will be aware of Catherine Belton and her book “Putin’s People”, Tom Burgis and his book “Kleptopia”, and Tom Latchem and his care home investigation. They have all been on the receiving end of a SLAPP. We have to act, as I have said. We will work cross party. There are some vehicles by which we might well be able to see progress over the coming months and, on Second Reading, we will set out our position regarding some of the private Member’s Bills that the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues have tabled.
This Government inherited a criminal justice system in crisis, with record and rising Crown court backlogs. We simply cannot accept the intolerable delays currently faced by victims, witnesses and defendants alike. Sir Brian Leveson’s conclusion was clear and emphatic: it is only with investment, efficiencies and pragmatic structural reform that we can begin to turn the tide on the backlog and deliver swifter justice for victims. Those are the measures being brought forward in the Government’s Courts and Tribunals Bill.
Will the Minister confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister’s legacy is that he will be the first Justice Secretary in the United Kingdom to restrict the centuries old right to jury trials?
There is no right to a jury trial in this country; there is a right to a fair trial, and timeliness is a key ingredient of a fair trial. If someone has to wait years for their day in court, that simply is not fair, whether they are a defendant or a witness. Of course, there is precedent for this, including from someone who is perhaps the hon. Gentleman’s hero: the late, great Mrs Thatcher. The fact is that we have always made a policy choice about who can access jury trial, and we are going to make that policy choice again to deliver swifter justice for victims.
There are concerns that the changes the Government have made will give more power to judges to make decisions on their own, so what is the Minister doing to monitor the impact of these changes and ensure that there is transparency at all stages? Can I add, following your comment, Mr Speaker, that we would like to see Harlow magistrates court reopen as well as Chorley magistrates court?
My hon. Friend, as always, is an outstanding advocate for Harlow. Our judges take the judicial oath to act without fear or favour, which is why our judiciary is the finest in the world, but of course transparency matters, which is why the recording and transcription of proceedings and the review that we have committed to, to test the impact of our reforms, are so important. I observe directly the training that our judges receive, which is first class.
I call the shadow Justice Secretary.
The Justice Secretary and his ministerial team say that the attack on jury trials is needed to deal with the backlog in the courts. When the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) takes over and scraps the policy on jury trials, does the Minister predict that court backlogs will get worse?
The hon. Gentleman mischaracterises the Government’s policy, as so many do. We are preserving jury trials as a cornerstone of British justice, but it is no justice at all if someone is waiting years for that jury trial. When witnesses and complainants pull out of the process and those trials collapse, that is no justice at all, whoever is in charge. The dereliction of duty by the Conservatives—the so called party of law and order—allowed the Crown court backlog to run out of control. They buried their heads in the sand, but we will not do so. We will take on Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations and make the difficult choices to bring down our backlog and deliver justice for the British people.
I listened carefully but do not think the Minister answered my question—[Interruption.] We will see, won’t we? I am replying to the Justice Secretary’s comment from a sedentary position. I think the Minister has just made it very difficult for herself to stay in the Ministry of Justice when the right hon. Member for Makerfield takes over. The Government are continuing to say that the attack on jury trials is vital and there is no alternative, but we know that is not what the next leader of the Labour party thinks. He has made it clear that he is going to scrap the policy, so will the Minister spell out what this means? She is saying that the right hon. Member for Makerfield is wrong, isn’t she?
I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to an interview with my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield that took place in December, well before this House voted conclusively on Second Reading. Any ministerial team would have to take on this challenge. Unlike the Conservatives, we will not duck it. What my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield actually said was that we need to pause and reflect. The evidence base is clear. Sir Brian Leveson offered a blueprint. We cannot bring down the backlog without structural reform—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) says we can. As so often happens, the Conservatives ignore the experts and the evidence. They crashed the justice system, and we know who suffers: it is the British citizen. We will not allow it.
There are fewer than five transgender women in the general women’s estate. The exact figure cannot be provided without breaching data protection legislation obligations.
In Scotland two weeks ago, the Court of Session ruled it unlawful to hold biological males anywhere on the women’s prison estate, and even the SNP Government, after a year of dither and hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money wasted, have now been forced to accept this and move biological males out of women’s prisons. Can the Minister set out a timeline for all women’s prisons right across the UK to remove biological males so that they can fully comply with the Supreme Court ruling brought about by For Women Scotland?
The judgment in Scotland relates to prison rules that apply in Scotland only—England and Wales have separate rules, as the hon. Gentleman will no doubt know. I gently remind him that the rules in England and Wales were introduced in 2023. They mean that transgender women with male genitalia or any history of violent or sexual offending are not held in the women’s estate, except in truly exceptional cases that are signed off at a ministerial level. This Government inherited those rules, and Ministers have not approved the placement of any transgender women in women’s prisons. This is a classic case of this iteration of the Conservative party spending all its time in opposition criticising the very policy that it introduced.
We have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) that the Supreme Court has clarified the meaning of sex in the Equality Act 2010 and that Scotland has taken the relevant steps. The Minister responded to my hon. Friend with a fairly vague answer about what needs to happen in England. We know that there are women who are not biological females in the women’s estate in England and Wales. When will women get the same protections as in Scotland?
The policy that we are implementing in England and Wales is lawful; it complies with the Prison Rules 1999 and the Equality Act 2010. The guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission has come out. We have 40 days to consider and ratify it, and we will do so.
Given that we are thinking about the women’s prison estate more generally, and given that the Swansea residential women’s centre was due to open in 2024 but now does not look like it will open at all, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that Welsh women can access alternatives to custody?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are determined to drive down the population of women who are in prison where it is safe to do so. That is why Lord Timpson set up the women’s justice board, which has taken huge steps not just in improving resources for women in custody, but in ensuring that we have plans to reduce the population wherever possible.
Official statistics for the year to March 2025 show 262 recorded releases in error, and the latest figure will be published next month. In April we also released ad hoc data from April 2025 to March 2026, which was published alongside Dame Lynne Owens’s independent review into releases in error.
I understand that the total is 441, which over a two year period is the worst on record and means that, in less than 24 months, Labour has released more prisoners in error than were released in the previous six years combined. That is a disgrace. How many of those released in error early were convicted of rape?
The hon. Lady was not listening to the figures I gave. We are seeing a reduction in the numbers because of the review that I asked Dame Lynne Owens to lead. We are implementing the recommendations so that the numbers come down, but I have to ask the hon. Lady: who left us with the mess? Who saw 800 releases under their watch? When did they update Parliament? When did they set up a review? They did absolutely nothing. We have a paper based system. That is why we are introducing digital ID.
It is a disgrace that hundreds of prisoners have been released in error under this Government, but more concerning are the thousands it will have been an error to release early. The Secretary of State did not answer the previous question, so let’s try another. As we heard in this House yesterday, child groomers and rapists are due to be let out years early, with their victims being informed by letter, so will he tell my constituents exactly why, under this Government, dangerous criminals will be in their communities rather than in prison?
Because you almost broke the prison system. You built just 500 places in 14 years, and we had to fix that system. You had 17 different forms of guidance on early release in the last year, all done in secret. That is why we introduced the Sentencing Act 2026, which got Royal Assent in January, and why we are doing everything we can to build more prison places—14,000 prison places by 2031.
Order. I gently say to the Justice Secretary, who was saying “you”, that I have no responsibility for any of this.
This Government are supporting victims with more than £1 billion of funding, including £499 million for safe housing for victims of abuse, and the largest ever investment—£550 million—in victim support services, over the next three years. Under the victims code, all victims are entitled to referral to victim support services.
I recently visited the Liberty Centre in my constituency, a fantastic charitable organisation that supports individuals and families who have been affected by domestic abuse and violence. It told me that it could fill its refuge places three times over, but it does not have the resources. Will the Minister say what the Government are doing to ensure that voluntary and charitable organisations that do such excellent work in this space continue to be supported and sustained?
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the hugely vital work that the Liberty Centre does. Local authorities in England have a statutory duty to assess and address the need for support, with safe accommodation for all domestic abuse victims, including children who need to flee their home. Lancashire county council has been allocated more than £3.3 million to support important local services, such as those delivered by the Liberty Centre—part of the £499 million the Government have committed to councils to commission lifesaving accommodation support for victims, in our mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade.
In Gravesham, I recently visited the new Maltings child contact centre hosted by the City Praise Centre in Chalk. It is the only one in north Kent, and provides a calm, safe place for parents to meet their children. It takes place on a Saturday once a month from 10 am to 12 noon. Given the vital role that local organisations play in supporting families to connect and reconnect safely, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that services such as these are more widely available?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Child contact services provide safe and neutral spaces for children to meet parents or other family members that they do not live with as part of supervised or supported contact arrangements. I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the work done at the new Maltings centre. This Government are committed to supporting this sector and we provide £450,000 to assist supported child contact centres in England and Wales, as well as funding their national association for its work on training standards and monitoring.
The brilliant Denise Farman has been the chief officer of Women’s Aid in Grimsby for the last 25 years. She has pioneered move on accommodation for those women and children leaving refuge to start to build the foundations of their new life, which has been remarkably successful. She notes, however, that there are more than 2,000 empty properties across north east Lincolnshire. Has the Department had any discussions with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about how we can better integrate projects such as Denise’s for this move on and supported accommodation, and about linking it up with an empty home strategy?
It is powerful to hear about the impact that Women’s Aid is having in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I visited Black Country Women’s Aid and Solace Women’s Aid in London and listened to victims and survivors who told me what it meant to them to have been provided with a place of safety and sanctuary. The Government’s strategy for halving violence against women and girls is truly cross departmental, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have committed £499 million to councils for safe accommodation for victims. The Government want more empty homes brought back into use and intend to strengthen the ability of local authorities to do so.
I recently met a constituent whose child was subject to repeated sexual abuse. She found access to justice very difficult and is still awaiting trial, but now fears that the accuser will not be found fit for trial and will be subject to a trial on the facts. She is now fearful that if the accuser is found guilty on the facts, they will not be subject to appropriate sanctions—for example, being subject to DBS checks. What reassurances can the Minister give my constituent about the resources allocated to such prosecutions, both by the police and the criminal justice service, about whether the bar for somebody being appropriate to stand trial is correct, and what sanctions will be applied, because they are fearful that this person will be at liberty in the wider community, subsequent to conviction?
Under this Government, prosecutions and convictions for child sexual abuse have gone up, but I would be willing to meet the hon. Member to discuss this case.
Children are often forgotten when abuse has taken place in a household. Following the brutal murder of Natalie McNally and her unborn son, Dean, in my constituency in December 2022, why does the law still fail to recognise the death of an unborn baby caused by criminal violence as a separate offence? On the day Stephen McCullagh murdered Natalie, he murdered her unborn child, too, yet there has been no conviction and no acknowledgment that baby Dean was of inherent value. Will the Government commit to reviewing the law, and will the Minister meet me to discuss it?
I am very happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss this issue. Domestic violence and all its ramifications are absolutely the priority of this Government, which is why we are determined to halve violence against women and girls within a decade.
Disgracefully, there are some in this House who believe that it is for the England football team to prevent domestic abuse, whereas we all know that it is for perpetrators to stop their abuse. As for those making more positive and valuable contributions in this space, will the Minister join me in celebrating the amazing work of Eastbourne Survivors, who support folks on an entirely voluntary basis to recover from the abuse they have experienced throughout their lives?
I absolutely join the hon. Gentleman in celebrating the work of Eastbourne Survivors. He is right that domestic violence is a choice for perpetrators; it is not about the score when the final whistle goes. To frame it in any other way does a significant disservice in allowing perpetrators to try to deflect from their actions.
I call the shadow Minister.
One thing that we know children will contact victim support services about is the letters they receive telling them that their abusers will be getting out of prison earlier. Victim Support supports more than 814,000 victims every year, and its CEO, Katie Kempen, had this to say: “Having already endured long waits for justice—often with their lives on hold—and the distress of going to court, many will feel shocked and frightened to learn that offenders may now be released months or even years earlier than expected.”
She is right, isn’t she?
It is important that there is transparency and communication with victims, unlike what we saw under the Conservatives; when they were letting people out, they did so with almost no notice, if any at all. I absolutely acknowledge the concerns from victims, but what is not in the interests of victims is having prisons so overcrowded that perpetrators cannot be housed in cells. What the last Government did to our prisons—leaving them so full that the entire criminal justice system was at risk of collapsing—is an absolute disgrace, and yet again, it is this Government who are clearing up their mess.
I am in wholehearted agreement with the Minister that transparency is really important. One thing that would help Victim Support and other organisations to plan their response is knowing how many people are getting out and what offences they have committed, but like us, they are in the dark.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, because your intervention yesterday prompted the Department into publishing a response to my question, but it was not an answer. Shockingly, the Government now officially say that they do not know how many people they are letting out in September. If the Minister and the Government refuse to tell us, can they at least let victim support services and victims know when they will tell this House, victim support services and the wider public how many perpetrators of serious offences they are letting out and when that will start?
The Government have published the victim impact assessment and are ensuring that people are communicated with. What is essential is that the Government have a violence against women and girls strategy, which will ensure that we are pursuing perpetrators, supporting victims and stopping violence in the first place. This Government, yet again, are clearing up the Conservatives’ mess, whether it is to do with prisons, backlogs or the investment we are making to support victims.
The Government are reforming the family justice system to better support families and children. We are rolling out the successful child focused courts nationally. That means that in Northamptonshire, Coventry and Warwickshire, Northumbria, north Durham, Cleveland and south Durham, Lancashire, Cumbria, York and North Yorkshire, and Cheshire and Merseyside, you have a child focused court coming to a court near you. We are developing a cross system family justice strategy and legislating for new child safety measures that ensure child welfare continues to be prioritised.
When family courts decide that care is to be split between parents 50:50, we might expect that fair financial arrangements follow. However, when courts make that ruling, and the Child Maintenance Service makes decisions based on which parent is the recipient of child benefit, one parent often finds they are significantly worse off than the other. Will Ministers have a word with their colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the justice system and the CMS work more closely to achieve financial fairness for both parents in cases where courts rule for 50:50 care splits?
In individual cases, how those financial settlements are made is a matter for the judiciary. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, as in so many cases, the family court is downstream of decisions that have been made elsewhere, and it is quite right that there should be join up between areas of Government. I am happy to take away his direction that we should liaise with DWP colleagues to ensure that child maintenance is addressed fairly.
Will the Minister reassure me that we remain committed to repealing in this Parliament the presumption of contact in family courts, to bring full justice to the 67 children murdered at the hands of abusive ex partners with whom contact should never have been granted?
We are resolute and committed to repealing the presumption of parental involvement in the Children Act 1989. The campaigning efforts of the likes of Claire Throssell have been little short of heroic, and we will redouble our efforts to ensure that the repeal of that presumption comes about through the Courts and Tribunals Bill.
One of the first things I announced when appointed as the Secretary of State for Justice was a £40 million extra investment to strengthen prison security, including £10 million for counter drone measures such as netting and wire. I recently visited Woodhill prison to look at how we are tackling this growing threat and committed a further £35 million to install heavy duty grilles on windows at 17 of our most high risk prison sites.
Will my right hon. Friend outline what learnings the Government have taken from international expertise to develop and shape counter drone measures in UK prisons?
My hon. Friend knows that, because of the war in Ukraine, drone technology is moving at pace. That is why, when I was in Ukraine in January, we announced that we are working with the UK defence innovation fund—an innovative fund—to set up an international business competition to ensure that the Prison Service keeps up at pace with moving technology. We are also working with our French and Italian colleagues, who are experiencing the same threat. I have spoken to Justice Ministers about how we share best practice.
The use of drones by criminal gangs to smuggle contraband into prisons is of particular concern, especially in open prisons such as Kirkham prison in my constituency, where there is a vast amount of open estate to be able to drop it off. While I was the police and crime commissioner for Lancashire, we invested in counter drone units. The brilliant thing is that they use signals to jam the drones, which forces them to shut down and return to the point from which they were deployed, often leading the police to the place where the criminals are hiding. Will the Secretary of State consider working closely with police forces deploying this technology to use it more broadly in countering the drone threat in the UK?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The director general of the National Crime Agency has directed police chiefs to work with the Prison Service to jointly tackle the threat from criminal drones. We saw that recently in a large scale joint operation that resulted in more than 200 arrests. He is absolutely right; that blocking technology is available to the system. I was in Doncaster visiting our specialist unit that does this work, often at night, to ensure that we are bringing down those drones.
The law governing wills has not changed substantially since 1837. It is in that context that the Government welcome the Law Commission’s comprehensive and thorough review; we will be taking our time to consider it, and will respond in due course. Innovations such as electronic wills could improve accessibility and increase the number of people making wills, putting them and their loved ones in a more secure position.
In 2018, I began my campaign to abolish the rule that stipulates that in England and Wales, remarriage revokes any previous will. It is clear that such a rule is no longer fit for purpose and opens the door to abuse—unscrupulous individuals often marry vulnerable people, enabling them to inherit their estate upon death. Will the Government now commit to accepting the Law Commission’s recommendation that that archaic rule be abolished?
I commend my hon. Friend on his work, looking at how we can combat predatory marriages and those who prey on the vulnerable. The Law Commission’s recommendation that the rule that marriage revokes a will be abolished is well evidenced. We will take a holistic look at the issue, but we will certainly consider carefully.
I welcome the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) back after his operation. It is good to see him again, and I wish him a speedy recovery.
I thank the Minister for her answer. What steps is her Department taking to ensure that the insights and the drafting expertise in the “Modernising Wills Law” report are taken on board by the Northern Ireland Executive, to ensure families in Northern Ireland can benefit from similar modernised protections against predatory marriage through updated legislation?
As we consider the Law Commission’s recommendations, we will of course consider how they might lead to law changes and law reform across the United Kingdom. However, where matters are devolved, we respect that as well.
Knife crime is a serious offence, and the courts rightly treat it as such. Immediate custodial sentences continue to be widely used, particularly for repeat possession, with sentence lengths increasing over time. Alongside this, the Government have strengthened powers through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, including tougher penalties and new offences to keep communities safe. No one should believe a word the Opposition say on knife crime—they broke their promise that anyone caught carrying a knife would face a presumption of immediate imprisonment, and they slashed neighbourhood police numbers as knife crime soared under their watch.
I thank the Minister for that answer, but the latest figures show that the average custodial sentence for an adult knife or offensive weapon offence is just over eight months. Under the Sentencing Act 2026, there has been a presumption since March that any sentence below 12 months should be suspended, so what action is the Minister taking to ensure that that presumption does not effectively decriminalise many knife offences?
I am incredibly proud of this Government’s work on knife crime, whether that is taking zombie knives off the streets or ensuring early interventions are used more effectively for children caught carrying knives. That is why knife crime is going down under this Government, having soared under the last Government.
I have two points to make about the presumption introduced by the Sentencing Act. First, it is just that—a presumption. The Conservatives keep talking about scrapping short sentences, but that is nonsense; it is a presumption. Secondly, that presumption was first proposed by the Conservative Government in their final few years in office. They now oppose the very policies they were suggesting.
The fact is that more and more young people are carrying knives, supposedly to defend themselves. That leads to knife crime on our streets—certainly in my constituency, it is a serious problem, particularly between young people. We have now experienced stabbings in schools, which is disastrous. Those who are caught carrying knives should face a custodial sentence, because unless we have a deterrent, people will continue to carry knives and, when threatened, they will use them. Will the Minister take the action required to ensure the message goes out that if you carry a knife, you are likely to end up in prison?
The hon. Member is right that deterrence is an important factor. He raises significant cases from his constituency. In my neighbouring constituency, in Sheffield, a young boy was murdered just last year as a result of knife crime, so the issue is close to my mind in my role as a constituency MP and as a Minister. This is a long standing problem, one that requires education and early intervention. The hon. Member is right that custodial sentences and deterrence play a part, but it is a much more wide ranging problem and we need to be careful about those interventions early on, particularly with children who carry knives because they feel they need to do so to protect themselves. I am not convinced that a custodial sentence is the right solution in every case.
Ten days ago, 17-year old Jamal Coombes was killed in my constituency as a result of knife crime. Every young person deserves to live safely and fulfil their potential. His life was taken too soon. What actions are this Government taking right now to have a more co ordinated approach with schools, public health and the police not only to prevent such awful tragedies, but to ensure that our young people feel safe and do not feel the need to have to carry a knife?
On behalf of the Government, I send my condolences to Jamal’s family. Every incident of knife crime is a tragedy. Through our plan to halve knife crime over the next decade, we are undertaking a comprehensive, cross Government approach to reduce violence and protect communities. That includes measures such as banning dangerous weapons and tightening rules around online sales, which has a real effect. We are funding more targeted enforcement activity, in particular in the 280 hotspots where we know, because the data suggests it, that knife crime is happening. We are making sure that our interventions are focused, but there is a lot more to do. Knife crime is coming down, but we are not celebrating that for a minute. Every incident is a tragedy, and we will continue to work hard to bring the rate down.
Mr Speaker, I know that you are a great supporter of the Parliamentary Knowledge Foundation. Next Thursday, it will be bringing MPs to Empire Fighting Chance, a boxing gym in my constituency that has been involved in the Government and Idris Elba led anti knife crime coalition. Does the Minister agree that listening to youth perspectives is crucial in the battle to reduce knife crime and that we should be commending the young people at Empire Fighting Chance for their involvement in what is often a deeply personal issue for them? They have lost friends and family to knife crime, but they want to be part of the efforts to address it.
My hon. Friend is right that community initiatives are at the heart of how we confront knife crime and crime more generally. I credit the boxing gym in her constituency. I know that Dinnington boxing club does great work in my constituency, too, and I have been there on numerous occasions. Just last month we published the youth justice White Paper, and at its heart is ensuring that we involve children’s voices so that our interventions, as policymakers in this place and in government, are tailored to the challenges and issues that children are facing. She is absolutely right, and we are getting on with the job of doing it.
The Government are committed to greater transparency and access to justice in our courts. Transcripts are an important part of that, and I know that there has been a lot of cross party campaigning on this issue. Victims of sexual offences and bereaved families of homicide can already request a free copy of sentencing remarks. From spring 2027, eligibility will be extended so that all victims can request them.
I am particularly keen that this matter is progressed at speed, because the fees for victims who want to get their transcripts are eye watering. My constituent is a victim of domestic violence and her barrister needs transcripts of her hearing in the family court now to appeal against procedural irregularities and errors in the published judgment, but the transcripts will cost her thousands of pounds. Will the Minister address this gross inequality and waive court transcript fees as soon as she can for all victims, including for the family courts—with the requisite redactions to protect anonymity of the parties—to ensure robust justice, transparency and fairness for all?
I am sorry to hear about the hon. Member’s constituent’s case. Technology in this area is a potential game changer. However, as with all technological adoption, particularly in the justice arena, we have got to ensure accuracy for the very reason she says. The transcript has to be accurate, and redactions have to be made where necessary to protect individual participants in the case and to ensure reporting restrictions. That all has to be done safely, but I can assure her that the Ministry of Justice is progressing at pace with the adoption of AI, which will be a game changer in the years to come.
I listened carefully to what the Minister has just said. Court transcripts are important to a victim’s sense of justice served, but does she agree that access to this very important information should never be dependent on the victim’s ability to pay?
Equality before the law should mean just that, and as my hon. Friend says, it is an important principle to bear in mind when we talk about barriers to access to justice, whether we are talking about the cost of representation, which we try to address through legal aid, or about the cost of transcripts. In the current context, the targeted approach that we have taken—prioritising the victims of the most serious crimes, and now extending eligibility so that all victims can request court transcripts through the Sentencing Act 2026 from the spring of 2027—constitutes a big step forward. I hope that developments in technology will enable us to lower the costs and make that freely available to all in due course.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Charlotte Meijer will never have access to her transcript, because her case was heard in a magistrates court where no recording was made. The Government are seeking to address that, but Charlotte has continued to campaign for all victims of crime so that they can gain access to free transcripts, given that some are still being quoted costs of thousands of pounds. Her campaign, Open Justice for All, is calling on the Government to go further and faster to make the justice system fair, transparent and open.
This is a cross party issue, and I know that many Back Benchers in the Minister’s party feel passionate about it. Will she assure the House that the job is not done, and recognise the desire for all court transcripts eventually to be made free and accessible for all victims?
I know that the hon. Lady is a great advocate in this regard. I have had the pleasure of meeting Charlotte on a number of occasions, and I know how important her campaign is. The hon. Lady is right: owing to the Government’s commitment to audio recording and the capital investments that we are making to enable it to happen, change is coming soon and fast. We will seek to go as far as we are able while preserving the accuracy of those transcripts.
One in five homicides are domestic homicides, with women and girls overwhelmingly the victims of these brutal crimes: mothers, sisters and daughters, such as Ellie Gould, Poppy Devey Waterhouse and Megan Newborough, who were cruelly murdered by their current or former partners. However, the gravity of these crimes is not always fully reflected. Under the current sentencing framework, higher starting points place particular weight on a weapon being taken to the scene with intent, whereas domestic homicides often happen in the home involving weapons already present. Today I can announce that we will introduce a 25-year starting point for domestic murders, a change made possible thanks to the Government’s grip on the prison population through the Sentencing Act 2026.
I pay tribute to the mothers of Ellie, Poppy and Megan—Carole, Julie and Elaine—and my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Alex Davies Jones) and for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). They have all campaigned tirelessly for this change, which means that those who kill their partners or former partners will spend longer in prison.
The Fuller inquiry called for a strengthening of the safeguards and the law in relation to looking after the deceased, but last week’s mortuary report on Nottingham hospital described some of the abuses and horrors that have taken place—bodies mislabelled, or even left decomposing. Does the Secretary of State share my fear that this could be a pattern across the system, and will he and the Health Secretary look into this to ensure that it certainly is not?
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. What we have heard is devastating—absolutely horrific. I will discuss this issue with the Health Secretary. His Department obviously has responsibility for human tissue while we have responsibility for the coroner service and the law regarding death, and we will work together on this issue.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituent Afzaal Hussain for the work that he does alongside Adele Webb. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have heard in this morning’s session about the tragic consequences of knife crime, and it is so important that the Government and wider society work together to do anything we can to reduce it.
I call the shadow Justice Secretary.
The Government referred the sentences of the teenage gang rapists who attacked two schoolgirls to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient, but the Government also say that they want to increase the age of criminal responsibility, and the Bar Council has said that age should be 14. That is one year older than the age of one of those rapists—proof that young criminals can commit terrible crimes. Will the Justice Secretary rule out increasing the age of criminal responsibility to 14?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but when the Bar Council do a detailed piece of work, it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to look closely at what it has recommended. That is what I will do in the coming months, and I am sure that when that process has concluded, we can have this discussion in a serious way. I urge the hon. Gentleman to be serious. He often takes to Twitter on these issues, but I think we should take the Bar Council of England and Wales seriously.
That is an absolutely shocking figure, and I pay tribute to all NHS staff and frontline public service workers, who often put their bodies on the line, quite literally. I meet the chair of the Sentencing Council regularly to discuss issues, and I will raise this one with her as well.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
The Guardian reported last week on the case of a US air force officer accused of drugging, strangling and raping a British woman in his apartment. Although the incident took place off duty, off base and on English soil, the case was removed from the jurisdiction of the English courts and was instead tried by US court martial at RAF Lakenheath, with an all male panel who were all from his base. Does the Secretary of State agree that victims of crimes on English soil should see justice served in our justice system?
Halving violence against women and girls is a decade long mission for this Government. That case is extremely concerning, and our thoughts are with the victim, Sarah. Given the cross agency nature of this case, my officials are working across Government, and we are raising it with the US Government to establish the full facts.
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and her constituent. Lord Timpson set up the Women’s Justice Board, which is considering the issues with the women’s estate. We are determined to bring down the population of women prisoners where it is safe to do so. There is a lot more work to do, but we are making progress.
Non consensual intimate images, and the kinds of images that the hon. Lady talks about, are absolutely disgusting. This Government have taken action to ensure that they will be taken down within 48 hours, as well as our banning of deepfakes. We want to ensure that women are safe—whether in their homes, on their streets or online—and there is still more action to take.
I thank my hon. Friend for all her actions to support her constituent. Local authorities in England are legally required to assess and address the need for safe accommodation for domestic abuse victims who need to flee their home. All our thoughts will be with her constituent; I hope she secures suitable safe accommodation soon. Considering how tenacious and determined her Member of Parliament is, it will, I hope, be very soon indeed.
I call the Father of the House.
I am very grateful to the Father of the House. He may not have noticed, but he made me blush. He knows that the right to a fair trial, and the component of it that requires a jury, is an important right, and we are not abolishing it, but we are seeking to bring down the backlog, so that people can get swift justice. We are making a decision that has been made previously by other Prime Ministers, including Margaret Thatcher, to change the threshold for jury trial, while ensuring that justice is done. I think it is also important to acknowledge the tremendous work done by our magistrates.
I welcome the Government’s £500 million of investment in victims’ services, which is a serious investment after years of neglect. In my constituency, Staffordshire Women’s Aid has been supporting survivors of sexual violence and domestic violence for 50 years. For every £1 spent on victims’ support services, £10.80 is returned to the public purse. What steps are being taken to ensure that brilliant local organisations, such as Staffordshire Women’s Aid, can access this funding, so that no area falls into the gaps?
I have met victims and survivors supported by Women’s Aid in other parts of the country who have been able to rebuild their life, and it is inspiring that Staffordshire Women’s Aid has been supporting survivors for 50 years. The Staffordshire police and crime commissioner is receiving over £4.5 million over the next two years for victims’ support services. That is additional to the funding that councils get to provide safe accommodation for victims, including refuges, such as those run by Women’s Aid.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our magistrates are the backbone of our justice system. I meet magistrates from across the length and breadth of the land, and I have met the Magistrates Association. We have to make being a magistrate more attractive. That is why our reform of their expenses, allowing for greater flexibility, is so important. We are transforming the application process and the training that magistrates receive to make it more attractive for people to volunteer their time. I want to put on record that we are incredibly grateful to our army of volunteers who keep the justice system going.
Ranby Prison in my constituency is undergoing a £70 million expansion. The main prison car park is across the very busy A620 road. On 1 December last year, prison officer Phillip Tetley was knocked down and killed as he crossed the road to get to work. He leaves behind his wife Eve and seven children. Eve Tetley is campaigning for a crossing to prevent such an awful accident happening again. Will the Minister meet me and Eve to discuss this further?
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. My thoughts are of course with the family of Phillip Tetley, and with Eve in particular. I know that stretch of road very well, as it is on my commute to Retford station, and I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and Eve to see if I can do anything to help.
My constituent was repeatedly sexually abused by a family member, who received four concurrent 28-year prison sentences. He threatened to murder her during the trial. After serving about 10 years, he was transferred to the Netherlands, where he was released immediately. My constituent lives in fear of his returning to the UK and carrying out the threats that he made towards her. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this complex case, and will he commit to reviewing international prisoner transfer arrangements that have the practical effect of allowing dangerous offenders to be released far earlier than the UK courts intended?
I thank the hon. Member for her question. She raises very serious points. I am, of course, happy to meet her, and her constituent. We are determined to bring down the number of foreign national offenders in our prisons. We need to do that safely. We recently agreed a memorandum of understanding with Latvia. We have a similar agreement with Italy, and I have been speaking with officials in the Netherlands to try to pursue a deal there, too. It is important that we do that safely, and I am very happy to have further discussions with her about that.
Street Whyze was set up by Danny Mondesir after the tragic stabbing of Oliver Freckleton in 2021. It undertakes targeted work with young people to prevent knife crime, knife carrying and youth offending. In the light of the new cross Government knife crime strategy, can the Minister say how such programmes will be used to cut youth knife crime?
Our plan to halve knife crime seeks to give young people the best start in life, to stop those who are at risk of turning to knife crime from doing so, and to ensure that perpetrators are caught and brought to justice. I have been out with a number of community groups over the last few weeks to see that work in action. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is good to see the numbers beginning to fall, but there is more work to do over the coming months and years.
My constituent is here. Her ex husband sexually assaulted her children, and attempted to murder them and her by removing the brake pads from her car, yet the court appeared to listen more to the abuser’s allegation of parental alienation syndrome, a concept discredited by the World Health Organisation, than her evidence. The abuser today has unsupervised access to the children. What steps will the Government take to prevent discredited concepts from obstructing criminal justice, leaving children at risk of rape and murder?
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising such a moving case, and I pay tribute to his constituent, who is here today. Let us be absolutely clear: the Government’s position is that parental alienation has no evidential basis and is a totally discredited concept. We are working carefully with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to limit the instruction of unregulated experts, including those who hold that they are parental alienation experts. I hope that will ring the changes and prevent this sort of thing in future.
I welcome the announcement from the Deputy Prime Minister today about changing the disparity in sentences for domestic homicide. Carole, Julie and Elaine have campaigned tirelessly for this change, following the murder of their daughters, and it will make a huge difference to how violence against women and girls is treated in this country. The campaigners have met seven Lord Chancellors, and the Deputy Prime Minister is the first of them to commit to doing this. Can I implore him to do it as soon as possible? It is this Labour Government who are committed to tackling violence against women and girls.
I thank my hon. and dear Friend for her campaigning on this issue. We met the families and were hugely moved by their stories. There was a sense that they felt very let down by the previous Governments and Lord Chancellors whom they had met. For that reason, I think this move is the right thing to do, and I am very grateful to her and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) for continuing to press on this issue behind the scenes.
A high profile child sex offender was released into a village near a school in my constituency. I was told about this by local residents. Over three months ago, I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister expressing huge concern. He refused to meet me and said that this was down to the Probation Service. Why is the safety of South Shropshire’s children not worth a meeting to discuss this issue? This is a huge issue for my constituents.
Of course, I recognise that this will be an issue for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. It is right that these matters are dealt with by the Probation Service. We are investing a lot of money in the Probation Service over this period to make sure that we reduce caseloads, so that such cases can be managed properly, but I will investigate and get back to him as soon as possible.
One of my constituents experienced horrific abuse at the hands of her ex husband. Deepfakes were put online on porn sites. This is something he did to other women as well. He is now in prison, but when my constituent tried to divorce him, she could not get access to legal aid for the arbitration service, or to further legal aid, because of his bail conditions. Will the Minister meet me to discuss access to legal aid for people who have suffered domestic abuse in such circumstances?
Of course I will meet my hon. Friend about that case. She is a tremendous advocate for her constituent. It is important to say that we have ensured that legal aid is available for domestic abuse victims, and we have also changed the evidence thresholds that must be met in order to access that aid. I will look into the case that she raises, and I look forward to meeting her to discuss it.
Following an attack that led to long term mental and physical health difficulties, a constituent got a disappointing offer of compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, after a two and a-half year delay. It took an appeal and my intervention for her to finally be offered fair compensation. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that victims of crime receive a good service when applying for criminal injury compensation?
Applicants for criminal injury compensation have often endured horrific, traumatic experiences, and no financial award will ever fully compensate for that. Last year, over £164 million in compensation was paid to victims seriously injured or bereaved by violent crime, and two thirds of new applications were decided within 12 months. I thank the hon. Member for his correspondence on that matter. CICA is working to improve the experience of applicants and modernise its systems.
Mr Speaker, 68 is far too late. When will prison officers achieve a fair, just and—crucially—lower retirement age?
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued championing of this cause. We regularly meet the Prison Officers’ Association and will continue to do so. Prison officers do incredible work every day, up and down the country, and we will continue that dialogue.
In their 2024 manifesto, the Government made a promise to set up specialist rape courts in every Crown court location. Two years on, how many have been set up?
We are two years in, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will come forward with announcements in that area shortly.
The stalker of my constituent Sophie Hall was arrested and deported. Post deportation, there was no monitoring of him at all. The stalking recommenced, and he is now back in prison in the UK. This Government’s progression model means that he will be released early, and will again not be subject to active probation supervision. Can my hon. Friend, who promised this would not happen, tell me how on earth Sophie will now be kept safe?
I met my hon. Friend and Sophie at the end of last year, and as a result of that meeting, we made changes to the guidance on deportation of offenders. I have not been kept updated on what has happened since then; I will meet her and Sophie expeditiously.
Will the Minister join me in thanking and paying tribute to Carole Gould and Julie Devey from the action group Killed Women? They are constituents of mine and of my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), who unfortunately cannot be here due to ill health. Will the Minister pay tribute to the enormous dedication, persistence and courage that they have shown in trying to get changes to sentencing for domestic abuse?
As the father of a daughter, I pay tribute to the constituents mentioned for their doughty campaign over many years, in which they have been fighting for this moment. There will be women out there now whose lives will be saved as a result of the sentence that perpetrators of this terrible crime face.
What work is the Department doing to learn from international best practice—for example, in Estonia—when it comes to using technology in the justice system to help deliver swifter justice for victims?
When I moved to this Department, I was pleased to see the work on digital and artificial intelligence. The Department is a Whitehall leader; for example, we are freeing up probation staff for the frontline, rather than them having to go through lots of bureaucracy. I am particularly excited by the work that is going on in our courts.