PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Topical Questions - 15 September 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

As I have mentioned, the Courts and Tribunals Bill will shortly come back to this House. The record and rising Crown court backlog we inherited has more than doubled from around 38,000 cases in 2019 to more than 80,000 today, denying victims justice for months or even years. To fix the system, as the Minister for Courts and Legal Services has said, we have invested in and continued to modernise the courts, and through the returning legislation, we have set in train much-needed structural reform. The Prime Minister has been clear that the answer to justice delayed cannot be justice diminished. We are looking again at the proposals, considering the evidence and listening to experts both inside and outside this House and, of course, to victims. I look forward to improving the Bill as it progresses so that it delivers for victims and continues to command the confidence of the British people.

Court backlogs in the south-east have trebled over the last decade, placing extreme pressure on our criminal justice system. A new justice quarter in Milton Keynes could provide extra capacity that would deliver faster access to justice for my constituents in the Buckingham and Bletchley constituency and a modern justice hub in one of the fastest-growing cities in the UK. Will my right hon. Friend grant me a meeting, alongside my Milton Keynes colleagues, to discuss how we can take that proposition forward?

I recognise the ambition of local partners to develop a justice quarter in Milton Keynes. I know that engagement has gone on—indeed, the Courts Minister is going to meet MPs—and that the Milton Keynes MPs are hunting in a pack on this matter. I think I have already committed to a visit, which I am sure I will make shortly. In the meantime, the Minister looks forward to meeting my hon. Friend.

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

This summer, the Government held five different positions on early release in just six weeks. In seeking to exclude killers, rapists and paedophiles—something the Government previously claimed was impossible—the Justice Secretary has used secondary legislation. He says:

“No further legislation is required in the short term…primary legislation will…be considered when Parliamentary time allows.”

Will the Secretary of State guarantee that after relying on secondary legislation to change Labour’s early release scheme, no prisoner will successfully challenge their exclusion in the courts?

Yes, I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I have no concerns in that regard. The device we used was the commencement order. We chose to commence the provisions for some offences, but not for others. The point I was making to him in writing was that for parliamentarians it is discomfiting to have things lying on the statute book that are not intended for use, so it is good practice to remove them. It would not be without precedent for many provisions to be on the statute book without being turned on; nevertheless, that is what I was referring to in respect of further legislation. I am confident in our legal position.

The Justice Secretary proposes to let another set of dangerous criminals out of prison as well. Every prisoner serving an imprisonment for public protection sentence has been assessed to be too dangerous for release or returned to prison because of their behaviour—last year, there were 426 of them. The Justice Secretary has reiterated his commitment today to ending IPP sentences by the end of this Parliament. Will he tell the House very clearly if he has decided that it is, indeed, safe to release every single one of them?

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is a champion of individual liberty, and I understand him to be someone who believes in the equal application of liberty for individuals too. He must, surely, share my discomfort that there are individuals with tariffs of 18 months who have served 18 years on those sentences. This has been a matter of consensus for a long period of time; that is why his colleagues, when in government, discontinued those sentences. That is not to say that it is easy. In exactly the spirit in which he says that it must be done safely, my commitment is to do that with him and with colleagues across the House.

My hon. Friend is a stalwart campaigner on tackling violence against women and girls, and he will know that pursuing and punishing perpetrators is a key pillar of our strategy to halve it. We have a 10-year plan to meet this ambitious goal, and we are carefully monitoring the progress and will publish our one year update in the coming months. I want to reassure him that rape charge volumes have more than doubled since 2019, and that 5,206 rape cases were brought before the courts in 2025, compared with just 1,684 in 2019.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The Liberal Democrats in the other place have secured an amendment to address the injustice of locked child trust funds for disabled children. The leader of the Liberal Democrats has experience of this issue with his own disabled son, and he has been a passionate campaigner for a change in the law for many years, working with other campaigners such as Andrew Turner. When the amendment comes back to this House, will the Labour Government support it?

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this issue. Some 80,000 disabled people are unable to access funds that are legally theirs, and that is a disgrace. This is a complex issue, because mental capacity is a complex area of law and we must have due regard to the safeguarding mechanisms, but it cannot be beyond the wit of this place, or indeed of the Government, to overcome that obstacle. I met the leader of the Liberal Democrats last week to discuss this issue, and we are going to make progress in the coming weeks.

We recognise the vital role that high street law firms play in serving communities such as Scarborough and Whitby, and I greatly valued the meeting that we had, in which my hon. Friend raised a number of concerns in relation to the consultation that is currently being undertaken, in which we are engaging extensively with stakeholders to ensure that the potential impacts of the proposals—which are targeted, by the way, at access to justice—and all views are carefully considered.

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am working with Cabinet colleagues to make sure that prison officers who have worked hard all their lives in, as he says, incredibly challenging circumstances get the retirement they deserve.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that cross-criminal justice system working between the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the judiciary and our Courts Service is vital. I know that steps have been taken in Newcastle. Some agility has been shown on courtroom capacity and case progression, which is starting to bear results, and I encourage more of that right across our Crown court system.

Early legal advice is absolutely essential to access to justice, and that is why one of the first actions we took when I became the Minister responsible for legal aid was to give legal aid lawyers delivering immigration and housing advice the first pay lift they had received since 1996—an injection of £20 million. That was precisely because of the issues the hon. Gentleman raises.

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. He is correct that special measures help vulnerable witnesses and victims to give evidence and reduce the stress in attending court. These include the use of screens, live video links and pre-recorded evidence. He will know that the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which is due to come back to this place soon, includes reforms to special measures, including clarifying that vulnerable witnesses and victims may use them when delivering their personal statements. We have also revised the victims code to ensure that this is taken into account.

Ministry of Justice contractors are acting in a deeply inconsiderate manner, affecting my constituents in Edgcott, Grendon Underwood and the Springhill Road estate in the construction of a new mega-prison adjacent to HMP Grendon. I asked the Minister in writing over the summer if she would come and see with her own eyes those problems. She wrote back to me yesterday to say no. Why will she not, and will she reconsider?

The hon. Gentleman will know the importance of ensuring that we build the prison capacity that was so lacking under the previous Government. Officials continue to regularly meet the local council, elected councillors and parish councils to agree all traffic management and address challenges around the site. I am visiting as many prisons as I can get to, and I will certainly endeavour to visit HMP Grendon in due course.

I am not just happy to meet them; I am keen to meet them. If we are going to improve the family justice system, we need to hear from those who have experienced it. We are rolling out child-focused courts, which will help, but we have to improve productivity more generally, and we are getting on with that.

It was May when I stood here and asked the Minister to intervene in the situation of a paedophile moved to an open prison two years into his 10-year sentence. I was promised an answer then. I raised the matter again in July and again last week, and yet I have still had no answer. When will Sanders’ survivors finally stopped being ignored by this Minister and get an answer on why this man has been put in an open prison?

I understand the force of the hon. Lady’s question. I will look into that immediately the moment this session ends, and I will meet her behind the Speaker’s Chair to confirm how we do that.

The Minister has been absolutely brilliant in helping to identify children with a parent in prison. Will he now agree to join me on 25 November for national Children with a Parent in Prison Day, where we will be able to hear from young people with lived experience about the important next steps, and getting them the support they need?

Yes. My hon. Friend is a massive champion of this issue. There are over 200,000 children of prisoners across the country. I am working closely with the Department for Education to ensure that we can identify them. It was a manifesto commitment and we are making strides; we now need to go further. In response to her invitation, I would be happy to be there at the end of November.

Jimmy, the son of two of my Shipley constituents, was given an IPP sentence with a tariff of two and a half years in 2007. He remains in prison with no set release date, despite having passed his mental health tribunal. I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s recent announcement to review these unjust sentences, but can the Secretary of State assure me that prisoners with autism, like Jimmy, will get the support they need to start a new life?

I am grateful for that question. It should discomfit colleagues that, in many cases, lots and lots of people across our communities have served long beyond their sentence and have not been permitted their release from prison, or have not been able to sustain a release from prison. Of course, there has been a lot of interest about what legislative approach we may take; we intend to publish legislation in due course. My hon. Friend is entirely right that we also have to ensure that those individuals who do leave have the best possible support that we can give them to ensure they can sustain that exit.

A few weeks ago, I visited Margaret Green Animal Rescue in Wareham, where I was told that the rescue takes in animals when pet owners are prosecuted for animal welfare offences, but that those animals cannot be rehomed during the delay before prosecution. We should be dealing with the court backlog for many reasons, but for the sake of animal welfare, will the Minister look at how we can ensure those animals are rehomed and not delayed in these facilities?

The hon. Member is right: a backlog is a backlog, irrespective of the offence. The victims in all these cases might be of a different nature— they might be animals, or they might be humans—but local authorities have a responsibility in this, and if she wishes to write to me, I look forward to giving her a full answer about what the Ministry of Justice is doing on this.

Last week Appeal launched a campaign calling for Trew’s law, which would review the cases of all imprisoned police officers, following the actions of a corrupt and racist British Transport police officer, Derek Ridgewell. Will the Minister agree to meet me and the campaigners to discuss this law?

Yes, I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend.

There has long been a proven link between people deliberately harming animals and then committing domestic abuse. The Links Group has researched and highlighted that link for 25 years and is having a special conference later this year to mark this. Will the Minister agree to meet me and the Links Group so that we can draw on its 25 years of expertise to help prevent avoidable harm to women, children and even animals?

Absolutely, I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman.

Despite the MOJ not collecting figures for the number of people in prison for joint enterprise, we know that there are hundreds, but the Law Commission has sadly confirmed that it will not look at that area of law under the homicide review. Does the Secretary of State intend to look at this most difficult area of law to reform it, and what will happen to those prisoners convicted of joint enterprise crimes under the early release scheme?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the nature of joint enterprise. She will know that the Government have been looking carefully at this, and I would be happy to meet her and others to discuss it in more detail.

I previously put it to the Prisons Minister in one of these sessions that anyone who fails a drug test on arrival in an open prison like Kirkham does not belong there and should be sent back to a more secure prison. The Minister said they were concerned but could not agree to that. Has the Department had any more thoughts on at least consequences for failing a drug test on arrival at an open prison?

I absolutely recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. We have a review ongoing into these issues within prisons, led by Amber Rudd, and we will continue to ensure that we have the deterrence, to stop drugs getting in, and that the right actions are taken when they do.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In oral questions just now, the Justice Secretary stood there and said again that he wanted to work collaboratively, and he invited the House to scrutinise the Government’s proposals on juries, but those are just words. This summer, as the Government constantly changed policy on early release, I wrote to him and the Prime Minister three times in July and twice in August, and received no reply until I got a short, dismissive reply last Thursday, by which point—[Interruption.] What are your guidelines? By that point, the policy had changed several times. Just now, the Secretary of State dismissed my question sarcastically, saying that he was not the correspondence secretary. That is not only disrespectful to the House; it is disrespectful to his correspondence secretary and may explain the delays—

Order. I think I have got the point. The hon. Gentleman is quite right; let us deal with the issues, and we will judge whether it was said sarcastically. Of course, he has never done such a thing himself—be careful about being in the greenhouse with a stone in hand!

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise the issue of correspondence. Whether it is the Prime Minister or anybody else, I expect that there should be a reply ASAP. The point has been made, those on the Front Bench have heard it, and I am sure that in future replies will be forthcoming. I will leave it at that for now.