Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I absolutely recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns. As I have said, the projected programme should be with him by November. He will appreciate that there are important value for money considerations, and we also need to ensure we get the project right. It is expected to be a year long once it commences—by January 2027—but if he still requires a meeting, I would of course be happy to facilitate one.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

4. Whether he has set a target for the number of foreign national offenders in prison who will be deported.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Norris)]

The Government have increased foreign national offender returns by 41%, with more than 3,000 foreign national offenders removed directly from prison last year through the early removal scheme. From next year, new powers will enable most determinate sentence foreign national offenders to be deported immediately after sentencing, and I have established a cross-Government taskforce with the Home Office and the Foreign Office to maximise removals.

[Dr Murrison]

In July, the then Mayor of Manchester, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), said that

“nothing is off the table”

and that he would “explore all possible options” to deport child rapist Shabir Ahmed to Pakistan. Where is the necessary draft legislation to amend the Immigration Act 1971? Where is the credible threat to Pakistan to turn off visas, and where is the credible threat to Pakistan to stop money and other assistance to that country if it does not co-operate?

[Alex Norris]

The right hon. Gentleman may well have seen that I set out the Government’s approach in this regard from this Dispatch Box in July. He will know, and it is important to reiterate this, that the challenges in the Immigration Act 1971 are not merely technical, and setting them aside is not merely a technical answer. It is right that we do that properly. He will also know that we have ongoing negotiations and discussions with lots of countries around the world about foreign offenders, and we do not provide running commentaries on them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

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.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

T4. Prison officers do an increasingly tough job that most of us would not want to do or could not do, and the least they should be able to expect is to have their pensions and lump sums paid on time, yet thanks to the incompetence of MyCSP, Equiniti and now Capita, that is not happening. What is the Minister going to do about it?

[The Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending (Catherine McKinnell)]

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.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards). For her, and for the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), this is a remarkable feat of political endurance; I pay tribute to them for that.

I start by declaring my interest as a registered medical practitioner and an active doctor, but far more importantly, as somebody who has sat by relatives in their final hours and minutes, as many in this Chamber have done. That really has an impact, and is certainly germane to what we are discussing.

Although he is apparently not voting today, the new Prime Minister has said that he wants to improve palliative care before we weigh up this extremely difficult matter, which will affect a relatively small number of people at the end of their life. I do not agree with the Prime Minister on much, but I do agree with him on that. Happily, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who is no longer in his place, agrees with it, too. If I may paraphrase the Prime Minister, I want good palliative care to be available in every postcode. The criticism we have of it in this country right now is that it is not universally available to all. I believe that if it were, many of the considerations that we are deliberating on today would be profoundly altered, and that is one of the reasons why I will not support the Bill today.

[Rachael Maskell]

I led the independent commission on palliative care, and the data shows a worsening of palliative care; 170,000 people do not have access to the care that they need, and even those who are able to access palliative care may not have access to specialist techniques such as neuromodulation and palliative radiotherapy, and to nerve blocks. Does the right hon. Member not recognise that we need to look at the skills available, as well as the access points?

[Dr Murrison]

I certainly do, and I expect that those sort of things were on the mind of the Prime Minister when he made his remarks recently.

The first reason why I will not support the Bill today is that I seriously do not want to live in the kind of society in which the frail, elderly and vulnerable feel coerced into “doing the right thing.” We can set up panels, and involve judges in chambers, social workers and all the rest of it, but as humans, we know how humans work. We know the light side and the dark. Often, the currency that passes between vulnerable adults and their influencers is things that are not said; some of the contributions today have touched on that, and none of it is captured in clause 34.

We know that certain groups particularly like to please, to acquiesce, to oblige. We all know constituents like that, and they are often among the most vulnerable. They are people with Down’s syndrome, and people like the lady who featured in the advert for simple cremations, cited by my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley)—quiet people, if you like. They are among the people who are not adequately protected by this Bill. Can we genuinely say that there would be a level playing field for them? Our first mission in this place must be to protect the most vulnerable.

Speaking of the vulnerable, Canada has seen the most appalling mission creep, particularly into mental health. That is probably why the Royal College of Psychiatrists is so wary of the Bill, and it is in company with the most impressive array of medical, disability and charity groups—count them off! Do not turn a deaf ear to them.

I do not want the tone and texture of my profession, or of any other, to be changed irrevocably by its involvement in termination. Nor do I want others in the NHS or elsewhere in our care system who are unprotected by codes of ethics and opt-outs, and who will not be explicitly protected by the Bill, to feel obliged to be involved in termination. Clause 31 is all very well, but if this Bill passes, the pressure on those in the palliative care sector in particular to facilitate assisted dying will be substantial. Earlier in my career, I considered being an obstetrician; it was a career to which I was attracted, but one of the reasons why I did not take that route was that I did not feel comfortable being involved with a very large part of that practice, which is termination of pregnancy. I feel that this Bill will irrevocably change the nature of palliative services in this country.

The previous Health Secretary pointed out the tedious business of opportunity costs. Five per cent of deaths in Canada, where the law we are debating has been in place for a decade, are now assisted.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Murrison]

I will not, because of time. I would get the evils from Madam Deputy Speaker.

One in 20 deaths in Canada is assisted. If that were translated to this country, it would mean a huge extra cost, and the money would have to be found from other frontline services. Which ones? Likely it would be taken from Government support for hospices, which are already reeling from national insurance increases that have yet to be fully offset.

In my view, the moral, ethical, legal and practical issues that we are discussing today, complex as they are, are well beyond the scope of a private Member’s Bill. The only way to achieve a halfway safe and competent Act is to make this a Government Bill, mentioned in a manifesto. So far, no major political party has wanted to do that.

It is true that, each day, lives are shortened by interventions aimed at easing pain or suffering, which is what the caring professions do. That is quite different from a deliberate and systematic state-sanctioned and delivered programme to end the lives of people approaching death. At the end of the day, we can rationalise the pros and cons of assisted dying, but most of us will go with what we feel in our guts. My instincts tell me that giving the state or its agents leave to end life in this way is wrong. They tell me that, however well intentioned, it would lead in one direction, and would, over time, leave a grisly trail of unintended and unforeseen consequences. That is why I oppose this Bill.

Early Release of Prisoners

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy]

I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend. The statistics show that between 1993 and 2012, our prison population grew very significantly, and through that period, crime fell. It plateaued after 2012, as the population grew, and that was a mistake. The Opposition are willing to accept that that was one of the errors of the coalition Government and the Conservatives’ time in power. We need to move on from that, and we will develop policies so that a future Conservative Government can build the prison capacity that the country needs.

[D0r Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Left liberals may not like this, but it remains the case that the public expect the criminal justice system to exact retribution on those who have offended against society. If we do not do that, then individuals may wish to take the law into their own hands. We do not do that in a civilised country; we expect the state to do that on behalf of society. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we constantly diminish the sentences we hand down to serious and dangerous offenders, society may begin to lose faith in the Government it expects to do that work on its behalf?

[Nick Timothy]

I agree; prison works. It works because it punishes the guilty, gives justice to the innocent and takes dangerous people out of circulation, away from the rest of society, and, in doing so, reduces crime. This is a matter of common sense for most people in the country, but it is a deeply controversial thing to say among many criminologists and policy wonks. I am very clear in my belief that prison works and that we need to use prison far more than we do.

Only last week, when my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) asked the Minister to guarantee that convicted rape gang members would serve their sentences properly, he refused to do so. Lord Timpson, speaking for the Government on Channel 4, went even further:

“It is impossible for us to say exactly who will be released, where and when”.

The first 700 released prisoners are due to walk free on 2 September, and more will follow every month thereafter.

Child Contact Arrangements

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

I will call Alison Hume to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered children in child contact arrangements.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and to lead a debate on putting children first in child contact arrangements, an issue that is of great importance to me, to my constituents and to other Members of this House.

When parents have separated and children are involved, they often turn to the family court. Family courts are at the centre of a child’s right to safe family arrangements. However, so many are not functioning in the child’s best interests. Allegations of domestic abuse are estimated to occur in up to 62% of private law cases under the Children Act 1989 in family courts in England and Wales, and counterclaims of parental alienation are increasingly being made in response to allegations of abuse.

So-called parental alienation syndrome is when one parent undermines or destroys the child’s relationship to the other parent through a pattern of manipulative behaviour. It is a pseudoscientific concept with no basis in law or medicine. However, accusations of parental alienation have been made on multiple occasions by unregulated experts appointed to assess the family and provide recommendations to the court.

Jury Trials

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I rest my case, my Lord. I sincerely thank the hon. Gentleman for the way he has conducted himself, and the campaign that he has fought and is fighting on this issue. Having campaigned at times against my own Government and having voted against the last Conservative Government, I know that it is not easy to do, and I credit him for the work he is doing.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Robert Jenrick]

Let me answer the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), because he is making an important point. Lawyers rarely agree—in fact, their profession is often to disagree. This issue has united everyone in opposition to it. The Law Society, the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association and lawyer after lawyer has said that this policy is wrong and a better way is possible. This is not party political. It cuts across all parties, and opponents include vehement critics of mine. I woke up the other day to hear Anna Soubry on the “Today” programme saying that everything I was arguing was right. This is about getting the right answer for our criminal justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are alternative models for getting to the place where we all want to be—that is to say, for reducing this awful backlog, which is denying people justice? Will he take particular note—he probably already has—of the model introduced in the south-west by my constituent James Ward OBE? He introduced covid resolution courts, which were able to bring the backlog down from 52% to 2% through proper case management in the Crown Prosecution Service. That intervention alone saved 10 sitting years.

[Robert Jenrick]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me come to some potential solutions. It is important to note that the backlog varies very widely across the country. His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is a poorly managed organisation with limited accountability to Ministers, and it has not been performing its function as well as it should. There are parts of our country where the backlog is far smaller than in others. In Liverpool and parts of Lancashire—despite the closure of your local court, Mr Speaker—the court backlog is substantially lower, as it is in Wales. There are significant regional differences because better managers, active judges and good case management of the kind that my right hon. Friend mentioned have made a significant difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to end and insert:

“believes that the Government inherited a justice system on the brink of collapse with a record and rising caseload created under 14 years of Conservative mismanagement, austerity and cuts to the justice system that has forced victims of crime to wait years for justice; notes that the justice system has historically evolved to match the needs of the society it serves; supports the Government in making the investment required, including continuing to break records on the number of sitting days funded; looks forward to Sir Brian Leveson’s upcoming recommendations on reforms to improve efficiencies across the courts system; further supports taking forward reforms to the justice system based on Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts in which victims and the public can have confidence; and further notes that the Government will introduce legislation and publish its impact assessment in due course.”

“Let’s fix it tomorrow”, says the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—tomorrow, tomorrow and tomorrow. What a luxury! Our justice system is in a state of crisis, as he has said, but although in every crisis there is risk, there is also opportunity. The opportunity here is one that we in government grasp, to modernise our justice system and bring it into the 21st century.

Let us start with the crisis. I did not hear an apology in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, but he did lay bare the facts about what the previous Government did to our justice system. Being in government is about choices. We know what choices His Majesty’s Opposition would make about the justice system because they had 14 years to show the world. Now the right hon. Gentleman says, “Let’s come together, talk about investment in our system and talk about solutions,” but what did the Conservatives do for 14 years? They closed half of all courts in England and Wales. Who did they entrust with the guardianship of our justice system? Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, Chris Grayling. They decimated our legal aid system and all but broke our prison system.

What is the result? Well, the right hon. Gentleman is right: there is consensus that we are in crisis and that the status quo cannot be tolerated. Nearly 80,000 criminal cases are currently waiting to be heard in the Crown court—more than double the waiting list pre covid. Victims are waiting years for justice—over 20,000 open cases in the Crown court backlog have been waiting for a year or more. Justice delayed is justice denied, and the Conservative party must bear much of the blame, but we will never hear the word “sorry.”

[Dr Murrison]

I am not interested in a party political rant, but plainly the Minister is. What I am interested in, however, is expediting justice for my constituents. She will have heard in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the shadow Justice Secretary that there is a model to solve that. Will she please explain why the model that my constituent James Ward brought forward, which had spectacular results in reducing delays in our criminal justice system, is not being applied but the abolition of trial by jury is?

[Sarah Sackman]

The Conservatives had 14 years to implement the solutions that they now say are blindingly obvious. The fact is that swift courts, flow courts, blitz courts—whatever we wish to call them—are being operated, but they cannot keep up with demand. Our justice system has simply not kept pace with the times and the demands of modern society. There is now record demand for criminal cases. There are more police officers, arrests are up by 10%, and cases arriving at the Crown court are up by 20%. Trials are more complex, with cases taking, on average, 71% longer. Technology, such as the smartphones we carry in our pockets, is creating more digital evidence than ever before. Jury trials take twice as long as they did in 2000.

Those delays mean that in many cases justice is simply not being served. With those delays, witnesses pull out, memories fade and, as others have pointed out, more trials crack. As a result, justice is not being served. We have a system in which, as we know, there are criminals who are planning to spend next Christmas, and the Christmas after that, at home with their families. They are gaming the system, while victims wait longer and longer for justice, dealing with isolation and mental torment, unable to heal and to move on.

No one is defending the status quo, yet no Government to date have been bold enough to take the necessary action towards finding a solution. I am a firm believer that politics is an agent of change—that is why I left my career in law to enter politics. When we are presented with a crisis, we see the opportunity, we find the plan, and we fix it—we make it better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I will come later in my contribution to the inefficiencies within the system.

[Dr Murrison]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I will make some progress, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind.

The Government claim that this decision has stemmed from the review undertaken by Sir Brian Leveson, the first part of which was published last year. The objective behind the review commissioned by this Government was rightly to find solutions to the overwhelming backlog, and Leveson’s original suggestion was the creation of a Crown court bench division, including a judge and two magistrates, which was modelled to reduce trial length by 20%. The Government, however, have gone further than Leveson recommended, meaning that those accused of crimes with likely sentences of less than three years will, for the most part, not be heard by a jury. New so-called swift courts will be created where just one judge hears cases. The efficiency savings quoted by the Government are the same figures suggested by Leveson under his Crown court bench division model, but the modelling has, like this entire proposal, been widely criticised for lacking transparent data behind the calculations.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is also a member of the Justice Committee, for her important point that Leveson did not make this proposal at all. He was talking about a separate division, which the Deputy Prime Minister has announced as a swift court. He has ignored the impact of having two laypeople as magistrates as part of that. It does not make any sense to me, and it does not make sense to many people in this Chamber.

[Dr Murrison]

Does the hon. Lady share my dismay that not only did the Minister admit in her closing remarks that her plans are ideological, not practical or expedient, but also that she spent 30 minutes without talking about the central issue, which is that the majority of cases listed in our courts crack on day one, meaning that the courts are there, but nobody is working within them? That is what needs to be sorted out, rather than this maladroit plan to reduce liberties that we have enjoyed for 800 years.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The right hon. Gentleman pre-empts what I will go on to say in my speech. We are yet to see an impact assessment. That was spoken about by the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). It is also mentioned in the amendment tabled by the Government. We need to see the modelling and the impact assessment, and understand where these savings are coming from. Even if the figures are accurate, they avoid the glaringly obvious fact that they are measured against a completely inefficient system. The system is fundamentally not undermined by jury trials, but instead plagued by years of under-investment, creating an ever-growing list of unaddressed issues across the system. The Government seem willing to ignore that fact, despite it being present in every piece of discourse surrounding their proposals. They have bought a car that will not run, and they have decided to spend all their time and money on a new paint job before opening the bonnet.

This proposal is utterly shameful, fundamentally because there are alternatives, despite the narrative that the Government are advancing. They do not have to attack jury trials, especially when their own Ministers and their own Prime Minister have been fierce advocates of jury trials in the past. Instead, they should be looking at the real issues within the system that have led us to this point. Chief among them is the productivity decline that our criminal courts have experienced since 2016. Wasted time in and around courts is caused by a wide range of issues, all of which are being ignored by the Ministry of Justice. It means that the Government’s increased investment is being used inefficiently. It also means that many of these issues will persist, even if their attack on jury trials leads to reductions in trial length.

The solutions are out there, and the majority of legal professionals opposing the Government’s reforms are overflowing with practical suggestions, but the Government are not listening, so today I will lay some of them out. First, there must be investment in the courts estate, not only to reopen the hundreds of courts closed under the Conservatives—including my court in Chichester—but to properly maintain those that remain open. Evidence of leaking roofs, foul smells and flooded rooms across the estate is hardly indicative of a properly functioning justice system, and that must be addressed. Trials being abandoned because the heating is not working or there is no running water is unacceptable for those victims.

Even at the roughest of estimates, the restriction of jury trials will at best save 9,000 sitting days in court a year. That is based on not being able to see an impact assessment. The Government could increase the number of sitting days up to the possible 130,000, which would far exceed the apparent savings they would gain from the removal of trials. The concept of a restriction on sitting days is artificial. If there is a case, a courtroom, a defendant on remand and court staff ready to go, the case should be heard.

Prisoner Releases in Error

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right: there were 17 releases in error per month in 2024. Just in the Conservatives’ last days in office, there was a step change in those releases in error, and it very much started back in 2021 on their watch. But why did it start? It was because of the complexity of the system and the need to introduce new mechanisms to get prisoners out of an overheated prison system while being able to lock up the most violent people. That is why it has happened. Now, of course, we will do everything we can to get a grip.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is good to see a quieter, more emollient and, even by his own lights, humbler Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box than the one we saw last week. Will he say how many people have been wrongly detained and how much money his Department is setting aside for the likely ensuing litigation?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Member knows that we release those statistics on an annual basis. I think behind his question he knows that, just as the system releases prisoners in error, it sometimes retains prisoners when they should be released. The two go hand in hand.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I applaud my hon. Friend. She is a passionate champion of the next generation. She will have seen my right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) launch her curriculum review, which will deliver high standards for every child, giving them the skills they need to thrive and boosting their engagement in our democracy. I am proud that we will also be giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in our UK elections to make their powerful voices heard.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Q8. Burning waste is as polluting as burning coal, and our incinerators are already over-capacity. When will this Government renew the previous Government’s pause on new incinerators, end perverse deliver-or-pay contracts with incinerator companies, and deliver an incineration tax, such as the landfill tax, to encourage waste reduction, reuse and recycling?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is very experienced. He knows that on energy, our country’s future is in renewables, and that is why we are investing in them. He should listen carefully to what the Prime Minister has to say at COP. The Chancellor will have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s observations about further taxes; he will have to wait until the end of the month to see what happens.

Legal Aid Agency: Cyber-security Incident

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I will not disclose the name of the perpetrators of this malign attack. I do not think it would be responsible for me to do so while the investigation is live and while they are being pursued, not least through legal avenues. I am not able to share that information at the moment, but when I can share it, I will of course update the House.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

In her zeal to have a pop at the previous Government, the Minister implied that this country was peculiarly vulnerable to cyber-attack. There will be people listening to her out there who may be encouraged by that, so will she correct the record and reflect upon the International Telecommunication Union’s global cyber-security index, which found Britain to be right at the very top of the league table for cyber-security, along with countries known to be experts, such as Estonia and Germany? Does she agree that while we must not be complacent, it is important to tell the whole truth?

[Sarah Sackman]

As I said, those responsible are the baddies here, but let me be clear: I was absolutely shocked when I came into the Department to find the state of the Legal Aid Agency’s legacy IT systems. They were fragile, vulnerable, at risk and, frankly, not fit for purpose. That is not my view; that is the view of the Law Society and lots of users. They have to use an arcane system that is not only slow but, as we have now found, is so fragile that it has exposed many of its users to an unconscionable risk. That is not good enough. It is not talking down the system; it is the state of the system. That vulnerability has been exposed by these malign actors. The fact is that the previous Government knew about it and failed to fix it. We will not make the same mistake.

Criminal Injuries Compensation

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Laurence Turner]

I am delighted to hear a reference to a White Paper from 1993. I am a great believer in the theory that obscurity is a source of strength, and my hon. Friend has provided some evidence for that.

The Treasury takes a legitimate and necessary interest in annually managed expenditure. On the other hand, there is a real risk that changes made at relatively short notice, with curtailed time for scrutiny in this place, could deliver a worse service. That must be avoided at all costs, as we have seen from some negative experiences with past changes to the scheme.

Building on the Minister’s welcome commitment to continue to work with Members of this House and victims across the course of this Parliament, I hope that we can secure the positive changes that she wants to achieve. I thank all hon. Members who supported the application for the debate, including some who are unavoidably absent, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler) and the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), who gave notice that unfortunately they have been detained by other matters. This is the first debate on the important subject of criminal injuries in this Parliament, but I am sure that it will not be the last. I thank you for your chairship, Dr Murrison, and I thank everyone for their contributions.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Thank you. Contributions are always more powerful when they are rooted in personal experience, as we have heard today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered compensation for criminal injuries.

HMP Birmingham

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

We read the reports of the independent monitoring board and take action. We read that report. The prisons Minister and I are in constant touch with governors on these specific issues.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Some reports suggest that up to 75% of the inmate population have one or more mental health problem. Does the Secretary of State agree that we are unlikely to be able to reform our prisons fundamentally until we get to grips with mental health in the criminal justice system?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have been discussing with the Health Secretary how we can improve mental health provision in prisons and in the criminal justice system overall. We are giving governors power over mental health commissioning jointly with the NHS to make sure that we have the right services in our prisons.