Asbestos-related Lung Cancer: Compensation Act 2006

Douglas McAllister Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

I have called this Adjournment debate on the subject of the Compensation Act 2006 and asbestos-related lung cancer because I wish to bring to the attention of this House an injustice in the way the law treats victims of asbestos-related disease, and to urge the Government to review the operation of section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 to ensure that it supports sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer. A simple change in the law will ensure that all victims of lung cancer caused by exposure to asbestos at work are treated equally to those suffering from mesothelioma.

Although asbestos has been banned in the United Kingdom for more than 25 years, its deadly legacy continues. Each year, around 5,000 people in Great Britain die from cancers caused by asbestos exposure at work. It remains the single biggest workplace killer in the country. In my constituency of West Dunbartonshire, this issue is particularly prevalent. My constituency is among Europe’s worst hotspots for deaths linked to a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos at work, with more than 340 deaths since 1980. I have lived in Clydebank all my life and have seen at first hand the devastating effects of asbestos. This issue is deeply personal to the community I represent. For a number of years I have worked closely with the Clydebank Asbestos Group, an organisation that does so much to fight for truth and justice for sufferers of asbestos-related illness.

Towns like Clydebank, Dumbarton and the surrounding villages were built on heavy industry and, above all, the proud tradition of shipbuilding along the River Clyde. Generations of local men and women worked in the great yards, such as John Brown & Company, and in the engineering works, factories and power stations that supported them. Those industries built ships that sailed the world and powered Britain’s economy, but they also exposed thousands of workers to asbestos without adequate protection. They trusted their employers to keep them safe and, in too many cases, that trust was betrayed.

To give a bit of background, the origins of section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 lie in a series of court decisions that exposed a serious problem in the law for victims of mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos. In the case of Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services, the House of Lords recognised the unique position that these victims face. Asbestos diseases can develop decades after exposure, and because it is impossible to identify which particular fibre caused the illness, the court accepted that it should be enough for a claimant to show that an employer had materially increased the risk of the disease. However, a later ruling in Barker v. Corus UK created a new difficulty by deciding that employers should be liable only for their share of the risk. In practice, that meant victims could lose a large part of their compensation if some employers or their insurers could no longer be traced.

Parliament recognised that this outcome was deeply unfair and rightly acted quickly to unanimously pass the Compensation Act 2006, ensuring that people suffering from mesothelioma could recover full compensation from any one negligent employer. Section 3 of the Act therefore created a crucial protection. It allows victims of mesothelioma to recover full compensation from any one negligent employer, even if other former employers or their insurers cannot be traced. That reform was passed with unanimous support because Members recognised that people diagnosed with a terminal asbestos-related cancer should not be forced to pursue complex claims against multiple employers while facing an extremely limited life expectancy.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Does he agree that the whole reasoning of section 3 of the Compensation Act was because of the difficulty in identifying employers who exposed claimants to the particular fibres that caused mesothelioma, and that it is a huge anomaly that the section should apply to mesothelioma cases caused by asbestos but not to cases where people have developed lung cancer due to asbestos? This injustice should be remedied as soon as possible.

[Douglas McAllister]

My hon. Friend is correct, and I recognise his obvious expertise in this matter. I believe that he practised law, and in particular personal injury law, prior to being elected to this House. I thank him for his intervention and for all he does for his constituents in Wolverhampton West.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It would not be an Adjournment debate without Mr Jim Shannon, would it?

[Douglas McAllister]

The hon. Member is correct to recognise that point. This issue cuts across all nations in the United Kingdom, not least Northern Ireland, with its rich and proud shipbuilding past. I thank him for his considered intervention.

The difficulty is that the principle relating to mesothelioma does not apply to sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer, despite the fact that the diseases are strikingly similar. Both are caused by asbestos exposure and have incredibly similar symptoms, to the extent that medical professionals struggle to differentiate the two. Both are devastating and often fatal—in fact, around 60% of people diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer die within a year, which is a higher proportion than those diagnosed with mesothelioma—yet the law treats the victims of the two diseases very differently when it comes to compensation.

That difference is not based on medical evidence or moral principle; it exists simply because asbestos-related lung cancer cases were not considered when the legislation was introduced in 2006. Does the Minister agree that this situation is irrational and unfair? I emphasise that this debate is not to do with the legality of proving whether the cancer is asbestos related or not; it relates specifically to cases where the patient has been formally diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer.

For people with asbestos-related lung cancer, the current legal framework creates a significant and deeply unfair obstacle. In many cases, individuals were exposed to asbestos by multiple employers over the course of their working life. Under the current legal framework, compensation must be apportioned between the different employers responsible according to the extent to which each contributed to the risk of the disease. Victims must therefore bring claims against every employer responsible in order to recover full compensation.

Of course, the problem is that these illnesses often develop 30 or 40 years after exposure. By that point, many employers no longer exist. Companies have closed, industries have declined, and insurance records have been lost or destroyed. As a result, victims are frequently unable to trace every employer who exposed them to asbestos, or their insurer. When that happens, they are able to recover only the proportion of compensation attributable to the employers that can be traced. That means that people suffering from a terminal disease can lose substantial amounts of compensation simply because some negligent employers have disappeared over time.

That double standard of sorts has had profound consequences. In numerous cases, victims have lost tens of thousands of pounds in compensation because former employers could not be traced. The shortfall in compensation payments can be seen clearly. In one case in England and Wales, compensation that should have amounted to £112,000 was reduced by more than £76,000. In another case, a victim lost almost 70% of the compensation that would otherwise have been awarded. Across 33 documented cases concluded over the past seven years, the total compensation lost in this way amounts to less than £900,000, so this is not a vast sum in the context of the wider compensation system, but for the families involved it would make the world of difference to their quality of life at a time of immense hardship.

One case that illustrates the human impact particularly clearly is that of James Leo Heneghan. Mr Heneghan was born in 1938 and spent much of his working life exposed to asbestos dust. He died from lung cancer in 2013. After his death, his son, Carl Heneghan, pursued a claim for compensation on behalf of the family. Six of Mr Heneghan’s former employers were successfully traced and admitted liability for exposing him to asbestos. However, several other employers who had also exposed him to asbestos could not be found, and neither could their insurers. As a result, although the full value of the claim was £175,000, the family received just £61,100. Nearly two thirds of the compensation was effectively lost. Had Mr Heneghan been diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer strikingly similar to asbestos-related lung cancer, his family would have received full compensation. The disease did not affect Mr Heneghan any less severely because some employers could not be traced. The suffering endured by his family could have been eased, but because of the specific terms set out in section 3 of the 2006 Act, their rightful compensation was slashed.

The solution to this problem is simple and not unprecedented. Parliament has already established the appropriate legislative model. Extending the principle contained in section 3 of the Act to asbestos-related lung cancer would allow victims to recover full compensation from any one negligent employer or insurer. The responsibility would then fall on that employer or insurer to pursue contributions from other responsible parties. This approach ensures that compensation is delivered quickly and in full to the person who needs it most, while still allowing the costs to be shared appropriately among those responsible.

It is important to emphasise that the scale of this reform would be modest. Specialist practitioners estimate that fewer than 100 asbestos-related lung cancer claims are brought each year, and only a portion of those would involve missing employers. The number of people affected is therefore relatively small, but for those individuals and their families the consequences would be great.

Beyond giving compensation to those who rightly deserve it, this small change to the Act would have wider benefits beyond the individual claimants. Patients with asbestos-related lung cancer often need a lot of care and support. With adequate compensation, they can afford additional care, specialist equipment, or medical treatments that may not be immediately available through the NHS. This gives patients the dignity and choice they deserve and eases the pressure on already stretched public services. Making sure negligent employers and insurers pay the full compensation would also prevent the burden from falling on the state through the benefits system. Taxpayers should not have to shoulder the financial consequences of workplace negligence.

The Compensation Act 2006 was a great piece of legislation brought in under the previous Labour Government. It just contains an unintentional oversight, and one that is easily rectified. Parliament did not deliberately choose to treat victims differently; asbestos-related lung cancer was simply not considered when the law was changed in response to legal developments concerning mesothelioma. There is a gap in the legislation. Closing that gap would not require a fundamental overhaul of the law; it would simply involve extending an existing and widely supported principle to a closely related group of victims.

It is a simple solution, and it comes down to fairness. There is absolutely no justification for treating sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer any differently from sufferers of mesothelioma. When compensation cannot be recovered from some employers because they have disappeared, who should bear the financial burden? At the moment, that burden falls on the victim suffering asbestos-related lung cancer. The law should allow those people to recover full compensation from any one employer who is responsible. That employer can then seek a contribution to the damages awarded from other responsible employers or insurers.

In my frequent meetings with the Clydebank Asbestos Group, I have heard personal stories about how this has affected people in my community and across the UK. It is outrageous that victims and their families are not being given the support, dignity and rightful compensation they deserve. The time for sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer to receive the same recognition as those with mesothelioma is long overdue.

It is incredibly significant and appropriate that we debate this today because 2026 marks 20 years since the last Labour Government introduced the Compensation Act. That is 20 years of sufferers of asbestos-related lung cancer not getting the compensation they rightly deserve, and it is time to make that change. Will the Minister agree to meet me and to work with me and the relevant organisations involved with this issue to review the Compensation Act 2006 and discuss how we can make the necessary improvements by way of amendment, so that people suffering from asbestos-related lung cancer and their families can finally access the full and fair compensation that they deserve?

Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas McAllister Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I am quite confident that the Bill does that now, but I will look closely again at her amendment.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

T8. The rotten culture of secrecy and cover-up at the heart of the SNP Government is laid bare by the Glasgow Queen Elizabeth university hospital scandal. Grieving families were lied to and dismissed, and whistleblowers bullied and threatened. Will the Public Office (Accountability) Bill protect Scottish families from Government dishonesty and corruption?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important issue on the Floor of the House. All my thoughts are with the victims and survivors of this horrific situation in Scotland at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. The Bill’s duty of candour will create a powerful new obligation on all public bodies and officials to help investigations and inquiries find the truth that is needed, placing them under a legal obligation to provide information and evidence with candour. The duty will apply UK-wide, including in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas McAllister Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

The right hon. Gentleman raises children’s social care reform, which has been an important focus of the Department for Education. We are supporting more families through kinship arrangements, expanding fostering and ensuring that we support children earlier in order to stop crises escalating. I would be happy to discuss further any other ideas that he might have.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)]

Next week is Race Equality Week, with the theme “Change needs all of us”. The Government’s race equality engagement group, chaired by Baroness Lawrence, is ensuring that we hear directly from those most affected by race inequality. Yesterday we marked Holocaust Memorial Day, and across the House we remembered the 6 million Jewish people murdered by the Nazis. We redouble our efforts to combat prejudice, hatred and antisemitism in all its forms.

[Douglas McAllister]

The gender pay gap for full-time employees in Scotland widened from 2% in 2024 to 3.5% in 2025. It is utterly unacceptable that, on the SNP’s watch, women in Scotland are earning less for the same hours. What can the UK Government do to improve matters for women across the country?

[Bridget Phillipson]

My hon. Friend is right: we must narrow that gap. We are ensuring that large employers, including in the Scottish private sector, publish plans on how they will address the gender pay gap. Of course, I am proud that, alongside my hon. Friend, this Labour Government are delivering the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Douglas McAllister Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his questions and comments, and I can reassure him and everyone again that the duty of candour will apply to all public servants, including the intelligence services and individual agents. That is the intent and it will be in this legislation. We will work with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) to ensure that we get this right. We will work with the families who have that lived experience. The Prime Minister has heard from them directly about why it is so important that the intelligence services are captured, and they will be by the duty of candour in this legislation. We will work together to ensure that we get the legislation right.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

Will the Minister update the House on the progress made in her positive discussions with the Scottish Government relating to the provisions of non-means tested legal aid? Will Scottish families enjoy the same access to justice as those in the rest of our United Kingdom, and at the same time?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and again thank him for his service on the Public Bill Committee. It was fantastic to have another Member of Parliament from a devolved nation represented on the Bill Committee to discuss why it is so important that everyone in the United Kingdom should benefit from this legislation. I am pleased to confirm that the Scottish Government have indicated that they would like to be part of the mechanism for legal aid, and they have asked us to include them in this legislation. Those discussions are ongoing. It will, of course, be for the Scottish Government to determine the methodology for how they determine who gets legal aid for their fatal accident inquiries and inquests. Those discussions are ongoing, but we have had very positive discussions with the Scottish Government.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Douglas McAllister Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Clause 18 and schedule 6 represent a milestone moment in addressing the disparity in power often faced by bereaved families and other affected persons in the inquest and inquiry system. They provide for non-means-tested legal aid for bereaved families at all inquests where a public authority is an interested person, the widest expansion of legal aid in a generation.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

Clause 18(e) provides for non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved family members at inquests. The Bill is intended to introduce UK-wide legislation. I understand that the Minister has engaged in positive talks with the Scottish Government over a number of months because of the devolved nature of Scottish legal aid at fatal accident inquiries. Are we any further forward with those talks? Will the Scottish people enjoy the same access to legal aid as the rest of the UK?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we have a strong and positive working relationship with the Scottish Government and all the devolved Governments about the Bill. The Scottish Government have written to ask us to extend the provision to Scotland. We are working with our colleagues in Holyrood and across the UK to see how we can best apply that. I will happily update my hon. Friend on those discussions, which are positive and ongoing.

The provisions in the Bill on legal aid go further, setting out a common framework of obligations and accountability for public authorities and their legal teams when they participate at public inquiries and coroner investigations. I will now get into the detail. Parts 1, 2 and 3 of schedule 6 impose a common framework of obligations on public authorities and their legal teams in respect of their participation across statutory public inquiries, non-statutory public inquiries and coroner investigations. The schedule inserts proposed new section 34A into the Inquiries Act 2005 and amends section 42 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to provide that guidance may be issued by the Lord Chancellor to set out the principles that should guide the conduct of public authorities in respect of public inquiries and coroner investigations.

Schedule 6 inserts proposed new section 34B into the 2005 Act and proposed new section 42A into the 2009 Act to place a public authority that is a core participant at an inquiry, or an interested person at an inquest, under a duty to engage legal representatives to act for the authority only if, and in so far as—this is important—it is necessary and proportionate, and to take steps to ensure that those representatives conduct themselves in accordance with the guidance from the Lord Chancellor. In our evidence, we heard how bereaved families feel at an inquest when they turn up with their legal aid-appointed person—or are sometimes not even given a legal aid-appointed person—and the public authority has an army of barristers. This measure seeks to curtail that and to ensure equal representation and parity of arms.

The schedule amends section 41 of the 2005 Act and section 43 of the 2009 Act to make provision for an “overriding objective” to be created in an inquiry or inquest. In particular, that may include objectives for, or in connection with, ensuring that relevant affected persons are able to participate fully and effectively, maintaining the inquisitorial nature of proceedings, and that they are given sufficient information about proceedings.

The schedule also inserts proposed new section 34C into the 2005 Act and amends schedule 5 to the 2009 Act to create a power for an inquiry chair or coroner to raise concerns and report the matter to the person who has overall responsibility for the management of the public authority—or such other person who has power to take action—as to the conduct of a public authority or its legal representatives. A person to whom the report is made must give the inquiry chair or coroner a written response.

Part 3 of schedule 6 makes further modifications to schedule 5 to the 2009 Act to provide that where a report is made by a coroner, a copy must be sent to the chief coroner. Part 3 also amends section 36 of the 2009 Act to add those reports and their responses to the matters that must be summarised in the chief coroner’s annual report to the Lord Chancellor. It further amends section 43 of the 2009 Act to provide that regulations made under that section may make provision in respect of reports made by coroners in relation to concerns over the conduct of public authorities. Part 2 of schedule 6 makes it clear that changes made to the Inquires Act 2005 by part 1 of the schedule should apply to relevant non-statutory inquiries, albeit with certain modifications as set out in paragraph 2(3).

Part 4 of schedule 6 makes expanded provision for legal aid at inquests. It details a number of amendments to the legislation and regulations underpinning the legal aid system. Those, when taken together, keep applications to open or reopen an inquest in scope of legal aid; set out that, where a public authority is an interested person in the inquest, non-means-tested legal aid for the inquest can be accessed by families; and provide for conditions in relation to advocacy funding.

Part 4 begins with four amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, known as LASPO. The first two amendments are technical and update references to “the Coroners Act 1988” to say “the Coroners and Justice Act 2009”, which has largely repealed and replaced the 1988 Act. The third amendment brings applications under section 13 of the 1988 Act into scope of civil legal services. Section 13 allows bereaved family members to submit a request to open or reopen inquest proceedings to the High Court. The Government recognise the importance of bringing such applications into scope of legal aid, and this amendment to LASPO delivers that. Unlike inquests, section 13 applications are adversarial court proceedings in the High Court. As per determinations for section 13 applications under current ECF—exceptional case funding—legal representation will be provided, rather than legal help and advocacy funding, and applications will be means-tested.

The fourth amendment to LASPO insert a new paragraph into part 3 of schedule 1 to the Act to set out the conditions under which an individual can access funded advocacy services at inquest proceedings. The conditions are that, first, a public authority must be an interested person at the inquest and, secondly, advocacy must not have already been made available to another family member of the deceased in relation to the same inquest or a linked inquest. Whether an inquest is linked—that is, whether it is investigating deaths stemming from the same incident—is a matter for the coroner hearing the case.

Part 4 of schedule 6 then turns to amendments to the supporting regulations. The first set of amendments are to the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013. There are three amendments to regulation 5, in particular sub-paragraph (m) and proposed new sub-paragraph (ma). Those sub-paragraphs allow for the financial means test to be disapplied when an individual applies for legal help or advocacy at an inquest where a public authority is an interested person. The third amendment at sub-paragraph (n) is a purely technical amendment that facilitates the changes. By disapplying the means test for legal aid at inquests where a public authority is an interested person, the changes will truly make a difference for the bereaved. This will be a key turning point in rebalancing the system.

Part 4 of schedule 6 also amends the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013. The amendments ensure that not only legal help, advice and assistance but advocacy is available as an appropriate form of civil legal services at an inquest where a public authority is an interested person. They also ensure that legal representation is an appropriate form of civil legal service in an appeal to the High Court to open or reopen an inquest under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. The amendments will ensure that the bereaved have access to the appropriate form of legal aid for the proceedings that they are experiencing, ensuring that they are appropriately supported at each stage.

Finally, amendments 14 to 17 are minor technical amendments. They amend a reference in schedule 6 to a new paragraph inserted by the Bill into schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and relocate the position of a new paragraph inserted by the Bill into the same schedule to the 2009 Act. I commend the amendments, and the clause and schedule, to the Committee.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Second sitting)

Douglas McAllister Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Thank you. That is very helpful.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

Q First, the Bill provides for non-means-tested legal aid, but how should that work in practice, Mr Minnoch? Should the grant be uncapped, in respect of time and line, with no limit? Or do you envisage that there should be blocks of work with specified limits?

Secondly, if a public authority has a team of, for instance, one senior and two juniors, why should a bereaved family be represented by perhaps only one junior counsel? That really would not be parity of arms. The Bill talks about members of bereaved families, but how many members of that family are we talking about? Is it one specific next of kin? We heard evidence earlier from a witness who talked about a divorcing couple. Would they both be granted legal aid?

Chris Minnoch: On your first question, there is an issue around non-means-tested legal aid becoming available and so the case coming into scope at that stage, at the point at which the public authority is appointed as an interested party. Some of our members have expressed concerns that the appointment—the actual point at which an authority becomes an interested party—might be quite late in the process. It could be not when the inquest is opened, but perhaps closer to when the proceedings commence. An awful lot of work needs to be done in the intervening period, and that can last a long time. We are already talking to the Ministry of Justice about whether, although that is currently written into the Bill, it is the best way to determine the point at which non-means-tested legal aid is made available.

Of course, there are other situations in which means-tested legal aid will be made available, particularly when more than one family is involved who want representation, or at least preparation for the inquest rather than the advocacy itself.

At the moment, there is not a cap in respect of the preparation and advocacy aspects of work on inquest cases. That is probably right, because the system is already over-bureaucratic and underpaid. The creation of a cap, or people having to extend the level of legal aid they can access at different points in time in an inquest process, is just going to act as another barrier to ensuring adequate representation.

Parity is a really difficult question. I have been speaking about this to our members who are inquest specialists. One of the points they made, which was slightly surprising to me—I think Richard alluded to this earlier—was that they do not necessarily see parity as being about the number or seniority of the lawyers that represent either side in the inquisitorial process. Because of the completely different role that a bereaved family have in an inquest—as opposed to a public authority—it is probably understandable in many circumstances why a public authority might have a bigger legal team. If the duty of candour works in practice, and if public authorities genuinely want to assist the coroner to carry out their investigations, they may need a larger legal team to assist them properly. I would not say it is as simple as just numbers and seniority.

To build on one of the points mentioned earlier, the reasonableness and proportionality of legal representation will be linked to conduct, to a degree. The assessment by the coroner of whether the public authority’s level of representation is proportionate will very much flow from whether the coroner believes the public authority is acting and following their duty of candour and their duty to assist the investigation, and is being open, frank and transparent. If they are, there will be few concerns about their level of legal representation, but if they are not, there will be big concerns about their level of legal representation, because that will be seen as a mechanism to block rather than comply with their duties. Does that make sense?

[Douglas McAllister]

Yes, it does. Thank you.

Richard Miller: I will add one point on the costs aspect. Firms will not be given a blank cheque here; they know that when they submit their bill of costs to the Legal Aid Agency, it will be very closely scrutinised. Any costs that the Legal Aid Agency considers were not necessarily and reasonably incurred will be disallowed, and firms know they will be subject to that level of scrutiny when they undertake work, so they are, by definition, very cautious about what work they do. They do not want to do a whole load of work that they are not going to get paid for, so there is a very significant control of the costs from that assessment by the Legal Aid Agency.

Over time, one of the things we will be able to learn is what sort of costs should be expected for this work, and once we know what the norms are, it may be possible to move to a system where there are stages or caps where people know, “This is the expected level of costs for that. If you’re going to exceed that, maybe you would need to get specific authority”, but we do not have that information at the outset. That will be something to develop in a number of years, once the evidence comes through.

[Ian Byrne]

Q It is good to hear evidence from both of you, Chris and Richard, and I echo that the legal aid element of the Bill is great news. I am a bit concerned about some of the mood music around scaling up for the parity of arms, because that was needed yesterday. From the evidence we have heard and our experiences, we know that is so important. It is such a crucial part of what we are trying to achieve here on accountability and justice for victims.

In a world where the Bill is passed into legislation in May, what would the timescale be for scaling up so we have parity of arms at inquests? What would be the timescale, and what would you need? I would like that on record.

Richard Miller: First, we need to get the structure for the legal aid administration resolved, and we need to have discussions with the Ministry and the Legal Aid Agency about what training is required, what can be provided and how quickly it can be developed. It might potentially be helpful if a plan could be published that sets out, “This is the plan for meeting the capacity requirements here”, and on which we and the Government and perhaps the Legal Aid Agency could all say, “Yep, we agree that is the route forward. That is the road map. Those are the milestones and timelines that we think we will need for it.” I do not think we are in a position today to be able to say, “Yep, this is the time that is required”, but I do not think it would take too much work to develop a plan that would help us understand what would be required and how quickly we could get there.

Chris Minnoch: I have some minor points to add. We will need an amendment to the Bill to fix those structural issues. The Bill, as currently drafted, is based on the existing funding model, which does not support sustainability and creates unnecessary complexity in the system. The way in which the funding mechanism works does not enable it to be completed in the same way as other areas of civil legal aid. The earlier those amendments are made and the Bill receives Royal Assent, the earlier current practitioners can make a conscious business decision to say, “Yes, this is an area in which we can take on more staff and start training them up, or divert resources from other areas into inquest work.”

One of our concerns is that this might mean that lawyers take on a higher proportion of inquest cases than they currently do, and one of the things I would like to see the Ministry of Justice actively thinking about is how you put mechanisms in place that support lawyers to do such complex and potentially harrowing cases. I think that is partly an issue for the Ministry of Justice, and partly an issue for the legal sector. The legal aid sector is not particularly good at looking after itself, given the nature of the cases it does. That is as much about having an adequate fee scheme and having the right levels of training and supervision in place to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas McAllister Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to reduce the court backlog.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

11. What steps his Department is taking to reduce the Crown court backlog.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

12. What steps he is taking to tackle backlogs in the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that we have to build the system’s capacity to use courtrooms better. I can tell him that Sir Brian Leveson—I was very grateful to Sir Brian for coming to see me, as Foreign Secretary, while he was completing his review because of my experience in the criminal justice system—is completing his review by the end of the year.

[Douglas McAllister]

One of the most effective steps taken by this Government to help reduce the Crown court backlog is the record increases to criminal legal aid. Fewer criminal barristers and solicitors will not help to tackle case waiting times. Scotland is experiencing unacceptable delays in solemn cases coming to trial, made worse by the inadequate funding of Scottish legal aid by the Scottish Government. Does the Justice Secretary agree that unless we significantly increase legal aid fees across the UK, the current criminal defence model is unsustainable and we risk the collapse of our court system?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend highlights almost two decades of the SNP running Scotland into the ground. Here, we have had a record increase of £92 million. On the day we introduce the Hillsborough law, it is hugely important to record that that is the biggest extension of legal aid for people who have suffered at the hands of the state in over a decade.

Independent Sentencing Review

Douglas McAllister Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that this Government are getting on with building the largest prison expansion programme since the Victorians. That is a Labour Government in action, fixing the Tory prison crisis once and for all. Can I ask the Secretary of State to learn from the SNP Scottish Government’s abject failure with the new Barlinnie prison project in Glasgow? It has been delayed again, and now will not be ready until 2028, which is nine years late. The cost has soared from £100 million to a staggering £1 billion for one prison. Will we learn lessons from the SNP failure?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Let me tell him that we have already learned the lessons of the Tory party’s failure, and I am very sorry to hear about the situation he describes in Scotland. The Conservatives’ failure on prison building stemmed from two things: they could not get it past their own Back Benchers, so the planning delays added billions to the cost of prison place expansion; and they did not make certain and available the amount needed to stimulate funding at the rate required. We have reversed both those things: we have made £4.7 billion available and we have made it very clear that planning will not get in the way of prison building.

Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas McAllister Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I will take that away and do that.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that a properly funded legal aid scheme both here and in Scotland is essential for access to justice, and that the decline in this vital public service that both the Tories and the SNP have presided over is nothing short of disgraceful?

[Heidi Alexander]

What we are experiencing is the very long tail of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which has meant that both the civil and criminal legal aid sectors have faced huge challenges. That is vital to people’s access to justice.