Domestic Abuse: Children

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Leigh Ingham]

The hon. Member is correct that these are really emotional subjects. It is happening to too many children across our country, and my constituent says it better than I could:

“This is not just about my family; it highlights a much wider and deeply concerning issue. Too many parents are silenced and disbelieved when trying to protect their children from post-separation abuse. Agencies are quick to label these cases as ‘conflict’ or ‘parental alienation’, rather than recognising patterns of coercive control that continue long after relationships end.”

Until this Government ended the presumption of parental involvement, those abusers could continue to weaponise their children against their own parent, forcing the victim who left them to continue to be held to their abuser’s will. That has to end. I will follow the progress very closely.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

The hon. Lady is making an extremely powerful speech. Does she agree that children who have suffered abuse and neglect can exhibit behaviours at school and other social settings that would have them punished or excluded from those settings? Abuse has knock-on effects and a wider impact on the whole of a child’s life.

[Leigh Ingham]

It is a widely acknowledged fact that if a young person or child experiences abuse, it continues to have a wide range of impacts throughout their life. It is important that this Government have set the direction. The legislation is there, the ambition is there and the sector is ready. We must match ambition with investment, law with implementation, and promises with performance, because children cannot wait. They deserve safety, stability and a childhood free from fear.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing this important debate. This is a heartbreaking topic. Tackling and preventing the harms being caused to children in their home demands urgent attention.

When I think about domestic abuse against children, my mind often goes back to the posters we had when I was growing up, and that we may have seen recently in shopping centres and train stations, with two adults arguing and a child crouched in the corner and watching in fear. That image is everywhere when we talk about children and domestic abuse: the child on the sidelines, quietly absorbing the trauma around them.

The reality is far worse than that familiar picture, because children are not just witnesses: 1.8 million children in the UK are experiencing domestic abuse right now. Women’s Aid has found that, in the last 30 years, 67 children have been killed by a parent who was also a perpetrator of domestic abuse, often during contact arrangements. That statistic and the fact it could happen during contact arrangements genuinely stopped me in my tracks. The more recent National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children briefing on child deaths due to abuse or neglect from July of this year estimates that at least one child a week is killed through abuse or neglect. In our country—in any country—that is completely unacceptable.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognises children as victims in their own right, which was the right move. However, I came across another troubling fact during research for this debate. In 2022, after that legal change, less than a third of survivors who wanted support for their children were able to get it. That demonstrates that changing the law does not automatically cause tangible change. If we do not fund the services or create spaces for children to heal and feel safe, the law is just a line on a page.

I was disappointed not to hear anything about funding for tackling domestic child abuse and violence against women and girls in the Budget this week. It is important that the Government back up their intentions and ambitions to tackle this with real resources and funding.

I thank organisations such as the NSPCC and the Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre, which work across Kirklees and West Yorkshire. My office often refers families to them, whether for counselling, for children recovering from abuse or for support when navigating domestic abuse cases. However, it is disheartening that we rely so heavily on charities to do the work that should be backed by proper Government strategy and funding.

This year, the proportion of organisations providing children’s domestic abuse services without dedicated funding has doubled from 15.7% to 31.4%. That tells us everything about the state of the system. It is truly worrying after hearing last year about the Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls. Many of the women who come to my office with cases of domestic violence would have fled to a refuge with their children due to abuse from a partner.

These issues of violence against women and girls, and protecting children from domestic abuse, go hand in hand. Yet when the number of organisations supporting children without any dedicated funding has doubled, it is hard to believe that those commitments are being matched by action. If anything, it shows that children are still an afterthought in a system that claims to protect them. Therefore, will the Minister please confirm what specific extra funding, resources and procedural changes the Government are planning or have allocated to this space?

We were told by the Department for Education that, by the end of 2025, there would be a road map for a child protection authority—a recommendation that the Government received from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse—but we have heard very little since. The commitments are there and the reports all show the urgent need for long-term systemic change, yet we are not seeing that change actually happening. Will the Minister confirm when the road map for a child protection authority can be expected?

Children deserve better than posters of fear and a system that waits until harm has already been done; they deserve to be protected, to recover and to grow up feeling safe and loved. Right now, too many are falling through the cracks, and we owe it to them to fix that.

Prisoner Releases in Error

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Over the summer recess, I had the pleasure of visiting the probation centre in Dewsbury, where Lucy Nicholson, head of Kirklees probation delivery unit, and her team hosted me. I pay tribute to their work, which has been made extremely difficult by the lack of investment in not just in the Probation Service but in prisons by the previous Government. We have full accommodation, a lack of funding and resources, reduced staff numbers, no processes in place to protect the public or prison staff, no systems, and no checks and balances. Will the Secretary of State outline the timescales by which some and all of these issues will be addressed, so that people in my constituency and across the country can feel safe when they sleep at night?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for centring the importance of probation. It is why one of the first things I did when I took office was to visit the Probation Service in Islington, and it is why I was recently in Chatham in Kent with probation officers. Investing in technology is hugely important to reduce their caseloads. Investing in more staff is hugely important —we recruited more than 1,000 staff last year, with 1,300 to come. Probation needs more resource, and that is why we have committed to £700 million by the next spending review. I am sure that we will return to these issues because I have no doubt that the decisions made by former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling were a travesty for probation and criminal justice.

Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I extend my immense gratitude to my friend, the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne).

On behalf of my independent alliance colleagues, I begin by paying tribute to the Hillsborough families, survivors and campaigners who for decades have fought with extraordinary courage and perseverance. Their demand has always been simple: for the truth to be told as it is so that families can find closure and not face barriers in their pursuit of justice for their loved ones. Their legacy is the Hillsborough law: a legal duty of candour on public authorities and officials, and equal representation for bereaved families. That was promised by the Government. With trust in politicians at an all-time low in our country and around the world, I appeal to the Government to please honour their promise. I am not asking for anything different or anything more.

With high-profile tragedies such as Hillsborough, Grenfell, the Manchester Arena bombing, Horizon and infected blood, the need for such a law is undeniable. I attended the statement made yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), on child sexual abuse. Without the Hillsborough law, that inquiry may not uncover the truth about what people withheld and how many victims could have been prevented from abuse or supported in their time of need, so please—this is critical.

I will skip to one additional point. Justice is about not just how we respond after a disaster but the systems we put in place to prevent injustices from happening again. Too often, families are forced into painful struggles because institutions have failed them. While we respect the work of our public servants, we must recognise that failures within the NHS, the police, local government and the courts are sometimes systemic. One such issue relates to critically ill children, where parents have to go through adversarial court battles to get second opinions and treatment for their children. I urge the Government to look into that and to pass the Hillsborough law as promised so that those things can be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I want to speak about transparency and accountability in healthcare, and about my constituents Ryan and Sarah, and their daughter Ida. Ida died in 2019 at seven days old. She died from brain damage caused by failings in her care. Those failings could have been avoided. There were eight missed opportunities to save Ida, and in the wake of her death, Ryan and Sarah have had to fight every step of the way to get the truth. After the hospital trust’s completely inadequate internal investigation declared that there were no issues with Ida’s care, her death was graded as “moderate harm”. Ryan and Sarah had to contact a senior coroner to request a full inquest, and only during that inquest this year—six years later—did the trust finally accept its failings. That is five and a half years in which Ryan and Sarah have had to fight for the truth; five and a half years in which the trust not only denied its failings, but covered them up.

For truly safe healthcare we must strengthen the ability of staff to speak up and speak out safely. People need to be thanked for raising concerns. But when problems are covered up, there needs to be accountability. For Ryan and Sarah, the grief of Ida’s death was made even harder by the denial and cover-up that followed.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

This is a harrowing story about Ida and Sarah. Does the hon. Member agree that not every person who is impacted by failings of state, and who has lost family and loved ones, has the resources, time and energy to fight for five and a half years?

[Lizzi Collinge]

I absolutely agree. People should not have to have this fight. They should not have to have resources to take on hospital trusts or the state. They should not have to do that; his point is well made.

When mistakes are hidden or dismissed, families lose faith not only in an individual hospital or organisation, but in the very systems that are meant to protect them. It is our responsibility to ensure that no other family has to endure what Ryan and Sarah went through, and that no other baby dies in that way. Accountability cannot be optional, and honesty cannot be negotiable.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I pay tribute to my fellow Red, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). His tireless campaigning on behalf of victims and survivors—the 97, the Grenfell families, the MEN arena families and every family failed by the state, of which there are sadly so many more—has been remarkable and inspiring, and he has always ensured that they have had a voice in this place. I also thank colleagues from across the House for coming to this important debate and for all of their engagement, encouragement and support as we seek to make sure that this legislation is truly worthy of being called a Hillsborough law.

I have heard that the time for warm words is over, but I want to reaffirm this Government’s ironclad commitment that we will put the Hillsborough law on the statute book. We will deliver on our manifesto commitments to place a legal duty of candour on public servants and authorities, and we will provide legal aid for victims of disasters or state-related deaths. The Hillsborough disaster is one of the greatest stains on British history, and the families, survivors and those who lost loved ones have shown endless determination to get justice. As others have said, they should have been allowed to grieve, love and remember in peace. Instead, they have spent decades searching for truth and justice.

The Government are clear that what happened following the Hillsborough disaster must never happen again. As Members are aware, the Government committed to bringing forward a Bill ahead of the 36th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster, on 15 April this year. We did not meet that deadline, and I regret that. Any further delay simply compounds and prolongs the families’ fight to ensure that nothing like Hillsborough can happen again.

The Government worked with campaigners on a draft Bill, and when it became evident that that Bill would not fulfil the aims of the campaign, or meet the expectations of the families, we decided to take more time and get this important piece of legislation right—to deliver a legacy, to deliver a Bill that is truly worthy of being called a Hillsborough law. We committed to working further with them, and we have done that. I pay tribute to everyone who has helped with the process.

We are working in collaboration with stakeholders, campaigners and families as we develop this policy. We are clear that our approach must be families first. Before we bring any legislation to either House on this important issue, or announce precisely how we intend to deliver the manifesto commitments, we must bring this to families first. That is the least they deserve.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

On timelines, will the Minister elaborate on how long the Government expect to need before they can present something to the House?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am grateful for that question. I have heard the frustration and anger, both in this place and outside it, in relation to the need to introduce this quickly and urgently, but we have also heard directly from families about the need to get this right. It is our opportunity to do this, once and for all, and we will not rest until we get that right. I therefore refuse to put a timeline on it, but I do know that we need to do this quickly, and I have heard that today. First and foremost, however, it has to be done with the families first, and we will not proceed with anything that does not have their blessing and backing.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Today we are faced with a defining choice. We have debated assisted dying for months, and in some ways we could never have enough time for this. I wish there had been more opportunity to debate the amendments, but I can also say, based on my time in these debates, that hon. Members have approached these issues with great dignity and care.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), who is a friend of mine and who I am very proud of, has led this debate with characteristic humanity, decency and honour. I am sure all of us have found that whenever we have approached her with our concerns or those of others, she has had a willing ear and an open heart. I pay tribute to her.

Opponents of the Bill have also worked tirelessly to understand and voice people’s concerns, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, they brought that expertise so that all voices could be heard today. My office has been approached more than 1,000 times by people in Wirral West regarding this issue, and that has shown that people are guided by all faiths and none. As others have said, that deserves great respect. I think back to a meeting I held to discuss this matter in Melrose Hall in Hoylake with more than 50 constituents. With candour and respect, people shared their personal stories. They disagreed wholeheartedly, but they did so with compassion and dignity. They are the best of us.

Standing here, I recognise that however today ends up, we will let people down—whether the Bill passes and people who would otherwise not choose to have an assisted death go through with one, or whether the Bill falls and people who I believe should have the choice to end their illness on their own terms are denied that opportunity. I am conscious of that, yet the vote before us is not on the harrowing stories we have heard but on a system, and it is that system that I worry about, as it would have implications that go beyond individual cases. The consequences of getting this wrong are severe, and the risks of getting it wrong with an NHS still in recovery are too high.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Matthew Patrick]

I will not take interventions.

The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) tabled an important amendment about palliative care that has opened a door to an important conversation, and I thank her for that. If our NHS is not able to deliver the highest quality of care at the end of a person’s life now, would assisted dying improve that, or could it end up creating a one-sided choice? I know that hon. Members will be concerned that there will never be a good time for the NHS to introduce this—that it will never quite be ready for assisted dying. I hear that, but I sincerely do not believe that it is ready to bear the weight of the system we are voting on today.

I am not settled on the issue of coercion either. We have heard from experts across the House; my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) have spoken about mental health issues and learning disabilities, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) talked about issues of domestic abuse and how they could intersect with this. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) spoke about how ethnic minority communities could be impacted by the Bill, and about the trust in the health system and the dynamics that could lead to someone taking their life.

I worry about the quiet, imperceptible and unspoken coercion that could emerge if we go ahead with this system. I worry about vulnerable people who would feel a duty to die, and I am not satisfied that the Bill has enough safeguards against that. For that reason, I am voting against the Bill, and I call on others to do the same. I say to those watching at home that I hope they share my confidence that whichever Lobby colleagues walk through today, they have reached their decision with great care and consideration. To weigh up the consequences—good and bad—of this vote is the burden of duty that such a Bill brings. I share that burden with others today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

I fully appreciate and respect the differing views on both sides of this debate, and I thank the huge number of constituents in Epping Forest who have contacted me about the Bill.

This legislation to permit assisted dying or suicide leaves me with many concerns. I fear that some frail and vulnerable people may start to feel a burden to their families and may feel some pressure to proceed down this path. I also worry that the legislation will fundamentally change the doctor-patient relationship, and that it will be a foundational change in what our precious NHS is and stands for.

I am concerned about the possible pressure that the Bill will place on medical practitioners when it comes to diagnosis and prognostication, which we know is not an exact science. Furthermore, although our palliative care sector provides high-quality, compassionate and dignified care at its best, access to palliative care across the country is, sadly, not at a uniform level for all people who need it at the end of life. Sadly, in terms of funding and delivery, the majority of palliative care is left to the charitable sector. That is in no way intended as a criticism of the amazing charities and hospices involved in the delivery of that care, but it is not right that the state will fund how someone comes into this life—with obstetrics, maternal care, neonatology and paediatrics—but not how they leave it. Our priority should be addressing the palliative care situation before we go anywhere near bringing in assisted dying legislation.

Finally, I want to make some remarks as a veterinary surgeon.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Hudson]

I will not.

I preface these remarks by saying that I am in no way equating the passing of an animal with the passing of a human, which is of a completely different order of magnitude, but the end of an animal’s life has sometimes been drawn into the discussion of human assisted dying. Many of the protocols and drugs are similar to those being discussed for humans. As a veterinary surgeon, I have been involved in helping countless animals, large and small, pass away, for many reasons. Each decision with the owner is very difficult—often heartbreaking—but the final act is not always routine and does not always go smoothly or according to plan.

Apart from a couple of powerful speeches from hon. Members last week, we have not really addressed the issue of medical procedures and complications in this human debate. I shudder to think of the implications for the patient, their loved ones and the co-ordinating doctor if things do not go smoothly and peacefully. That must surely give us all pause for thought. For those and many other reasons, I will again be voting against the Bill.

Legal Aid Agency: Cyber-security Incident

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. She is absolutely right. I join the Opposition in condemning the criminals who perpetrated this attack. She has already explained what constituents who may be impacted should do, and I will not ask her to repeat that, but can she assure this House that the learnings from this cyber-attack are already being applied across Government and the public sector? If extra steps are required to access legal aid or process payments by legal aid providers, will the providers be compensated accordingly?

[Sarah Sackman]

Once we have resolved this investigation, once we can be assured that the hackers are no longer in the system and that people’s data is safe and once we can be assured that our legal aid platform is operating properly and is handling people’s data in a safe way, there will need to be a stocktake and an effort to learn lessons, not least as we embark—we are already in the process of doing this—on stabilising and transforming this system so that it is fit for the future. No doubt, there will be lessons from this particular attack for other public and Government bodies. The question of compensation must wait for another day. My priority is removing the hackers from the system, making sure that they feel the full force of the law and ensuring that, in the meantime, no person who needs legal aid cannot get it and the system continues to operate.

Coroner Services: West Midlands

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ayoub Khan]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. There is significant case law that identifies this specific need, and coroners do abide by that and try their best to assist when expediency is required because of religion. Unfortunately, it comes back to the bottleneck, where coroners want to do the best they can within the structure in which they are working, but they are limited by resources. That comes down to issues such as staffing.

When families have nowhere to turn, it should not be inappropriate for parliamentarians to contact the coroner to assist the suffering or grieving family. Will the Minister please review the part of the code of conduct for parliamentarians that relates to communicating with a coroner?

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

One way that we in Dewsbury and Batley try to overcome this restriction—a rule I also could not understand—is by working with our not-for-profit and charitable funeral services, especially in religious communities. Organisations such as Fisabilillah and Sadaqah Jariyah build a relationship with the coroner to try to facilitate communication with families who reach out to MPs. Does the hon. Member agree that these organisations in communities should be congratulated and thanked for their service, and that the communication channel he speaks of should be formalised and made permissible?

[Ayoub Khan]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member. Up and down the country many organisations such as undertakers provide that support mechanism. Unfortunately, from my personal experience—this is certainly the case in Birmingham, and I am confident it is in the west midlands region too—a family’s first port of call is their local councillor or parliamentarian, and there is an expectation from the community or the family that they will make representations to the coroner. If elected representatives are unable to have that communication because of the code of conduct, our very function is undermined. It is important that organisations maintain the relationships that they have with coroners, but it is also important to give parliamentarians the ability to communicate with the coroner directly. To ensure that the services meet the demand of their communities, they need additional funding. Coroner services require transformation, but resourcing for that transformation is important. That means hiring more pathologists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ayoub Khan]

I can say confidently that the coroners I have worked with work tirelessly, and often outside their working hours, to deliver the best possible service, but the limitations on them are of concern. Although coroners are doing their level best, they are limited—certainly in Birmingham—in what they can do if they do not have the resources. I hope that the Minister can take that issue away for review and support. I agree with my hon. Friend about the good work that coroners do up and down the country.

There must be training, awareness and sensitivity within coroner services, registrars and local councils. For example, in Birmingham we have a relationship whereby there is a rapid release system as hospitals understand the sensitivities and do their utmost to ensure that a body is released. Unfortunately, to give another example, one family were left grieving because a deceased’s body could not be given to the undertaker at Queen Elizabeth hospital because there was no individual who could do the handover. The family had to wait over the weekend just to get the deceased’s body. We need to look at how we can work across all sectors to ensure that they are properly resourced and we avoid any unnecessary delay.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The lack of resources and coroners across the country has a knock-on effect on the NHS. There is an additional administrative and logistical burden from holding bodies and dealing with families who are getting in contact every hour, many times. That takes staff away from frontline services. Does the hon. Member agree that having the right level of coroner services would reduce the burden of knock-on costs on the NHS?

[Ayoub Khan]

I agree, but I am conscious of the time, so I will swiftly wrap up my speech.

This is not a partisan issue. It is not even a religious issue. This is a human issue. It affects people of faith and of no faith. No one deserves to wait weeks or longer to say goodbye to those they love. Let us act not just with policy, but with purpose. Let us fund, reform and rebuild a system that respects every community, honours every tradition and puts compassion first once more.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My condolences to you on your loss, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) on securing this important debate. I thank him for his emotive speech, and all hon. Members who contributed, representing the views of bereaved families, sometimes including their own. It is appreciated and they have done so dutifully.

The House will be aware that although the Ministry of Justice is responsible for coronial law and policy in England and Wales, it does not have operational oversight of the coronial system. Coroner services are not centralised as part of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, and are instead administered and funded through the relevant local authorities for each coroner area. The chief coroner provides judicial leadership for coroners. I take this opportunity, as other Members have, to express my thanks to all coroners, their officers and their staff, as well as the chief coroner and her team for their tireless and expert commitment to their work. We are all extremely grateful to them for the vital service they provide to the bereaved and to the justice system.

Coroners are independent judicial office holders. They are specialist death investigation judges and part of the wider death investigation, certification and registration system. Their statutory duty is to investigate any death of which they become aware if they suspect that it was violent or unnatural in its cause, its cause was unknown, or it occurred in custody or other state detention. They also have an ancillary duty to ensure that, in appropriate cases, action to prevent future death is identified via prevention of future deaths reports.

The needs of the bereaved, particularly where there are faith concerns in respect of a death, should remain central to the coroner process. Both the Lord Chancellor, as a west midlands MP, and I are very aware of local concerns about coroner provision for communities that require swift burial or cremation. Clearly, decisions about the release of the body, including whether to hold a post-mortem examination, are independent judicial decisions for the coroner. However, I know that in many jurisdictions, including in the west midlands, families have experienced real delays. Sometimes, that is because the coroner needed to gather further evidence to support the investigation. I fully understand that, regardless of the reason, delays can cause real distress for bereaved families, particularly when faith requirements are dependent on the timely release of a loved one’s body.

We are working hard to cut delays wherever possible and to ensure that families are properly communicated with and supported throughout the process, particularly so that we can ensure that any religious ceremonies or faith requirements can be met, as they should. There are already a range of measures in place to help guide coroners as to best practice in terms of early decision making once a death has been reported, in order to ensure that families can be given certainty as soon as possible.

The chief coroner has issued detailed practical guidance for coroners in dealing with requests for urgent consideration of a death and early release of a deceased body, including on religious grounds. The guidance sets out that legal framework and states:

“Coroners should pay appropriate respect to those wishes, within the framework of their legal duties and in the context of other responsibilities.”

In addition, the chief coroner has issued guidance on the use of post-mortem imaging, including CT scanning, and on pathology more generally, which emphasises that the family should be kept fully informed throughout. I regularly meet the chief coroner to ensure that we have a shared understanding of the issues with the coroner system, including this one. I am also happy to engage with representatives of faith communities to understand their concerns and to meet hon. Members to discuss the matter further.

As the House will know, the Justice Committee undertook an inquiry into the coroner service in 2021, with a follow-up in 2023-24. The Government responded to the Committee’s letter of May 2024, summarising their findings in December 2024. That letter has been published by the Committee. It is right that our focus should be on ensuring that the bereaved are at the heart of the process. I hope the House will find it helpful if I set out a number of steps that the Government are taking to address the issues raised by the Justice Committee, other stakeholders and hon. Members.

After just a few months in office, in September 2024 this Government implemented the statutory medical examiner system in England and Wales. It represents the most fundamental change to the end-to-end process of death certification and registration in recent times. The new system means that every death is subject either to the scrutiny of a medical examiner or to a coroner’s investigation, thereby fulfilling the long-standing ambition of successive Governments to introduce a robust system whereby all deaths, without exception, are subject to an independent review.

Medical examiners and coroners have distinct roles. The new arrangements will ensure that cases are managed in the right part of the system and that only those deaths that require a judicial investigation are referred to the coroner. That will enable better focusing of coronial resource, which in turn is expected to support the reduction of inquest backlogs and delays. I hope we are already seeing the evidence of that. Just last week, the Ministry of Justice’s coroner statistics were published: 174,900 deaths were reported to coroners in 2024—the lowest level since 1995 and down 10% compared to 2023. That is because, following the creation of the new system, only those who genuinely need to go to the coroner will do so. In addition, 81,200 post-mortem examinations were ordered by coroners in 2024—a 6% fall compared to 2023.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

To reduce the burden and time it takes for post-mortems, does the Minister agree that we should use technology, and MRI and CT scans, wherever possible, which will also speed up the release of the body?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s contribution. As I have said, that guidance is there and that equipment is available to coroners if they deem it necessary. Of course, we want to see anything that will help speed up the process for families.

Although we want to wait a full year for the proper data next May, the early evidence is encouraging that the new arrangements are working as intended. Reducing the number of unnecessary cases being referred to coroners means that coronial resources can be focused on the most complex deaths, while reducing the impact and burden on families. It also means that the number of post-mortem examinations that subsequently reveal a natural cause of death may also be reduced, since those cases may be identified by better surveillance and scrutiny much earlier in the process.

More widely, we recognise the concerns expressed by the Justice Committee and hon. Members present about the shortage of pathologists, particularly child pathologists, available to undertake coronial post-mortem examinations. That is a long-standing and complex problem, and its resolution requires a cross-Government approach. I am happy to reassure hon. Members that such an approach is taking place. I am meeting my counterparts in the Department of Health and Social Care to look at how we can fix the issue in the long term. Coroners rely on the pool of pathologists working in the wider medical system, including the NHS, to perform those examinations. We are carefully considering the views of the Justice Committee in its report, as well as the data we have gathered from our call for evidence on coronial pathology, which was issued in late 2023, with a view to publishing a new strategy for improving coronial pathology in due course.

We recognise the impact that inquest hearings are having and are doing all we can to process that backlog as quickly as possible. We will work with the chief coroner to continue to build on the foundation that has been put in place to reduce the time. I know that coroners in the west midlands are well below the national average, as we have already heard. The Black Country coroner area completes inquests in an average of 11 weeks, and Birmingham and Solihull, and Coventry, complete inquests in an average time of 17 and 18 weeks respectively. Bereaved families should not be left waiting longer than is necessary for inquests to be completed.

We are working on a number of areas, including on a guide to make coroner services more accessible. We are considering all we can do and all the recommendations, and I am happy to come back to the House in due course. We will work with the chief coroner on the content of all material, and to reinforce the use and dissemination of these guidance documents.

The hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr spoke about MPs making representations, MPs are elected to this House to represent their constituents, and they should be able to do so. I will raise his point with the chief coroner when I meet her soon.

I recognise the concerns expressed today, as well as the wider concerns expressed by the Justice Committee and other stakeholders, about the importance of an effective coroner service. We will continue to do all we can to ensure that the system continues to put its focus on finding answers on behalf of the deceased, that bereaved families are always at the heart of the process, that lessons are learned from any death and that this learning is disseminated as quickly and as widely as possible to protect the public.

Question put and agreed to.

Violence against Women and Girls

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this very important debate, and I pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members for their extremely powerful, informed and personal contributions.

According to the Office for National Statistics, 851,062 domestic abuse-related crimes were reported in England and Wales in the year ending March 2024. The NSPCC has reported that police in England and Wales made an average of 669 child protection referrals per day to social services in the last year. This week, I have been shocked to hear that an average of 500,000 children a year might be being abused in our country. We in this place must do everything in our power to protect those who have been victims and those who may end up becoming victims through our inaction.

I do not want to make this a party political issue. I recognise the potential failings of the last Government to inform the debate, but I acknowledge the positive steps that they took in this space. However, we are here today because those steps were not enough, and I am grateful to those on the Opposition Benches for supporting the motion.

The root causes of VAWG are not excuses for perpetrators to commit crimes, but they may lead to higher risks or a more difficult experience for those affected. Austerity and the devastating cuts to public services reduced funding for services that support victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, and the cuts have led to fewer resources and support options for women in need. The weakening of social welfare programmes through policies aimed at reducing social welfare spending can disproportionately affect women, who are more likely to rely on such programmes. That leads to increased economic insecurity and vulnerability to abuse. There are insufficient legal protections and a lack of funding for the courts, and there has been criticism of the enforcement of laws relating to domestic violence and sexual abuse. Inadequate training for law enforcement and judicial personnel can result in poor handling of cases and insufficient protection for victims.

There is also a lack of focus on gender equality. Policies that do not actively promote gender equality can perpetuate systemic issues that put women at risk, because they do not address the gender pay gap, the lack of affordable childcare, the insufficient support for women in the workforce, and the failure to implement the recommendations of the Jay review in order to support victims of child sexual abuse and protect children from the same risks.

A constituent came to my surgery and recounted her experience. The person she was living with had drugged and raped her repeatedly. She had reported this to the police, who promised to take immediate action and arrest the alleged perpetrator.

I will not go into the details here but, unfortunately, the perpetrator is currently living not very far from the victim who alleged abuse against him. I urge the Government to take immediate steps to protect those who have been abused, or who are making allegations of abuse, from the further trauma of living close by and having their alleged abuser walking the same streets, leaving them feeling unsafe every single moment of the day.

I welcome and commend the Government’s commitment to cutting violence against all women and girls by 50% over the next 10 years, and I associate myself with the positive policies that have been proposed, but I urge them not to leave any stone unturned and to put in place, once and for all, the maximum practical measures to reduce the harm to women and girls forever.

I draw attention to the plight of women and children in BAME communities. They face similar issues, but they also face language barriers, the fear of not being believed or understood, and the fear of discrimination by statutory services such as the police and social services.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about people needing to be believed. Could he talk about that a bit further?

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Every single person who reports a crime, especially violent or sexual abuse, must be taken seriously from the moment they present their issue to the relevant authority or any responsible person. Any person who turns a blind eye to such reports is directly or indirectly complicit. We need to tighten up the processes. Of course, we want to avoid miscarriages of justice, but it is really important that people are listened to.

Women and children in BAME communities fear they may become isolated from their family or community if they seek help or leave a relationship, or, where their immigration status is an issue, they fear they may lose their residency in the UK. It is therefore imperative that support services are culturally aware and sensitive to the needs of BAME women to provide them with specialised—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call David Burton-Sampson. I have to impose an immediate four-minute time limit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

This Government are committed to bringing forward a specific new offence of spiking. We are committed to modernising the existing legislation in this Session so that no other victims like Skylar, Laura and Jade suffer these abhorrent crimes.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Nearly 3,000 prisoners are still incarcerated under imprisonment for public protection sentences, which were abolished more than 12 years ago, many for offences not intended to be covered by such sentences. Will the Justice Secretary commit to expediting the Government plans to re-sentence all prisoners still stuck on indefinite IPP sentences to free up limited prison capacity?

[Shabana Mahmood]

First, the last Conservative Government were right to abolish the IPP sentencing regime, but that has left us with a cohort within our prison system who are still serving these sentences. I am determined to make more progress in ensuring that, when safe to do so, more of those individuals can come out of prison, but I will not do so in a way that compromises public protection, as some of these individuals pose a real risk to the public. I will not conduct a re-sentencing exercise, because that would have the effect of releasing everyone immediately, but we will make progress on getting more people properly rehabilitated and out of prison.