Reproductive Coercion

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Natalie Fleet]

Absolutely; I think that this is something that we need to shine a light on however we can. Far too many women are traumatised by family courts in this way—the situation is absolutely ripe for intervention.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this issue. She has strength of character, strength of personality and commitment to these subjects; it is always a pleasure to come along and hear her express her viewpoint, and I congratulate her. Just to be helpful to her—I did speak to her beforehand—she may only now be aware that in Northern Ireland, conviction on indictment for domestic abuse and coercive control can lead to up to 14 years’ imprisonment, while in England and Wales the same offence receives just five years’ imprisonment. Does she agree that coercive control demands its own legislation—equally applied, with equal severity— across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Natalie Fleet]

I absolutely agree; the hon. Member makes very good points that I did not know about. The more we can talk about this issue, the better, and making it a stand-alone offence is absolutely the right thing to do.

It is easy to dismiss Liv’s as a story of extreme wealth, power and faraway places, but the reason I raised it, and the reason it is so important, is that so many women will see this story as theirs. If we do an internet search about reproductive coercion, the stories are there. Liv has shared her story on social media, and women have commented underneath saying, “This happened to me.” Women are having their bodies controlled by men: some forced to get pregnant, others forced to have an abortion. Both are examples of reproductive coercion—deliberate attempts to dictate a woman’s reproductive choices or interfere with her reproductive autonomy.

A recent poll of 1,000 women showed that 50%—half of them—had experienced some sort of reproductive coercion. It is happening to women we know, every day. A third of those women had felt pressured to have sex without contraception, 10% had had their contraception sabotaged and 15% had been forced to terminate a pregnancy that they wanted to keep.

The principle of reproductive coercion is recognised in law. If someone knowingly passes on a sexually transmitted disease, it is assault. If a condom is removed without consent—known as stealthing—it is rape. However, that principle has not been applied in the Nervo case, and that case is not an isolated one. Reproductive coercion is always about patterns of controlling behaviour, not just one act, which is why there is inconsistency in the application of the law. If our courts are presented with clear evidence of coercive behaviour that has resulted in pregnancy, yet decline to recognise or name it, we are left with a gap not just in terminology, but in protection.

Reproductive coercion is covered by both the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the Serious Crime Act 2015. Statutory guidance for the Domestic Abuse Act states that abuse within a family set-up can include

“reproductive coercion (and as part of this, forced abortion).”

According to the statutory guidance, reproductive coercion can involve

“restricting a partner’s access to birth control…refusing to use a birth control method…deception regarding the use of birth control including falsely claiming to be using contraception…forcing a partner to get an abortion, IVF or other related procedure; or denying access to such procedures.”

The Serious Crime Act details similar guidance and gives the same examples. The maximum penalty for the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship, including reproductive coercion, is five years in prison. In the year ending March 2025, nearly 50,000 cases of coercive control were recorded by police in England and Wales, yet reproductive coercion remains unprosecuted—not because it is not happening, but because the Crown Prosecution Service does not record that it is. The term reproductive coercion now exists in guidance and policy, but it has no clear home in law.

What are we asking for? First, we want an acknowledgment that cases like Liv’s occur and need exposing in the public interest. As lawyers have said:

“Legal reform in the area of sexual deception is not straightforward, either legally or in social terms. Indeed, the law is unlikely to move forward in a meaningful way until the wider public debate on such issues is also able to progress and mature.”

That is not enough. We need the offence to be seen in the eyes of the law. While I have spoken about reproductive coercion being mentioned in the statutory guidance for two of our laws, in the CPS’s policy, in safeguarding manuals and in a few judgments, we want to see it given a place on the statute book. There needs to be a clear route for investigating it as a crime, charging offenders and protecting victims.

The question before us is not whether reproductive coercion exists—we know that it does—but whether our systems are prepared to recognise it where there is evidence. When a condom is removed without consent, it is recognised as rape; when a disease is knowingly transmitted, it is assault; but when a woman is deliberately impregnated through deception and control, the abuse is not clearly named, prosecuted or safeguarded against.

Liv has described reproductive coercion as our wombs being hijacked, our futures being derailed with our children ultimately the victims, and our nervous system and trust in the world shot. There are cases like Liv’s where the evidence is present, and yet it is still not being named. That must change. My ask of the Government is for clearer recognition of reproductive coercion in the law. We need greater awareness and training to ensure that coercive behaviours—particularly those involving deception and reproductive autonomy—are properly understood. We need to ensure that patterns of behaviour are examined, not dismissed, and that individuals who raise legitimate concerns are not penalised for doing so. No woman should hear the words, “I was going to tell you after you had the baby,” and have that dismissed as something that does not require recognition. Without recognition, coercion cannot be addressed.

No change has ever happened via the state alone. As important as my previous asks were, my final ask is to women—women in the Public Gallery and women out there listening to this debate. If there is any element of what has been said today that is happening to you, reach out. You are not alone. You are surrounded by women going through exactly the same, not calling it out, feeling fear and shame, and feeling like they cannot speak. We regain control by speaking out and reaching out. That is how Liv and I connected in the first place.

Liv and Mim got in touch after hearing me on “Woman’s Hour”. I remember that interview vividly. I thought I was going to faint beforehand. I hugged the show runner, and that gave me the strength to carry on. The presenter was so lovely, and I spoke up despite being full of fear and shame. That shame never belonged to me, but I needed to undo a lifetime of society telling me that it did. When I spoke up, women heard me—women I had never met or crossed paths with. I met them and found out that one of them had been traumatised in ways that I had never even thought of. They are now speaking out too, and that has power.

Every time somebody speaks out about abuse—abuse that happens regularly, and abuse that happens equally as much but we have never heard of, as it is better hidden—we are heard by somebody who can support us or by women we have never even met who have been through the same or other forms of abuse that also need shouting about. For too long, we as women have been condemned to silence, and silence is where abuse thrives. If we instead use our voices, speak out and say, “This is not okay,” allow others to believe us and support us, and encourage survivors to come together—because nothing achieves change like an army of angry women—we can come together and force that much-needed change.

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for bringing forward this really important debate. To echo the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), she always uses her voice in this place to amplify the voices of those who have been silenced. I am truly in awe of her; I find her an inspiration.

This is an important debate. It matters because controlling or coercive behaviour is one of the most harmful, least visible and most misunderstood forms of domestic abuse. It causes deep and lasting harm, yet is so often difficult to recognise, disclose and even evidence, both for victims and the professionals who are meant to support them. Before turning to the substance, I acknowledge the lived experience that has helped bring the issue into sharper focus. I understand that the survivors and campaigners Olivia and Mim Nervo have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and other parliamentarians in the Chamber to raise awareness of reproductive coercion and post-separation abuse. I am so grateful that lived experiences have helped prompt this debate.

I also put on record my personal thanks to Olivia and Mim for meeting me today. Olivia’s story is so moving. What she has been through is horrific beyond measure, and I sincerely thank her for speaking out, because undoubtedly she will have helped many other women who are sadly in the same position. It takes courage to speak out in that way and campaign for change. However, I must be clear about one boundary: I cannot comment on individual cases, court decisions, or any ongoing investigations. That is not for lack of concern—quite the opposite—but about respecting the independence and integrity of our justice system. I can, however, speak directly to the system issues that the debate raises.

As we have heard, reproductive coercion is a form of controlling or coercive behaviour. It involves using power and control to interfere with a person’s reproductive autonomy—something that should belong to the individual alone. The statutory guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour already recognises reproductive coercion, and includes behaviour such as restricting access to contraception, refusing to use contraception, forcing pregnancy, deception about contraception, or forcing or denying access to abortion, IVF or any other reproductive procedure.

Reproductive choice is a basic human right. We understand the long-term emotional, psychological and sometimes physical harm that this abuse, or the denial of this right, can cause. We also recognise how difficult it can be for victims to identify and disclose this type of abuse, particularly when it occurs within an intimate relationship or alongside any other form of control. This is not about isolated incidents. Reproductive coercion is often part of a wider pattern of coercive control, which could also include emotional, economic, sexual or physical abuse.

To understand reproductive coercion, we must first understand how coercive control-type abuse operates. It is about domination, fear, and the gradual erosion of someone’s autonomy. It includes isolating someone from friends and family, depriving them of basic needs, and enforcing degrading rules monitoring movements, controlling finances or taking control over everyday decisions. Sadly, that is not an exhaustive list, because abuse adapts to the victim’s circumstances. Victims may not recognise what is happening to them as abuse until the pattern becomes clear, sometimes years later. That complexity places a responsibility on us all to ensure that our systems are equipped to recognise patterns, not just incidents.

Controlling or coercive behaviour has been a criminal offence since 2015, under the Serious Crime Act 2015. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 strengthened the framework by explicitly recognising controlling or coercive behaviour as domestic abuse, and by extending the offence to ex-partners and family members who do not live together.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her positive response to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet). The Minister obviously understands the issue very clearly. In my earlier intervention, I gave the example of Northern Ireland, where the sentence for coercive behaviour is 14 years. Over here on the mainland, in England and Wales, the sentence is only five years. Would the Minister and the Government consider strengthening the sentence to make it similar to that in Northern Ireland, ensuring that the time fits the crime?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the distinction in the sentencing for this crime in Northern Ireland. In England and Wales, the sentence is a maximum of five years, but as I have said, the crime normally comes alongside other forms of abuse, for which the CPS will look to charge and seek the highest sentence. Sentencing is an independent judicial matter—it is for the judge to determine—but as I have said, coercive behaviour is part of a pattern, and we need to get the framework right for agencies so that they can support victims and survivors.

The changes that were made were vital. They recognise the reality of post-separation abuse, and abuse by family members outside the household. They offer protection to victims who continue to experience coercive control long after a relationship has ended. Although I cannot comment on any individual case, it is right to reflect on the system-level issues that have been raised by campaigners here today. The concerns shared with the Department by many survivors include the impact of prolonged family court proceedings, post-separation abuse continuing through legal processes, and the distress caused by long delays and uncertainty in criminal investigations into coercive control.

There are also serious questions about how mechanisms that are intended to support confidence in the justice system, such as transparency and privacy provisions, can in some circumstances be experienced as silencing or controlling. Those concerns underline a central point: our justice system must never become a tool through which victims are abused even further. It must be there to protect victims and not compound harm. To echo the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), I totally agree that this is something that Baroness Levitt, the Minister in the other place, will look at in relation to family court reform.

This debate sits squarely within the Government’s wider mission to tackle violence against women and girls. The scale of violence against women and girls in this country is intolerable. The Government are treating it as a national emergency, with a clear ambition to halve the levels within a decade. Our “Freedom from violence and abuse: a cross-government strategy”, published in December, sets out how we will prevent abuse, pursue perpetrators and support victims. Addressing controlling or coercive behaviour, including reproductive coercion, is central to delivering that ambition.

Since controlling or coercive behaviour became a criminal offence in 2015, the police and the CPS have been working hard to improve how they recognise and respond to it. Those trends are improving year on year: last year, police recorded more than 54,000 offences and CPS prosecutions have gone up by 38% compared with the previous year, to more than 1,500 defendants prosecuted. However, we recognise that more needs to be done about understanding controlling or coercive behaviour, which has evolved significantly since the statutory guidance was last published in 2023. That is why the Government have committed to updating the guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour by the end of this year.

The updated guidance will reflect the latest policy and practice, including clearer recognition of reproductive coercion. This is about supporting frontline professionals—police, prosecutors, health professionals and others—to identify abuse early, gather evidence more effectively and support victims through the criminal justice process.

More than anything, education must be central to prevention. Through relationships, sex and health education, we will help children and young people understand healthy relationships, consent and controlling behaviour from an early age. We are backing that with practical support for schools and parents. We are investing in teacher training, bringing in external expertise when needed and tackling harmful behaviours, such as teenage relationship abuse.

In health settings, women are rightly routinely asked about domestic abuse in private, during antenatal care, for example. If abuse is disclosed, women should be offered support, help with safety planning and access to specialist services. Abortion providers are required to be trained to spot signs of coercion or abuse and respond appropriately. We are also strengthening how health professionals respond, through the violence against women and girls strategy, through improved safeguarding training, and with the steps to safety programme in general practice.

Supporting victims to recover and rebuild their lives from abuse is a core priority. More than £1 billion is being invested over the next three years to support victims of violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse survivors. That includes funding for safe accommodation, advocacy, counselling and specialist services. In particular, my Department is increasing funding for victim support services year on year from 2026 to 2029, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressures of delivery. In total, the Ministry of Justice will invest £550 million in victim support services over the next three years of the spending review period.

This debate highlights why controlling or coercive behaviour, and reproductive coercion in particular, must be taken seriously at every level. Reproductive coercion is coercive control and domestic abuse. Addressing it is essential if we are to deliver our ambition to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.

I again acknowledge and place on record my sincere and incredible gratitude to the survivors and campaigners whose experience has brought urgency and clarity to this issue. We will continue to work across Government, and with all of you and with our partners, on this guidance and our practice to ensure that our system accurately reflects the reality of this abuse, so that we can deliver justice and safety for victims.

Question put and agreed to.

Court and Tribunal Transcripts

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member’s points. They were some of the key ones picked up in the Justice Committee’s report, because they not only advocated for better use of technology but argued that there was a skill challenge among the various courts. That feeds back into the issue’s narrative: when the tender was given back in June 2023, it was geographically based, and once that tender was locked in, it was very difficult to alter it, despite challenge, our raising it in the House of Commons, and a petition coming down the line with more than 200,000 signatures. So I would like put the hon. Member’s points directly to the Minister.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman can give way, but the hon. Member for Strangford knows, because he has been here a very long time, that it is courtesy and a convention of the House to be in the Chamber at the start of somebody’s speech before trying to intervene—I think he came in some minutes after the beginning of the speech. It is entirely up to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, but that is the usual courtesy.

[Robbie Moore]

That is very kind, Mr Pritchard, but I will give way.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate; he is absolutely right to underline these issues. He has given a number of examples of where the process has fallen down because evidence could not get to the victim—I always focus on victims, as I know he does. Is he aware of any cases or examples where, because of not being able to get the evidence, and the victim not being able to ascertain all the necessary information, cases have fallen and justice has not been delivered?

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. Those points were not put to me in the outreach I have done, but based on the narrative and level of concern about transparency and reassurance, there could be examples of that out there. I suspect that is why more than 200,000 people have signed the petition and feel so strongly that this should be brought directly to the Minister’s attention, so that we can give better clarity and reassurance to many victims and survivors who have been through horrendous court cases.

Victims should, and must, be at the heart of the justice system, yet time and again they are made to feel completely disregarded—like an inconvenience, as some victims have put it to me. The feeling among victims I have spoken to is that trust needs to be rebuilt, and that is partly done through increasing transparency.

This is a timely debate: the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which represents the most significant reform to the criminal procedure in decades, is making its way through Parliament. It will abolish jury trials for crimes likely to carry a sentence of fewer than three years, but the Institute for Government has warned that judge-only trials risk damage to public confidence in a criminal justice system. The Bar Council chair has cautioned directly that the reforms

“compromise public trust and confidence.”

In addition, local media is facing unprecedented pressure —gone are the days when each paper had a local court reporter to sit in on court proceedings. Despite the Government’s recently announced local media action plan, investing in local news while maintaining cost barriers to court transcripts is directly contradictory. Without affordable access to clear records of what is said in court, local journalists cannot hold the justice system to account or ensure that accurate information is shared with the public.

What can be done to increase transparency and trust in the justice system? Increased access to court and tribunal transcripts will absolutely be part of that, hence the nature of this debate. I acknowledge that some progress is being made towards greater availability of court transcripts. The previous Conservative Government launched a pilot scheme that enabled victims of serious sexual assault to request a free copy of the sentencing remarks, and that pilot was extended by the previous Government last year. More recently, following pressure from the Conservative Opposition, who tabled amendments during proceedings on the Sentencing Act 2026 and the Victims and Courts Bill, the Government agreed to expand free access to Crown court sentencing remarks to all victims, but disappointingly, they confirmed that they had no plans to do so in magistrates courts.

There are several legitimate options for increasing transparency through access to court and tribunal transcripts. To start with, HMCTS could absorb the cost by paying suppliers for public request transcripts rather than passing the costs on to individuals. A central transcript repository could also be created, which would require transcripts already produced to be held in a central system, such as the National Archives. The current tender process is locked in until 2027, but it is essential that a public access requirement is built into the next framework tender from the outset. The Government could also dedicate parliamentary time to producing legislation that would place a statutory duty on courts to provide transcripts, with funding flowing down into procurement requirements.

Having spoken to others in preparing for this debate, I also encourage the Government to relaunch the senior data governance panel, which was set up by the previous Conservative Government to provide independent expert advice on the use of justice data across courts and tribunals. I understand, however, that that has not been taken forward, much to the annoyance of many involved in the process.

I remind Members that this petition has more than 200,000 signatures from across the country. The issue clearly demands time and good debate, which I am sure we will have. Whatever views the public and Members have on this petition, we clearly have a justice system that is stuck in the past and becoming less transparent, and which makes the victims that it exists to serve feel the least important of all.

I come back to the overarching question put forward by the petition: does Parliament think that court and tribunal transcripts should be treated as a public good? When I think of the cases I have outlined, and particularly of a quote from Fiona Goddard, who described the current system as just another

“way in which the victim is treated like the least important person”

in the judicial system, I think the answer is most definitely yes. It is in the interest of the public to make sure that these transcripts are free to access for all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will have heard that we are also piloting new digital and AI-enabled tools to support listing, helping the judiciary to make better use of data. I hope she will have seen that the reforms we are introducing under the Courts and Tribunals Bill include introducing independent legal advisers and expanding the principles of Operation Soteria into the courtroom, making sure that victims have the protection and support they deserve throughout the justice system. The Bill also introduces crucial reforms to ensure that rape victims are no longer unfairly undermined by evidence at court that relies on myths and misconceptions.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his positive answer. When I think of the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I am always keen that we share improvements, whether that is from Northern Ireland for here or from England for Northern Ireland. Could the things that the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) has asked for be put to the Policing and Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, so that we can improve our system in the same way as the Secretary of State intends here?

Asbestos-related Lung Cancer: Compensation Act 2006

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[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—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Mr Shannon, were you here at the beginning of the debate? You were 90 seconds late—faster next time.

[Jim Shannon]

You are very kind, Madam Deputy Speaker—I ran the whole way. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward the debate. Over the years as an elected representative—as a councillor and as an MLA back in Northern Ireland—I had a number of constituents who had unfortunately succumbed to mesothelioma and lung cancer as a result of working in the Harland & Wolff shipyard over the years. The illnesses took 10 or 20 years to catch up with them. Perhaps the Minister could look towards Northern Ireland and what has happened there—as ever, I am trying to be helpful. Northern Ireland has its own set of guidelines, called the green book, for assessing damages. General damage for lung cancer and mesothelioma in Northern Ireland is typically estimated at between £125,000 and £250,000. While symptoms from negligent causes are similar, the distinction between the treatments remains in place. Does he agree, as I think he does, that the loophole must be closed once and for all? Perhaps we can start that tonight by the Minister doing that very thing. Thank you for letting me in, Madam Deputy Speaker —you are very kind.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

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

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I know that when my hon. Friend is upset, his baritone deepens—it was not quite as deep today as it has been on other occasions. He will know that I take very seriously the review I did. I will say more about disparities in a moment, but if we look at that review, we see that it was clear that there is tremendous public trust in our juries. When I was asked by David Cameron to do the review, there was concern in some towns and cities and among some ethnic minority populations about situations where they perceived they had an all-white jury. They asked whether it was still fair. Broadly, it was found to still be fair, and there was no evidence that there were unfair trials in our magistrates courts, which do 90% of the work, or if a single judge is sitting on their own. For the reasons that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), it is right that we review how the system is working and fully understand how these changes will affect the system.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister and the Government are caught between a rock and a hard place. They have to address the backlog while trying to ensure that jury trials are retained. The general public have deep concern that speed cannot come at the expense of fundamental rights. I know that the Secretary of State will ensure that does not happen, but can he reassure me that any reforms will preserve the right to have a jury trial where that is essential to justice, rather than making piecemeal changes that will, I suspect, prevent people who need jury trials from having them?

[Mr Lammy]

Juries remain a cornerstone, and I reassure the hon. Gentleman that what we are proposing is about protecting juries. Let us be clear, however, that the Bill is not just about juries; it is a whole package, and that is why I set out just a few weeks ago that investment was key. This is £2.78 billion of investment. As Sir Brian told us in part 2 of his reforms, modernisation and dealing with efficiencies in the system are fundamental.

Victims are worn down, people simply give up, cases collapse and offenders remain free to roam the streets, to commit more crimes and to create more victims. To restore swift and fair justice, we are pulling every lever available, with essential investment, modernisation and reform. Let me start by addressing the reform that has provoked the fiercest debate. The new Crown court bench division, or our so-called swift courts, are dealt with in clause 3 of the Bill. The new division will hear cases with a likely custodial sentence of up to three years, to be heard by a judge sitting alone. The independent review of the criminal courts predicts that this will reduce trial times by at least 20%, and Sir Brian believes that the gains could be greater still. It will free up thousands of hearing days for the more serious cases. That is not just Sir Brian’s view; analysis published today by the Institute for Government supports the modelling behind these reforms, and the predicted time savings that they will deliver. Let me be absolutely clear: indictable-only offences will remain for juries. The most serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery and grievous bodily harm with intent will never be heard in the new division.

This is not a new principle. Judge-alone trials operate successfully in countries such as Canada, where judges told me that such trials were as much as twice as fast as jury trials, and they are already a normal, everyday part of our justice system. District judges sit alone in magistrates courts every single day, youth courts operate without juries, and family courts deciding whether a parent can see their child always sit without juries.

Court Reporting Data

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I regard the data breach of the agreement as serious, and I referred it to the data officer at the MOJ. That is the conclusion they have reached, and I have accepted their advice. As I said, I have asked them to conduct a further review in the light of further information that has come to light, just as we have asked Courtsdesk for further information. The information came to light because Courtsdesk admitted that it had been inputting and sharing this data with an AI company, in breach of the agreement. We have to get to the bottom of that, but it is so important that we tighten up the licensing agreements and make court lists available to more companies, so that journalists can continue to access the information in a way that is safe for defendants, safe for victims, and safe for anyone who participates in the court process.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her full answers. The fact that justice should be open and transparent is not negotiable. Anything other than that is not democracy but, by its very nature, despotic. The Minister has provided a justification. However, it is clear that although the system could undoubtedly be tightened up, completely scrapping it without a viable alternative does not provide confidence in the judiciary; it does the opposite. Will the Minister reassure the House and those outside about the decision that has been taken?

[Sarah Sackman]

I want to be really clear that the data held by Courtsdesk is not an archive of criminal court case files. A number of Members have mentioned the importance of criminal court case records, which are held in a variety of places, not least the National Archives. They continue to remain available. The court lists, which I accept are important, continue to be available to the public—a member of the public can look them up now. Enhanced listing, which has a bit more information, remains open to journalists. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that it is important to have transparency and open justice, and for reporters to have the ability to expose what goes on in our courts. That is why I want to make the data open to more people, but we will put it on a safer footing to ensure that data breaches like this do not occur again in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we are investing in more trainee legal advisers—108 in the last announcement. He is right: there are issues, particularly in the south-east, with being able to compete with the sorts of salaries that support staff might get beyond the courts. We are looking at that very closely.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Justice Secretary very much for his very positive answers about recruiting magistrates, and about the timescale; that is welcome news. He referred to 90% of cases being dealt with by magistrates in the courts. That means that there are a lot of delays, and those affect victims, who have waited ages—even years—for their case to be heard. Can the Justice Secretary assure us that recruiting more magistrates will mean that the backlog that victims clearly face is addressed? It needs to be addressed; victims need answers.

[Mr Lammy]

First off, I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning victims. For too long in this place, we have tended to focus either on the prosecution side or on defendants, but it is important that we put victims at the centre. That is why we are coming forward with more magistrates. We need that 90% of cases dealt with more swiftly, of course, but court reform is what gets us the entire package. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to support our court reforms over the coming months.

Separation Centres Review

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I was very pleased to say in oral questions that we are turning the tide on the prison capacity crisis that we inherited. In the context of my statement, I talked about a tiered approach—yes, a supermax approach, but on more than one site. As we enter a spending review and I make that case, as well as the case that Jonathan Hall makes, by definition and necessity the places will have to be category A—at the highest tier—for this group of prisoners. It is important, as we saw after the incident at Frankland, that we are able to move prisoners to other high-security sites; we have Belmarsh prison here in London, which I visited early in my post. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; we will need to have those places, and I am happy to write to him with more detail.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his careful words. In Northern Ireland, we operated segregation in our prisons during the troubles, and we found that it was essential to keep those who were able to turn moderates around into fanatics away from the general populace. However, for most of that time, we did not have to wrestle with the ECHR. In matters of national security, we have the right to restrict privileges, such as privacy and the right of assembly. Will the Secretary of State exercise those powers to keep in isolation those whose very presence is dangerous?

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has great experience of staring in the face, and at the consequences of, terrorist and extremist behaviour. It is important that we remain in the ECHR framework and that we bear down on excessive litigation. It is also important that the guidance is clear for the staff who have to work within this framework and that, where we can, we look at capping compensation payments, for example, and other areas. We will continue to review how, staying within the law, we do not create an excessive and unbearable environment for those who have to work there and protect us all.

Prison Capacity: Annual Statement

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

I will write to the hon. Gentleman on his last question—I just do not have the details, and I do not want to mislead him or the House on that particular case. As for high-security prisons, there is an ongoing workstream within the Department to look at the future of that estate, and we will update the House in due course.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. Does he accept that in their rush to free up space, the Government have missed the rehabilitation aspect that is essential to any real reform? How can the Government show prisoners a different way, teach them new skills and give them confidence in their ability to change when sentences are cut regardless of where they are in the rehabilitation process? Bearing in mind that Northern Ireland is similar to England and Wales, reoffending there is significantly higher among those serving short sentences, with approximately 51% of adults released from sentences of less than 12 months reoffending within a year.

[Jake Richards]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He said that there was a rush to free up space —that was because we absolutely had to. If we had not freed up space in our prison system, the criminal justice system would have collapsed, so there definitely was a rush.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned rehabilitation. This Government are absolutely committed to rehabilitation —that is a thread throughout the Sentencing Act, which has just received Royal Assent. Thinking about my diary over the next few weeks, I am going to visit a literacy project in Doncaster and colleges that are linking up with prisons. We have to look at this issue creatively and holistically to make sure we have the services and resources in our prisons to offer educational and work programmes. As I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), there is no point pretending that there are not fiscal pressures in the criminal justice system at the moment. There are, and we have to think a bit creatively and work with partners to overcome those pressures.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I would be grateful if the hon. Lady would let me have a note on the hold-up with that particular complaint. There are delays with Access to Work, reflecting the big surge in demand for it, and that is why we have proposed reform. We have consulted on reform, and we will come back with our proposals quite soon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

6. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help support women who are disproportionately affected by long-term health conditions.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

Through the big shifts in our 10-year health plan, we will ensure that more tests and care are delivered in the community, improving working between services, using greater use of technology to support women who are managing long-term conditions and, crucially, learning from the work led by the pioneering women’s health hubs.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister very much for that answer. Arthritis and other musculoskeletal conditions are the single biggest cause of pain and disability in the UK and one of the most common reasons for workplace absences. This affects women and girls in particular: 60% of those with arthritis in the UK are women, which accounts for some 6 million women across the United Kingdom. Will the Minister work to ensure that musculoskeletal health is included in the next phase of the modern service frameworks, so that the health of women and girls is made a priority?

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that osteoporosis disproportionately affects women and plays a crucial part in absence from the workforce. Baroness Merron, who leads on this work, and I met Charlie Mayfield when he was looking at how to get more women back into the workforce, and we will ensure that women’s health and these sorts of long-term conditions are part of that. I cannot commit to an MSK strategy, but we are absolutely committed to including this in our renewed women’s health strategy.