Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

I rise to support new clauses 5 and 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter). I welcome the Prime Minister’s remarks, and I am relieved that the Government have listened, so that the duty of candour will apply in full to members of the security services, and the Bill will finally reach the statute book.

I pay tribute to all those who have fought so long and so hard for this Bill, including the families, the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, and my fellow Merseyside MPs, in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). I also thank Pete Weatherby KC, Elkan Abrahamson, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), who introduced the first Hillsborough law Bill in 2017, after addressing the 20th anniversary in 2009 when he was Culture Secretary.

I was stood on the Kop that day, when a lone voice shouted out “Justice”, and it then turned into a chorus of voices that was the catalyst for the Hillsborough independent panel. The report of the Independent Office for Police Conduct in December recounted once again the horrifying events that took place, and the disgraceful attempt to blame the victims and hide the truth, as well as the appalling response to the report from South Yorkshire Police Federation. It showed exactly why this legislation is so desperately needed, and why new clauses 5 and 6 are so important.

In the 2017 Manchester Arena attack, MI5 was found by a public inquiry not to have given an accurate picture of the key intelligence that it held on the suicide bomber who carried out the attack. New clause 6 would mandate that the duty of candour and assistance applies to the intelligence services as it does to other public authorities. However, it establishes safeguards for sensitive information, and adjusts individual reporting obligations for intelligence personnel, routeing candour requirements through agency record-keeping arrangements and the head of the organisation. New clause 7 would require the Secretary of State to commission and publish an independent report annually. That would serve as a formal oversight mechanism to monitor compliance with the statutory duties outlined in the Bill.

The passage of the Bill has been too long delayed, and we have finally reached this point only because of the strength and bravery of the families of the 97 who died as a result of what happened on 15 April 1989. I am particularly thinking today of my constituents Keith McGrath, who died aged just 17, and Andrew Devine, who was 22 when he suffered horrendous injuries that day, and who died as a result of them in 2021 aged 55, after being cared for devotedly in the years after the disaster by his family, in particular his parents.

The families of the 97 who died have continued to fight for accountability and justice, despite the years of official denials, and the deliberate attempt to hide the truth of what occurred that day. They have fought for a Hillsborough law worthy of the memory of the 97, but not just for them, which shows their decency, resilience, and wider sense of public spirit. They refused to accept legislation that would have allowed an exemption for the security services because of their concern for others who have suffered injustice: the families of victims and survivors of the Manchester Arena bombing, the Grenfell Tower fire, nuclear test veterans, the Post Office Horizon scandal, and so many other tragedies where it has taken far too long for the truth to emerge.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston said in her intervention, there are still points to address. For example, the Bill does not provide for full equity of arms, funding, and legal resources for public authorities and bereaved families. Nevertheless, it is important that the Bill will finally pass into law before the summer recess. The families of all those who died or were injured at Hillsborough should not have had to wait 37 years for this legislation. They have been cruelly denied accountability and justice, but they have fought with incredible courage to ensure that in future other families will never have to fight for decades, as they have had to fight for the truth to come to light. This is their day, and I pay tribute to them once again. Justice for the 97.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I wish to speak to the amendments and new clauses tabled in my name on behalf of my party. Up and down the country, those who have been failed by state institutions, unheard and ignored for years, will today be relieved that this hurdle has been cleared and the Hillsborough law can finally progress. I pay tribute to those campaigners, many of whom are with us in the Gallery, for their courage and perseverance through years of campaigning, and for never saying, “That’ll do”, and instead making sure that the Hillsborough law was delivered in full.

This is known affectionately as the Hillsborough law, but it represents many victims and their loved ones. Be it the Post Office scandal, the Manchester Arena attack, the contaminated blood scandal, Grenfell Tower, nuclear weapons testing veterans, the pelvic mesh scandal, LGBT veterans, or any of the many others, those individuals have stood up for the voiceless and demanded change. These are scandals in which countless individuals have lost their lives or livelihoods, or suffered life-changing injuries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg), my colleague on the Intelligence and Security Committee. I agree with everything that he has said.

It is important to begin by recognising the remarkable determination of everyone who has sought to translate immense personal pain into an improvement in the way in which the state treats its citizens. That applies to the families who have campaigned so hard and to Members of this House who have applied their own determination to that task.

As the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood and many who have spoken in this debate have said, the obstacle to delivering this legislation has really very clearly been the extent to which the duty of candour should apply to the intelligence services and to others for whom full candour may be inconsistent with professional duties, as well as the additional safeguards and modifications that would need to apply to the Bill to enable it to safely cover such people without preventing them from doing their vital work effectively.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the Government asked members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, including me, to become involved in the process of resolving that challenge. As the House would expect, we engaged with that process as diligently as we could, with no partisan politics, in an effort to make good law in the pursuit of greater state transparency while preserving our national security equities. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, we spent many hours on the task, engaging with both the Government and those representing the Hillsborough families.

It probably would not be right or practical, in the time available, to go into the detail of all the positions taken over many months, but it is fair and important to say that throughout that time, those representing the Hillsborough families have maintained that measures and protections in existing law would prevent national security from being jeopardised if the duty of candour applied to the intelligence services. The Government, for their part, have maintained throughout this period of many months both consistently and robustly that that is not so.

The Government have maintained that the only way to protect national security is to build additional safeguards, protections and exemptions into the Bill. That appeared still to be their position until very recently. Even yesterday, Government amendment 147, which gives the head of an intelligence agency the right to withhold information altogether in certain circumstances, appeared in the amendment paper for the Bill, as it had done in many previous iterations of that document. In today’s version of the amendment paper, for the first time, that amendment has disappeared and been replaced not with the detailed compromise that Intelligence and Security Committee members, who have been engaged with this process, have been working towards, along with many others, but with Government amendment 157.

Government amendment 157 says, in effect, that protections already existing in the law are good enough after all—the Minister made that clear in what she said—and that no substitute further protections or exemptions need to be built into the Bill. That is a remarkable change of position, and a remarkably fast one. It is up to the Government to decide what legislation they propose to this House, and it is perfectly within their rights to propose amendments to their own legislation. We can all cynically speculate about the reasons why this sudden about-turn has taken place this week, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who spoke from the Front Bench, said earlier, it is our job to scrutinise this legislation and to ensure that whatever we put in place does justice to the determination of the Hillsborough families and everybody else to put in place a law that does not just sound good, but does good—makes real change and sticks in that task.

I simply have to observe to the Minister and the House that, after all the painstaking work and hours spent, until late last week, on the basis that further safeguards were required—all the amendments drafted, redrafted and redrafted again—the Government have suddenly said that none of that is necessary. What on earth is going on? It seems to me that there are two possibilities. The first is that, for whatever reason, the Government have now cobbled together a rushed compromise that does not adequately protect our national security and that, inevitably and logically, does the job less effectively than their previous amendments sought to do. The Minister has been very clear that that is not the case. I want to take her at her word, because this is an important subject.

That leaves us with the second possibility, which is that the settlement before us—a settlement that effectively replicates what the advocates for the Hillsborough families have been saying for months—could have been delivered to this House a very long time ago. That needless delay has brought a waste of ministerial time, official time, the ISC’s time, frankly, and the time of the intelligence agencies. That time could certainly have been better spent. But, far, far worse than any of that, it has brought an additional, agonising wait for the Hillsborough families and others for the law that they were promised—an additional wait that, it seems, they did not need to endure. I appreciate that the Minister has come to this matter reasonably late, but, whatever else she may need to answer, I am afraid she needs to explain all that to us and to the Hillsborough families.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Select Committee.

[Andy Slaughter]

I welcome the Bill, and thank the Government for introducing it and bringing it back to the House before the summer recess. It is the result of years of committed campaigning, led by the families of the victims and survivors of Hillsborough. Many of the worst corporate miscarriages of justice, from infected blood to Grenfell, would have been exposed years or even decades ago, had the Bill become law sooner. We should celebrate a landmark piece of legislation that—like the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, introduced under the last Labour Government—gives power to the citizen and makes the state accountable.

I will focus my remarks on two new clauses that I have tabled, which build on growing calls for a national oversight mechanism. This would be a new, independent public body that collated, analysed and followed up on the conclusions and recommendations made after official investigations into deaths and state failings, in order to improve oversight and implementation of them. At present, there is a critical gap in accountability between the issuing of a report or recommendation and its eventual implementation. It can be extremely difficult for bereaved families, victims and the general public to get information on what changes have actually been made following the identification of failings.

--- Later in debate ---

This law is about far more than Hillsborough. It is about the kind of country we choose to be—a country where power tells the truth, where public servants serve the public, where justice is not delayed until campaigners grow old, and where no family is ever left to walk alone. If we pass this law in the spirit in which it was conceived, the greatest legacy of the 97 will not simply be that they are remembered; it will be that, because of them, this country has finally, finally learned the lessons of Hillsborough. Every time I look at the number on my wrist, I will not simply remember those we lost; I will remember that they changed this country for the better. Never again! [Applause.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Alex Davies-Jones.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

It is more than a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and to speak in support of the Government amendments and in favour of the Bill as a whole. This law represents far more than legislation; it represents a promise—a promise that the suffering endured by the Hillsborough families, and all those who have been sadly failed by the state, will never be repeated. It is a promise that no bereaved family will ever again be forced to spend decades fighting and fundraising to challenge the very institutions that should have been helping them to uncover the truth.

For far too long, we have seen a devastating pattern emerge after major public tragedies. Families are left grieving the loss of those they love, only to find themselves caught in secondary trauma, battling against secrecy, defensiveness, delay and denial. Instead of compassion, they encounter obstruction; instead of openness, they face silence. Instead of truth they are met with half-truths—or worse, with lies, missing evidence and institutional self-protection. That is why the duty of candour matters.

A duty of candour is not about punishing honest mistakes. It is about ensuring that public authorities and officials understand that their first duty is not to protect reputations or institutions; it is to protect the truth. Because when institutions close ranks, ordinary families pay the price. When evidence is concealed, justice is delayed, and when facts are distorted, truth is destroyed. When those in positions of power fail to tell the truth, confidence in our public institutions is eroded for generations.

The Hillsborough families know that better than anyone. For 37 years they have carried a burden that should never have been theirs. They have fought not only for the memory of the 97 people who lost their lives, but for something much bigger: the principle that no institution is above accountability, and that no grieving family should ever have to fight the state simply to establish the truth about what happened to their loved one. Their courage has changed this country. They have exposed failures that many hoped would remain hidden. They challenged narratives that should never have been allowed to stand, and they refused to give up, even when the odds were stacked against them.

The Hillsborough families’ determination has become a beacon of hope for countless other families seeking justice. We owe them so much more than our admiration—we owe them action. We cannot stand here, praise their courage and thank them for their persistence, only to fail to deliver the very reforms that they have spent decades fighting for. If we do, what message does that send to every family still waiting for answers? What does it say to those affected by Grenfell, the infected blood scandal, the Post Office Horizon scandal, the Manchester Arena terror attack—and so on, sadly—and to every future family who may one day find themselves seeking truth after tragedy? It says that lessons are spoken about but not learned.

The duty of candour is the mechanism by which we begin to rebuild trust between the public and the institutions that serve them. It changes the culture from one of defensiveness to one of openness; from protecting organisations to protecting people; from asking families to prove the truth, to requiring public authorities to tell it from the very beginning. That is not, and should not be a radical principle or idea. It is the minimum standard that the public should expect from those who exercise public power. That is why I support the Government amendments, as they finally allow the Bill to have the worthy title of “the Hillsborough law”. The amendments stand as a testament to the families, victims and survivors who would never give up—the Manchester Arena attack victims, nuclear test veterans, the Chinook disaster families, and anyone who has had to fight for the truth against the army of the state, and then the intelligence services on top.

If we are to have a true principle and a true duty of candour, then that principle must be applied consistently. It cannot be the case that we champion transparency and accountability with one hand while creating an exemption with the other. A duty of candour that applies only when convenient is not a true duty at all.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Carry-over)

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue regarding the Chinook disaster. I recently had the privilege of meeting the bereaved families of the Chinook disaster, and I want to pay tribute to them and their tenacious campaigning to uncover the truth of what happened to their loved ones. I am deeply pleased that the Prime Minister agreed to meet those families last week at Prime Minister’s questions, and we look forward to working with them and all the other campaigners as the Bill progresses through the House to ensure that anyone affected by a state cover-up or a tragedy where the state is represented should have the truth available to them. That is a fundamental feature of this Bill and one we wholeheartedly believe in.

It is because of those families and their lived experience that the Government took the decision to delay the Bill to allow more time to get it right—to address the issues that were raised directly with us by the families while not compromising our ability to protect national security and safeguard the national interest. In the past few months, we have been working intensively with the security services, Hillsborough Law Now and the Intelligence and Security Committee to find a way forward on this issue. But that has meant, sadly, that there was not sufficient time to complete the Bill’s passage in this Session. The Government have therefore tabled this motion to allow the Bill to continue parliamentary passage in the next Session.

I am aware that this Bill is of high interest and importance to many Members of this House, the public and, indeed, members of the other place, and many are very eager to see this Bill on the statute books. I want to stress that I share that eagerness. I want to make it clear that the Government remain resolutely committed to delivering this vital legislation. We are determined to get this right. We are continuing to work closely with campaigners and families, and if this motion is agreed this evening, we will bring the Bill back to complete Commons remaining stages, with new Government amendments, at the start of the next Session.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

I start by thanking the Minister for her hard work and dedication in trying to get this Bill right. She has worked tirelessly to ensure that the voices of the campaigners have been heard and are reflected in the final provisions, and I know that she will continue to do so when the Bill returns in the next parliamentary Session.

It is important that we are debating this motion today. We certainly did not want to find ourselves three months down the road with no discernible signs of resolution after Report stage was pulled at very short notice. But this motion is necessary to deliver on the promise. This Bill is too important to fail—too important for the families and too important for the necessary rewiring of the state. We could not have let that happen, so I am glad that we will agree this carry-over motion today. The Bill will, after all, deliver on one of the most radical commitments in our manifesto, but, most importantly, it is a promise that we have made to the Hillsborough families—a promise that needs to be honoured—and they have shown remarkable courage, dedication and tenacity to campaign for justice for their loved ones. It has taken decades to get to this point, and it must be beyond frustrating for the families to be so near yet so far from resolution.

The final details are crucial, and it is very important that we get them right so that we can deliver a law that passes the critical test: that victims are never again wrongly blamed by the state for their deaths; that never again ordinary people have to fight tooth and nail against the seemingly endless resources of the state just to get to the truth; and that we never allow public bodies to use the power of the state to obfuscate and lie in order to protect their own reputations.

Getting that balance right is absolutely critical to the Bill’s success, and it does meet most of the aims that have been set out, so it is disappointing that there are still a couple of key points of difference between campaigners and various parts of Government on matters, as we have heard, related to security services disclosures. I have been proud to support amendments tabled by my hon. Friends here today that provide what I hoped was a workable solution. I was also concerned to hear in a recent message from campaigners that officials are now attempting to reopen issues that they had thought had been resolved. So let us be clear: this House will not accept any backsliding on issues that we have already agreed and voted on.

The Bill’s progression does at times feel glacial, and although we all agree it was right for the Government to go away and strengthen the Bill and ensure that they get it right, rather than pass something that did not have the families’ support, we can all see how each and every day is testing for them. I have to say that is not helped by regular briefings to the press about the reason for the delay being this person or that person, or this Department or that Department. The Bill is too important for Westminster gossip and games.

I would therefore welcome any assurances that the Minister can give today on timescales. I would be grateful if she could indicate whether, as I hope, we can see the Report stage within a matter of weeks of the state opening of Parliament next month, because if we are not careful, we will drag on to the summer recess, and before we know it another six months will have passed. I know that she has never stopped trying to get this Bill over the line, and she has our support to try and find workable solutions, but we really do have to find a way forward sooner rather than later.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson.

Victims and Courts Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that Lords amendments 4B and 4C engage Commons financial privilege. If either of those Lords amendments is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Clause 12

Private prosecutions: regulations about costs payable out of central funds

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 4B and 4C.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 4B and 4C.

Lords amendments 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E and 5F.

Lords amendments 6B and 6C.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am grateful once again to have the opportunity to speak on the Victims and Courts Bill. As I have said previously in this House, this is fundamentally a Bill for victims. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have heard the experiences and views of victims and bereaved families and we have listened. I know for that fact that the Bill is now stronger because of this.

I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to some of the victims’ campaigners who have been so instrumental in this Bill, some of whom are joining us in the Gallery today. First, I say to the families of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Jan Mustafa, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa: I know that nothing will ever lessen the pain of such an immense loss, followed by the indescribable trauma of an offender who would not face you and would not face justice. We owe you a debt of thanks for your courage and fortitude in campaigning to ensure that offenders will always be forced to attend their sentencing hearings, and that offenders that refuse to attend are quite rightly punished appropriately. Thanks to you, criminals will never be allowed to hide away from justice, and you have ensured that others should never have to face what you have had to endure. This measure in the Bill is brought forward in the memories of Olivia, Zara, Sabina and Jan.

Secondly, I would like to pay tribute to Tracey Hanson and Katie Brett, who have worked tirelessly to ensure that no other family should experience the injustices that they faced due to not being informed about the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Tracey Hanson’s son Josh was tragically murdered in an unprovoked knife attack in 2015. Since that devastating loss, Tracey has shown extraordinary strength and compassion, continuing to advocate for and support other victims through her charity, the Josh Hanson Trust. In relation to the ULS scheme in particular, Tracey has campaigned for more than a decade, working closely with academics and fellow bereaved families to bring forward this change in the law. She held a strong and unwavering belief that it could not be right for her request to the Attorney General to be dismissed so abruptly, with nothing more than a “case closed” response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, Members may wish to refresh their memories. According to the rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons, we must never directly address visitors in the Public Gallery.

[Dr Mullan]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate on the Lords message on the Victims and Courts Bill.

The Bill has been debated extensively in the other place. I thank the Lords for their care and consideration in trying to improve it, as we tried to do in the Commons. Members will know that, when the Bill was last in this House, we were sadly defeated by Labour MPs on a number of provisions relating to court transcripts, the victims code and the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Since then, the Lords have done a good job in securing concessions from the Government, including an agreement that there should be a clearer and more defined set of rights for victims of homicide abroad, which the Minister mentioned.

Although it is not the subject of the debate, I join the Minister in acknowledging the campaigning by the relatives and MPs of Olivia, Zara, Sabina and Jan, which we have discussed a number of times in the Chamber as we passed specific amendments.

Today we are considering two remaining provisions added in the Lords. I begin with the Government amendment in lieu of the Lords amendments on the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Many Members of this House will be familiar with the ULS and will have used it themselves. Anyone, including a victim, a relative of a victim or a member of the public, can ask the Attorney General to consider whether a sentence should be referred to the Court of Appeal as being unduly lenient. If the Attorney General considers that it might be, they refer it to the Court of Appeal for review. However, there is a strict 28-day limit within which the Attorney General is able to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal—and, by extension, a 28-day limit within which the victim or a member of the public can refer the case. If the Court of Appeal finds that the sentence is unduly lenient, it may alter the sentence or substitute it for another.

I have used the scheme on occasions when I have considered sentences to be unduly lenient, including, most recently, in relation to the horrific murder of Alana Odysseos, who was murdered by her boyfriend, Shaine March. He stabbed her 19 times when she refused to have an abortion. Despite having been convicted of murder and released on parole for that offence, when he committed this second murder, he was given a second life sentence—a term that is increasingly unfit for purpose—with the prospect of leaving prison again. That was plainly wrong, and after I referred his case to the scheme, his sentence was overturned and replaced with a whole-life order, meaning that he will never be released. I have had the pleasure of speaking with Alana’s sister, Jasmine. She has told me of the importance of that outcome, which means that Mr March is serving a sentence that reflects the gravity of his crime. That demonstrates how effective the scheme can be in certain circumstances, but it does not always operate as we might want it to.

I have had the privilege of being able to meet and work with a number of victims and their families. They explained to me clearly the pitfalls in the scheme, and drew particular comparisons between the rights and privileges of the criminals and those of victims and the bereaved, in relation both to awareness and notification of the scheme and to the time available to use it. MPs and others can refer cases to the scheme, but those most likely to have an interest in making a referral or appealing a sentence are the victims or their families, and they do not always know about the scheme.

There is not much point in people having a right if they are not told about it. The Government have agreed to a statutory duty to notify victims of the existence of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which will mean that victims and bereaved families can easily find clear information about the ULS and about their rights in the victims code. Will the Minister clarify which body she envisages will have responsibility for that? It is important that we have some kind of plan to ensure that notification is working. I am sure that the various bodies involved would say that they like to think that everybody is told about it, but that is not the case, so how do the Government plan to ensure that whoever is given that job follows through on it?

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), who is no longer in his place, spoke about what the Government did or did not agree to. The Government’s original plan for the ULS in the Bill was not to give victims more time, but to give themselves more time. It was not on their radar, in any way, shape or form, to extend the time available to victims and their families. When we sought to amend the Bill in that respect, we were told that it was not possible and that we would have to wait for the findings of the Law Commission’s review of criminal appeals. I think the Minister must now accept that that was not true—as we knew at the time—because here we are making amendments before those findings are published.

I do welcome the amendments, however. I pay tribute to those I have worked with directly, many of whom the Minister has mentioned. I have worked closely on this issue with Katie Brett from the campaign group Justice for Victims. I pay tribute to her MP, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers), who made a particularly powerful and effective speech on this matter last time it was before this House. She has been very effective behind the scenes in driving forward this change.

Katie’s sister, Sasha, was murdered in 2013. This is difficult to talk about, but it is the reality of what people are going through. Aged just 16, Sasha was raped and stabbed more than 100 times, and her body was set on fire. Katie and her family believed that Sasha’s killer met the existing criteria for a whole-life order, but he was given only a minimum sentence of 35 years. In reality, that meant that there was every possibility that he would end up getting out of prison. Despite all Katie’s amazing work on this issue, the scheme is not retrospective, which is something the family will have to accept.

Katie was so upset about being unable to successfully appeal the sentence that she collected more than 10,000 signatures on a petition to remove the 28-day limit for appeals.

The way that Katie described the situation has always stuck with me, and I have used it in discussions with Ministers and others. She said that 28 days is the amount of time we have to take something back to a shop. Someone has the same amount of time to decide whether or not they like a top that they have bought. How can we have the same test for something so serious? That measure was a cross-party one—we did not amend it when we were in government.

I also met Ayse Hussein, another member of Justice for Victims, who campaigns on behalf of her cousin, Jan Mustafa. Jan’s killer had raped, tortured and imprisoned various girls and young women. He murdered Henriett Szucs and Jan and hid their bodies in a freezer, one of top of the other. He did not receive a whole-life sentence and may leave prison one day. Again, Ayse and her family never knew anything about the scheme.

I have also had the pleasure of meeting Lauren Redmond, who lost her ability to appeal a sentence purely because of errors made by the Crown Prosecution Service. When a request to appeal the sentence was placed, the Attorney General’s office asked for the relevant files. The CPS sent the wrong date to the Government, who then worked towards an incorrect timetable. As a result, Lauren was denied the right to appeal.

I have also had the opportunity to meet Tracey Hanson. You have given us guidance on addressing visitors in the Public Gallery, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the Minister has already done it for us. Tracey has campaigned for many years on this issue, and works on victims’ behalf more generally through the Josh Hanson Trust, which is named after her son. I know that she has been supported by the Victims’ Commissioner in that work. As the Minister said, Joshua was 21 when he was murdered in an unprovoked knife attack. Tracey and I have not always seen eye to eye on exactly how the scheme should be reformed, but that in no way diminishes the incredibly vital role that she has played over many years in campaigning for improvements to the scheme. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), who has done a great job of advocating and lobbying on Tracey’s behalf.

I am glad that the Government have been persuaded to act. They will now allow up to six months for victims and their families to make use of the scheme in certain circumstances. I want to allow space for Katie and Tracey’s words on those changes. Katie said:

“It’s a relief that, in Sasha’s memory, victims and their families will have 6 months to challenge an unduly lenient sentence, and the new legal duty to be notified means every family will know their rights to be able to do so. No family should ever be left in the dark like we were, every victim deserves support. We’re grateful these steps are being taken to redress the balance that so often feels weighted against victims.”

Tracey said:

“After…years of relentless campaigning through the Josh Hanson Trust, this is a significant and long-awaited victory for victims’ rights. Following our extensive advocacy, the Government has agreed to transformative amendments to the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme. These changes represent a hard-fought victory in ensuring that families are no longer left in the dark or rushed through a traumatising process during the most painful moments of their lives. These reforms are a testament to Josh’s memory and the passion and dedication of everyone who stood with the Josh Hanson Trust. We have moved forward, but the fight for full equality in the eyes of the law continues.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. With the exception of the remaining Front-Bench speech, I am introducing an immediate six-minute time limit.

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I stand here today proud of my constituent Katie Brett, who joins us in the Gallery. These changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme are being brought forward because of her campaigning, following the most traumatic ordeal for her and her family, and I am proud to welcome the fact that this Labour Government have listened and acted.

For too long, victims and bereaved families felt that the justice system was not on their side. Measures to force offenders to attend sentencing hearings are right. Families should not be denied the chance to see justice simply because an offender refuses to face up to what they have done. The stronger protections for children, especially in cases of sexual violence, are also badly needed, but I want specifically to welcome the changes that the Government are proposing to the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

Katie’s little sister, Sasha Marsden, was just 16 years old when she was brutally murdered, raped and set on fire. It was a crime as horrific and evil as it is possible to imagine, and the pain her family have lived with ever since is something most of us cannot even imagine. After everything they had already been through, Katie and her family then faced another injustice: they had only 28 days to challenge the sentence, and they were not even told that they had the right to do so. That was so very wrong. A trial like that would be deeply traumatic for any family. In Sasha’s case, her family heard all the awful details of what she had endured in the final moments of her young and precious life, and no one in that position is ready, within a matter of days, to get to grips with a complex legal process and start to fight again.

Twenty-eight days is not long enough. It is not a real right for any family; it is a barrier. That is why Katie has shown extraordinary courage. Through her campaign for Sasha’s law, she has spoken not only for her own family, but for many others who felt shut out by the system. Katie’s campaign was clear: more time for bereaved families and victims to challenge sentences that they believe are unduly lenient, and clear information so they know that that right exists in the first place.

I am pleased that this Labour Government have heard the arguments and are acting to put things right. They have listened to campaigners and to families. I thank the Minister for her constructive engagement to ensure that the Government get the change right, and for ensuring that victims have been listened to at every stage of the process. This change will make a real difference to people at the worst moment of their lives. Crucially, the injustice that Katie suffered would not have happened had these changes been in place. It shows what the Government can do when we put victims first, and when we believe that justice must be matched by decency and compassion. The justice system should reflect the reality of trauma, grief and loss.

Finally, I want to place on the record how proud I am that I played a small part in helping Katie make today happen, and to thank the Government for listening. Twenty-eight days was not enough. Victims and bereaved families must be properly informed, and a better system is being brought forward as a result. For Katie Brett, for Sasha Marsden, and for so many other families, the changes will not remove the grief, but they will make the system fairer, more humane and more just. There is of course always work to do on the criminal justice system, but victims should not have fewer rights than perpetrators. These changes go some way to correct that injustice, and I will be proud to vote for them today.

--- Later in debate ---

We in the Liberal Democrats, including my friend the learned Lord Marks in the other place, were concerned about the provisions in clause 12 that would give the Government power to limit cost reimbursement. We have argued that there is a risk that organisations will be put off presenting cases if they cannot recover their costs. We therefore support the Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 4B and 4C, which mandate an impact assessment, and a consultation with the Law Society, the Bar Council and other organisations relevant to the provisions prior to their implementation. This will allow time for a fair assessment of the need for, and results of, the Government’s provisions, and will ensure that the Government are not risking undermining the ability of organisations and charities to bring forward private prosecutions. I want to again thank Lord Marks for his work with the Government to get this amendment in place, and I encourage Members across the House to support it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Anneliese Midgley.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I want to focus on one of the flagship measures in the Bill: clause 1, headed “Power to compel attendance at sentencing hearing”. This law has been fought for—and will today be won—by my constituent Cheryl Korbel. It will compel convicted criminals to attend their sentencing hearings, and will ensure that there are meaningful consequences if they refuse. Where I am from, we call it Olivia’s law. For me, today is all about Olivia, Cheryl, and Antonia, her cousin.

This has been some journey for Cheryl—one that began in unimaginable circumstances. Cheryl’s daughter Olivia was nine years old when she was murdered in her own home by a stranger with a gun in August 2022. The murderer, Thomas Cashman, fired a bullet through the door of Olivia’s home. It passed through Cheryl’s wrist before hitting Olivia in the chest and ending her life. To lose a child to murder in your own home, while you are trying to protect them, is a burden no parent should ever be asked to bear, but Olivia’s murderer remained in his cell, and refused to face the court, to hear Cheryl’s words, or to look her in the eye. It was the act of a coward. Since then, Cheryl has been fighting for that injustice to end.

I first met Cheryl and Antonia when they came to my first surgery as their MP. Since that day, we have stood side by side. We have worked to turn this campaign into law. We raised the matter with Ministers, and took it to the Prime Minister. It is fair to say that Cheryl and Antonia have been to the House of Commons so often that they have met most of the Cabinet and half of the parliamentary Labour party.

On Second Reading, Cheryl allowed me the privilege of reading her victim impact statement in the Chamber. I did that because her words carry more power than anything I could possibly say, and I wanted them to be heard by the world. Olivia’s murderer, Thomas Cashman, refused to hear those words. I would like to read a few words from the statement today:

“My nine-year-old Liv was the light of our lives, our beautiful, sassy, chatty girl who never ran out of energy. She was a character, she was my baby…She will never get to make her holy communion, wear that prom dress or have a sweet 16th birthday, walk down the aisle with the man of her dreams or become a mother of her own children. All that promise for her future so cruelly taken away. Now I have to drive to the cemetery to be close to my baby daughter…telling her I miss her smile, her kisses, her cuddles, her voice.”

Cashman should have heard those words, but he could make the choice not to. That is the injustice at the heart of this matter, because Cheryl did speak. She found the strength to put into words the love that she has for her daughter, and the devastation that she has to face every single day. Today, we ensure that turning away and hiding is no longer an option. I thank the Government, especially the Minister, for listening to Cheryl. I know there were times when Cheryl thought that this day would never come; well, Cheryl, it has.

Cheryl and I are two peas in a pod. We have both just turned 50; she turned 50 on Saturday—happy birthday! We are both from council estates in the same part of town. We both had working-class upbringings, and families who did not have much, but worked hard and gave us everything in love. That matters, because it speaks to who Cheryl is. She is someone who lifts people and brings warmth and strength to others, even in her darkest moments. Alongside her has been her remarkable cousin, Antonia. Together, they have been relentless; they have taken unimaginable grief and turned it into change. Because of both of them, victims’ voices will be heard.

This law is Cheryl’s achievement, and it is Olivia’s legacy. We honour her and all the other campaigners and victims who fought for this law, and I am properly proud that it is a Labour Government delivering it.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Paulette Hamilton on a four-minute time limit, but after her I will be reducing it to a three-minute limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain]

I will come to that point. I note, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I did not get an extra minute for taking an intervention—will I get one?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

indicated dissent.

[Imran Hussain]

Okay. Perhaps I have been too generous with my time.

The real fear is that these changes will not simply speed things up but change how justice is done. In the limited time I have—it is a tragedy that I have only three minutes to speak in a debate of this magnitude, amending cornerstones of our democracy—I ask the Justice Secretary to take advice from the Member he was a number of years ago, when he made some of the most powerful arguments for the jury system. I ask him to look back at his old self.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Sarah Russell to make the final Back-Bench speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Russell]

Obviously not everyone is exhibiting these traits and training can help, but my understanding, from what I have heard anecdotally, is that substantial numbers of members of the judiciary are not up to date with the training requirements that they already have. I would welcome hearing more from the Secretary of State about exactly how those training programmes will be developed, brought forward and made mandatory in a way that is effective.

It is of significant concern that Baroness Harman had to make a recommendation on the importance of the Judicial Appointments Commission taking into account findings of misconduct when considering who to appoint as judges. It is astonishing that she had to recommend that that should be required. How has the Judicial Appointments Commission been operating to date?

I stand here as someone who does not like to criticise the judiciary. I know that it has many hard-working members who have been operating in a difficult environment for a very long time. We have to be honest in saying that most of the rates that I have referred to were not put up by the new Labour Government either. We have had cuts to the justice system for 25 years, and that is why it is on its knees. We can do things within the context of the current system that might make it somewhat better, but I go back to my original question: when rape trials are taking six years from arrest to prosecution, what are we going to do to make wholesale change? Nothing I have heard so far has convinced me that what we will do here today, whichever permutations we go with, will fundamentally transform those waits.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Prison Capacity: Annual Statement

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on prison capacity.

Today, the Government are publishing the second annual statement on prison capacity, a copy of which will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The statement reflects this Government’s determination to be open and honest about the state of our justice system—not to hide the problems or downplay the pressure, but to face reality and act decisively.

Today’s annual statement sets out the latest prison population projections and supply forecasts, and the picture that it paints is clear: our prisons are still under severe strain. The risks that we inherited from our predecessors have not vanished overnight, and the figures show that, without this Government’s action, which was opposed by the Conservatives and Reform every step of the way, our law and order system would be in crisis today, with criminals allowed to roam the streets, and victims failed. For the first time in a very long time, we are no longer forecasting a chronic deficit in prison places. When the impact of this Government’s landmark sentencing reforms is taken into account, supply is now expected to keep pace with demand in our central projected scenario. That is real progress, but let me be absolutely clear: this is no time for complacency. The system remains under considerable pressure, the margin for error is slim, and the work to stabilise it is far from finished. The statement only furthers the Government’s determination to fix the system fundamentally.

Let us remember where we came from. This Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. At one point in 2024, there were fewer than 100 places left across the entire adult male estate. Had we allowed prisons to overflow—a risk the Conservative party was happy to take—courts would have been forced to suspend trials, police would have been unable to make arrests, and criminals would have been left to run amok on the streets of this country, as we would have been forced to release thousands of offenders as an emergency measure, the previous Government having left no proper plan in place. We were just one bad day—a protest turned ugly or a surge in defendants in custody awaiting trial—from a total collapse of the criminal justice system. This is not alarmism; that was a dangerously real possibility, and it was the direct legacy of 14 years of neglect by the previous Tory Government. In more than a decade, only 500 prison places, net, were added, while demand surged relentlessly.

The shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), whom I welcome to his place, had a role in this sorry mess. In 2016 and 2017, when he was chief of staff to the then Prime Minister, his Tory Government closed 262 more prison places than they opened. Now, in opposition, they oppose every action to fix the problem that they caused. In short, doing nothing—as advocated by the Tories and Reform—would have risked the total breakdown of law and order in this country. We know that the previous Government chose to stick their head in the sand and not face up to the crisis that they had created, but we cannot ignore this. The alternative—doing nothing—would have been a reckless gamble with public safety, which no responsible Government could countenance.

That is why, in September 2024, when we were faced with the immediate risk of gridlock, we took decisive emergency action. We changed the automatic release point for certain standard determinate sentences from 50% to 40%, to ease the intolerable pressure on the system. That was not an easy decision, but it was the responsible one. Emergency action bought us time, and, in December 2024, we set out our 10-year prison capacity strategy—the most ambitious prison-building programme since the Victorian era. We committed up to £7 billion towards the delivery of 14,000 additional prison places by 2031.

Today’s statement shows that that commitment is not just rhetoric, but a reality that the Government are driving forward. Since July 2024, we have delivered around 2,900 additional prison places, including by opening HMP Millsike in March 2025, and a new house block at HMP Fosse Way in December. Around 5,000 more places are now under construction, including new house blocks at existing prisons, and a brand-new prison in Leicestershire, HMP Welland Oaks, is due to open in 2029. [Interruption.] Major infrastructure projects always carry risk, but based on the latest assessments, the Government have retained our delivery target of 14,000 new places by 2031 —[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am interested in hearing what the Minister has to say, as are our constituents.

[Jake Richards]

I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We cannot just build our way out of this problem. Without further reform, the prison population is projected to rise by around 3,000 people every year, outstripping supply even while the largest prison-building programme in generations is under way. That is why wholesale reform is essential. This Government had the courage to act. First, we launched the independent sentencing review, led by former Lord Chancellor David Gauke. Secondly, thanks to that work, we delivered the landmark Sentencing Act 2026, which will ensure that punishment works to cut crime and protect the British public.

Those reforms are about being smart, responsible and honest about what works. They will keep dangerous offenders off our streets, end the revolving door of less serious offenders going in and out of prison, and put victims first, with tougher and more credible punishments outside prison. The provisions in that Act include a presumption in favour of suspending short custodial sentences for less serious offenders, which we know do not work in many cases. Almost 60% of those jailed for less than a year reoffend within 12 months—that means more crime and more victims. This reform is expected to have a particular effect on women in prison. Nearly 80% of women who receive custodial sentences spend mere weeks in prison, which causes huge problems for their prospects of rehabilitation and costs the taxpayer millions. We can do much better.

For offenders who do go to prison, their release will depend on their behaviour while inside. Release at the earlier point will be theirs to lose, and those who behave badly can be kept in for longer, right up until the end of their sentence. That model is based on the one used in Texas, where crime is down, prisons are being closed and the taxpayer is saving money. When offenders are released, they will face a strengthened licence period, with swift recall to custody if they step out of line. New strict licence conditions, such as banning alcohol-fuelled offenders from pubs or keeping troublemakers away from football matches, will be tailored to risk. More offenders will be forced to pay back their debt to victims and the communities that they have harmed, through financial penalties or unpaid work. Taken together, those reforms are expected to reduce the prison population by around 7,500 places by 2028, while improving outcomes for victims and keeping the public safe. To take that further, the Act will also make it quicker and easier to deport foreign national offenders from our prison estate. We have already seen a dramatic increase in the number of foreign national offenders leaving our country under this Labour Government, and the Acts that we have passed will expedite that ambition.

Let us be abundantly clear: today’s figures also show that the Labour Government will keep more prisoners behind bars than ever before by the end of the Parliament—a sustainable system keeping the public safe. We cannot solve this capacity crisis if we do not support our Probation Service, which lies at the heart of these reforms. Probation officers supervise some of the most complex and challenging individuals in our justice system. If sentencing reform is to work, probation must be strong, professional and properly supported. That is why the statement also sets out the state of probation capacity—caseloads, workforce and the action that we are taking to strengthen it. The Government are investing up to £700 million more in probation and community services by the end of the Parliament—a 45% increase on current funding, and the largest ever investment in community justice. In so doing, we are delivering on Sentencing Act provisions, workforce growth and expanded electronic monitoring. At least 1,300 trainee probation officers will be recruited in 2025-26. By September 2027, probation officer staffing levels are expected to have risen to around 6,500.

There is no disguising the challenge ahead. There is an inevitable time lag before new officers can carry full, complex caseloads independently, but the Government are committed to rebuilding probation for the long term, and we are using innovative solutions to assist us. More than 30 digital and artificial intelligence initiatives are under way, including Justice Transcribe, which has already reduced the time spent on note-taking by around 50%, allowing officers to focus on the vital face-to-face work that turns lives around and protects the public.

As we promised in last year’s statement, the Government have, through the Sentencing Act, made the publication of this annual statement a statutory requirement. That locks in transparency, forces evidence-based decision making, and holds future Governments to account. Those steps mark a turning point. This landmark reform was never a choice; it was a necessity—doing nothing was never an option. We are increasing capacity, strengthening accountability and tackling problems in our criminal justice system that have been ignored for far too long. The Government are determined to ensure that Britain never again faces a situation in which there are more prisoners than prison places. Only this Government have been willing to take the tough decisions, invest at scale and reform the system to protect the public. We are facing this challenge head-on, and we will see it through. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

I welcome the new shadow Justice Secretary to his place; I hope he can do a better job than his predecessor. Let me deal with his last question first. If he had read what I said in that interview carefully, he would know that I was talking about the Youth Custody Service; I was not talking about the adult estate. I urge him to go back and read that interview and perhaps come to the House to correct the record.

On the issue of whether prison works, prison can work. I was abundantly clear in the statement that at the end of this Parliament, under this Labour Government, there will be more criminals in prison than ever before, so prison can work. But I gently urge the shadow Justice Secretary to delve a little deeper and look at short-term sentences, for example. Is it the Conservatives’ position today, which it was not by the end of their time in government, that short-term sentences should not be reformed at all? It was proposed in legislation put forward by the Conservative Government in their final year in office that never saw the light of day because of the general election to make exactly the same changes we are making now—but now they oppose it. I am afraid that the Conservative position on sentencing is all over the place.

When it comes to prison building, the Conservatives expect to get some praise for panicking in their last year of government, realising that they had not done anything for 13 years, that they had underfunded prisons and that places were not keeping up with demand, so they started doing something about it. But none of those places was delivered under a Conservative Government. Unless I am hallucinating, I have been to these sites— I opened them; I put the shovel in the ground. It is a Labour Government who are delivering where the Tories completely failed.

On foreign national offenders, I do not accept the figures that the hon. Gentleman set out today. Foreign national offender deportations are up under the Labour Government. Through the Sentencing Act 2026, which the Conservatives opposed, we are making it far easier to deport foreign national offenders.

The Conservative Opposition have a real problem. They oppose every single step this Government are taking to solve the crisis they created, and then they step up and moan about it. They should support us. We are getting on with the job—we are reforming sentencing, building prison places and making sure the prison system is fit for the future. They should support us, rather than moaning from the sidelines.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The prison population is comprised in significant part of cohorts of prisoners who, for a variety of reasons, should not be there in current numbers. That includes prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection, foreign national offenders, remand prisoners and, according to press reports today, record numbers of recalled offenders, only around 20% of whom have committed new offences. What more can the Government do to reduce the numbers in prison without any threat to public safety? Should the annual statement not also include statistics on rehabilitation, as the Justice Committee called for in its recent report? In the long term, stopping reoffending is the surest method of controlling prison numbers, so will the Minister comment on the hugely disappointing news in his response to our report that core education in prisons—one of the keys to rehabilitation —is being cut by an average of 20% to 25%?

[Jake Richards]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Let me deal with the education point up front. There has not been a cut to the overall education budget, but it is right to say that there are challenges because the cost of the contract has increased. We are looking at making proposals about how we can ensure that education provision has the appropriate amount of resource. We will make further announcements in due course, and of course, we have an ongoing dialogue with the Select Committee.

On my hon. Friend’s central point about the number of people in prison who some people feel do not need to be in prison, as the provisions in the Sentencing Act—which received Royal Assent just last week—come into force, they will have an effect on some of that population. We have had a regular dialogue about IPP prisoners. Lord Timpson in the other place is leading on that issue and continues to take that cohort under review.

On foreign national offenders, as I have just said to the shadow Justice Secretary, this Government are taking more action than the last Government, and the legislation we have just passed will make it easier to take further action. We have conversations all the time with other nations about prisoner transfer agreements, which will make it far easier and safer to deport foreign national offenders. This is not the end of the way; the Sentencing Act is just the beginning. As I set out in my statement, we continue to work hard to ensure we are never again in the situation we were in 2024.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

This Government inherited a justice system in a shambles after years of Conservative complacency and mismanagement. Overcrowding, administrative failures and cuts to vital services mean the Ministry of Justice too often appears to be moving from one crisis to the next as it tries to fix an entire justice system that has been broken for a long time. We in the Liberal Democrats welcome the long-term provisions the Government have made to reduce pressure on the system, such as the presumption against short sentences and investment in capacity. It is clear from today’s statement that those provisions in the Sentencing Act will have a meaningful impact on demand for prison places in coming years, but I have some questions for the Minister.

The proportion of female prisoners serving less than 12 months is four times that of the male population. Given the presumption against custody introduced by the Sentencing Act, can the Minister outline what, if any, work is being undertaken to consider the capacity that may be freed up in the female prison estate?

The report outlines the Government’s ambition to secure new land for the provision of future prison builds. Can the Minister outline a timeline for that, and for when prison places that are currently under construction will come online?

The Minister laid out plans to increase the number of probation officers to 6,500 by 2027. The retention of officers has been a long-standing issue within the probation system, which has been compounded in recent years by the uptick in less experienced staff. Will he set out what measures the Department will take to improve retention, and whether the Government will meet the HM Prison and Probation Service staffing level of 7,114 officers by the end of this Parliament?

The Minister rightly said that reducing reoffending is key to easing long-term pressure on the system. Education is central to that ambition, as it provides prisoners with the skills they need to rejoin society after their sentences end and avoid making the same mistakes again. Yet prison education is being cut, not strengthened, as the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), said. In fact, last month the independent monitoring board wrote to the Prisons Minister outlining the impact that real-terms cuts beyond inflation rates were having on education. Will the Minister before us please explain how the Government expect to deliver a rehabilitative system and reduce reoffending while prison boards are being forced to make dramatic cuts to education budgets?

Sentencing Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Martin]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and for the work that he has done in Harlow. I repeat that to my knowledge there was not a Government before us who even cared about tradespeople.

In addition, we are investing up to £700 million more in community punishment and increasing probation funding by 45%. That means better supervision, faster enforcement, and a system that is credible both to offenders and the public, and looks to reduce repeated crimes for victims.

I welcome a number of Government amendments that further strengthen the Bill. As the daughter of a retired police officer—I note my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) is also in his place; his dad was a retired probation officer—I have family and friends still serving in the force and as prison officers. I welcome Lords amendments 1 and 14, which broaden whole-life orders. Murder is the most heinous crime a person can commit, and the amendments ensure that those who murder police officers, prison officers or probation officers, including where the crime is motivated by their current or former duties, face the full force of the law. These crimes strike at the very heart of the rule of law and it is right that sentencing reflects that.

I also welcome Lords amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5, which strengthen transparency and accountability around the Sentencing Council. The amendments set a very high bar for rejecting sentencing guidance, ensuring Parliament is informed where decisions are taken, and helping to maintain public confidence in the justice system. Crucially, they sit alongside the reforms that reflect legislation I fought for in my Theft of Tools of Trade (Sentencing) Bill, to ensure that sentencing properly takes account of the full circumstances and the impact on victims. That principle is vital: justice must never lose sight of the harm done to victims and communities when crimes are committed.

Lords amendment 6 is another important step forward. By placing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on prison capacity, the Government are ending the culture of secrecy we inherited and ensuring proper accountability to Parliament and the public.

I strongly welcome the Government’s amendments in lieu to Lords amendment 7, which will ensure victims can access transcripts of sentencing remarks free of charge. This is a meaningful improvement for victims, an important move towards a more transparent and humane justice system, and another step in the right direction of putting victims at the heart of our justice system.

The Bill ends the chaos we inherited. It restores confidence in justice and it delivers punishment that works for communities such as Portsmouth now and into the future. I am proud to have worked hard on developing the Bill and I am proud to support it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sally Jameson]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to apologise for inadvertently making an error. At the start of my speech on the Sentencing Bill, I forgot to declare that I remain a member of the Prison Officers Association, following my time in the Prison Service. I hope that the record can be corrected.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. Her comments are now on the record and the record is corrected.

Holocaust Memorial Bill (Allocation of Time)

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Holocaust Memorial Bill:

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(2) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1) of this Order.

Subsequent stages

(3) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.

(4) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (3) of this Order.

Reasons Committee

(5) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.

Miscellaneous

(6) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

(7) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.

(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(8) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Jury Trials

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Criminal Court Reform

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

That is not a point of order for the Chair, but the Secretary of State wants to respond.

[Mr Lammy]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just to clarify, I did discuss these proposals with the incoming Victims’ Commissioner. Today, an event on violence against women has been held at No. 10 with many victims organisations. From them and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips)—she is in her place to make the next statement—there is a wide welcome for these proposals.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That concludes the statement.

Royal Assent

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025

Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025

HMP Downview: Female Prisoners

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just been accused of misinformation, and I want to make the point that the information and data I cited was obtained through written parliamentary questions. I can provide that data, so it is not misinformation; it is information that has come from the Ministry of Justice.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Minister, you may want to clarify that remark.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will happily clarify it. I was not accusing the hon. Lady of misinformation; I was saying that there is a lot of misinformation out there regarding this issue, and that it is important that I put on record the facts of the case, which is what I am doing.

I want to reassert my last point: no exemptions have been granted under this Government. Exemptions that allow transgender women to be housed in the general women’s estate are recommended only when there is a compelling reason, such as a suicide or self-harm risk, or a risk to the prisoner from others, and where a specially trained multidisciplinary panel has carried out a comprehensive risk assessment that concludes that it has a high level of confidence that the prisoner poses a low risk to other prisoners. Again, though, no such exemption has been granted under this Government.

Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 2 stand part.

I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Mr or Madam Deputy Speaker, but use our names. Madam Chair, Chair or Madam Chairman are also acceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak once again in this Chamber on the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill, which creates a modern legal framework that will allow Britain to take every opportunity we can while protecting ourselves in an ever-changing digital age.

The Liberal Democrats support clause 1. It states that a “thing”—including a digital or electronic thing—will not be deprived of legal status as an object of personal property rights merely by reason of the fact that it is neither a thing in action nor a thing in possession. The clause responds to the development of new types of assets such as crypto-tokens, which challenge the traditional categories of property. I am grateful to the other place for scrutinising this legal framework incredibly well. As a result, we have a fine piece of legislation to discuss.

The digital world is often mired in legal ambiguity about how common-law systems treats digital assets. At present, the law recognises two primary forms of personal property: things in possession and things in action. However, digital assets, which cannot be physically possessed and often do no count for a claim against another person, do not really fit easily into either category. The need for clarity is imperative. We risk undermining individual rights and weakening legal solutions in cases involving cryptoassets, non-fungible tokens and other digital holdings.

The Bill goes far in ensuring that digital things are not denied property status simply because they do not fall into the normal categories. Consequently, we also support clause 2, as it requires the Secretary of State to publish codes of practice on the attributes of digital things that confer personal property rights. The clause aims to provide guidance to the courts on how to assess whether a digital asset is the object of personal property rights.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision to accept the Law Commission’s recommendations. Financial Conduct Authority figures indicate that nearly 12% of UK adults now hold cryptoassets—I know because constituency cases are raised with me when things go wrong—and that figure has more than doubled since 2021. However, victims of fraud, people seeking restitution in insolvency, or simply those wishing to assert ownership over what they rightfully hold, have been operating in a murky legal landscape. The Bill leaves room for the common law to develop in that sphere of property. That will help the law to reflect the evolving nature of technology, but it must be monitored over time to ensure that regulation ultimately aligns with the need to protect individual rights and support our economy.

We know that digital assets can also present risks, particularly fraud, volatility and abuse, but we cannot ignore them; we must face them head on. We need a modern legal framework that bolsters confidence in our economy and in the use of digital assets, and supports the rule of law. The Bill is clear, well written and makes doubly sure that UK law remains relevant in the digital world. It is supported by the Law Society, by legal practitioners and by the Liberal Democrats. I urge colleagues on all sides of the Committee to support its passage.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I call the Minister to wind up the debate

[Sarah Sackman]

With the leave of the Committee, I give my sincere thanks to the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and for Woking (Mr Forster). It has been a pleasure to discuss the clauses in more detail, and it is good to see constructive consensus about a piece of legislation. I think we all agree that it brings legal certainty, keeps pace with legal innovation, is proportionate, and meets the moment, with the growth of cryptocurrency and other related industries. I thank all those who have contributed to this important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Third Reading