Court and Tribunal Transcripts

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

As I say, and as the hon. Member will appreciate, the interplay between the ULS scheme and the provision of transcripts of sentencing remarks is at the heart of our consideration during the passage through Parliament of the Victim and Courts Bill. Parliament is seized of the issue of the ULS scheme. I completely understand the desire to expand the time limit. We have spoken to victims’ groups and victims who have suggested alternatives, or who are potentially not even in favour. We have to get it right. Watch this space, if I can say that at this stage.

In the magistrates courts, we are making meaningful progress on the recording of hearings. As part of wider reform of the criminal courts’ trial and sentencing proceedings, magistrates courts will now be recorded. That will strengthen transparency and support the accurate production of transcripts when required.

In civil proceedings, parties often do not need to pay for written judgments or orders in their own cases. Those are provided as a matter of course so that litigants can understand the basis of the court’s decision and can consider any next steps, including appeal. While a fee is generally payable for the full transcript of the case, a party can apply to the court to obtain it at public expense. The court can order this when satisfied that it is justified by the financial circumstances of the party and is in the interests of justice.

In the family courts, most proceedings are heard in private. This is to protect the children’s welfare and families’ privacy. Even so, progress is being made to increase transparency, while remaining committed to keeping children and vulnerable individuals safe. Family courts are not usually at the forefront of our mind when we talk about the issue, because they often sit in private, but for many families, particularly in public family law proceedings, the transcript of any fact finding or any final hearing regarding the future of a child can be pivotal to the future care of that child, and indeed to the parents in any appeals or routes to having children returned to their care.

The Government have worked closely with the judiciary to support an increase in the publication of anonymised judgments for family proceedings, which enable the public better to understand the decision making, while ensuring that privacy is protected. Even where family proceedings are heard in private, journalists and legal bloggers can attend most types of hearing. Now, following procedural changes, family courts are encouraged to make orders setting out what information from the hearings can be disclosed publicly. That marks a substantial development in transparency in family proceedings, balancing clarity about what can be reported with the need to protect those involved. We are working with Baroness Levitt and the Family Procedure Rule Committee to review the current rules of court relating to the sharing of information from family cases, to ensure that the rules are justified and proportionate.

Tribunals, which are also covered in the petition, play a vital role in resolving disputes across many areas of daily life. Across many chambers of the first tier and upper tribunals, parties can request fuller written reasons at no additional cost. Tribunals therefore already provide substantial written explanation without a fee.

In the immigration and asylum chamber, the upper tribunal already publishes its decisions, and the Government are working with the judiciary and HMCTS to understand the arrangements required to deliver this in the first-tier tribunal. That involves careful consideration of operational capacity, safeguarding and the significant volume of personal data involved. This work is ongoing and reflects our commitment to increasing transparency and delivering open justice.

To go significantly further at this stage, by extending free provision to every transcript across every jurisdiction, would place substantial operational and financial pressures on the Department at a time when we are rightly focused on implementing the extension of free sentencing remarks and a once-in-a-generation reform in our criminal courts.

Looking to the future, however, the Government are embracing the possibilities that new technology brings. Advances in AI transcription could allow for faster and more cost-effective production of court and tribunal transcripts, while maintaining accuracy and safeguarding. Working with the judiciary, the Government will continue to look at how we can go further and faster in this area. It is essential, however, that any such system meet stringent standards and ensure that reporting restrictions are adhered to and personal data is protected.

In conclusion, I reiterate the Government’s firm commitment to open justice. We have already taken significant steps to strengthen transparency across the system, and we will continue to build on that progress, but in doing so it is imperative that we protect individuals, recognise practical and financial constraints and ensure that the justice system can run smoothly and effectively. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley again for opening this debate and all hon. Members who have contributed. I look forward to continuing to work together to ensure that our justice system remains open, fair and trusted by all who rely on it.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

The mover of the motion has a couple of minutes to wind up.

Prison Capacity: Annual Statement

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion for his constituency, and in particular for its cafés, including this one—he has been telling me all about how important it is to the local community. I am very happy to meet him, and we will do everything we can to keep that café open.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

A Crown court judge in Shropshire recently referenced the county’s “shoplifting epidemic”. Page 6 of the Minister’s statement says that

“more credible punishments outside prison…include a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences for less serious offenders—because we know these do not work.”

Does the Minister accept that shoplifting is a crime; that it is not victim-free; and that in many circumstances, a custodial sentence might still be relevant? Despite the Sentencing Act 2026, the retailers and shopkeepers of Shropshire should know that when they go to work in the morning—getting up early, working hard and going to bed late at night—the profits they make are not going to walk out of the door with somebody who is shoplifting, getting away scot-free and getting a free pass from this Government.

[Jake Richards]

I was going to say that I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but he sort of ruined it at the end. Shoplifting is a crime, and the Home Secretary made an announcement earlier this week about ensuring that we prosecute it. There is a presumption against short-term sentencing, but clearly we are not banning short-term sentences; they are vital in lots of cases, particularly in domestic abuse cases and for prolific offenders, which many shoplifters are.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

Housing issues were a key feature of our work on the child poverty taskforce. Colleagues across Government are taking up such work. I am concerned about the cases that the hon. Lady raises. If she would like to share some details, I will make sure that a Minister looks into them and provides a response.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Of course, poverty of aspiration contributes to inequalities. As the Minister will know, over 100,000 children in this country are in looked-after care, in secure homes, children’s homes and foster care. Every single one of those children has a skill, an ability, something to contribute to society. With her Secretary of State for Education hat on, will she consider scholarships for looked-after children so that they can develop those skills?

[Bridget Phillipson]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that serious matter. It is a scandal—one of the worst failures in modern Scottish public life. The SNP Government must acknowledge the grave failures at Queen Elizabeth hospital. When whistleblowers raised serious failings, SNP Ministers sided with the health board and dismissed families who went through tragic circumstances. That should be condemned as wholly unacceptable, and there is no clearer example of why Scotland needs change with Anas Sarwar.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Q14. The UK’s nuclear deterrent has kept this country safe for over five decades. As the Deputy Prime Minister will know, it is operationally independent, but it still relies on US defence supply chains. Given the shaking of traditional alliances, could the Deputy Prime Minister reassure the House and the country that the UK has sufficient stockpiles of the component parts of the Trident II D5 missiles in our nuclear submarines, and ensure that the supply chain remains resilient and able to cope with any change in the White House, whether positive or negative?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. It is why I was pleased to work with the Defence Secretary on the strategic defence review and why we are investing £270 billion over this Parliament in defence.

Right to Trial by Jury

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I could not put it better myself. It is those victims that I have in mind every day when I come into work, flip open the virtual or real ministerial red box, and think about what we can do—what lever we can pull—to bring down the backlog. I will bear those victims’ stories in mind as we approach this issue with the seriousness it deserves.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The Minister is a very distinguished lawyer, so I am surprised to hear her selective interpretation of Magna Carta. She references clause 40 of Magna Carta and the timeliness of access to justice. I accept that, but I encourage her to reread clause 39, which underpins the fundamental rights of all of our constituents. Is this not just the continuation of Labour’s constitutional vandalism?

[Sarah Sackman]

Nothing could be further from the truth. The way in which I approach this question is about protecting people’s rights—the right to a fair trial. There is no right in our constitution to a jury trial—it is not there—but jury trials are a fundamental and important part of our legal tradition, and they will remain so after any reforms are brought forward. That simply does not change. However, 90% of people are tried without a jury, and that is done fairly. What we need to guarantee is a fair trial, and I have been mindful of our legal traditions, descending from Magna Carta and many constitutional documents since, as we approach these reforms.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Hear, hear. I thank my hon. Friend for the brilliant work she has been doing in championing this issue recently. The Online Safety Act ensures that online platforms are required to remove illegal content such as harassing or abusive material as soon as they are made aware of it. That is a fundamental feature in order to protect children in our country, and any party seeking to repeal that is not on the side of protecting children.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Across the west midlands, there is currently a backlog of 6,000 Crown court cases, many of which are sexual offence cases. In Shropshire, 759 cases are outstanding at Shrewsbury Crown court. Will the Minister commit to looking at the midlands circuit and seeing whether more rape and serious sexual offences resources can be given so that there can be suitably qualified and trained judges and advocates, and cases can be brought more quickly and swiftly to court? In Shropshire, some of those court cases are potentially two years out.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the question and the way in which he asked it. As he will know, the Government are doing all we can to bear down on the backlog in our Crown courts. That is why we have tasked Sir Brian Leveson with looking at how we can best get to grips with it. The right hon. Gentleman is right, however. I have sadly spoken to far too many rape and sexual violence victims who are waiting far too long for their day in court, which has an impact on them. We are straining every sinew, working with the judiciary and colleagues in the Crown Prosecution Service, to better support these victims and ensure that when they do get that day in court, they can access justice appropriately and have the best support available to them. I will happily work with him and anyone else in the House to ensure that any victim of crime has the support they need.

Prisoner Release Checks

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

After the horrific legacy left by the last Government, I think that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will be pleased that we are increasing the number of prison places, that we are reversing some of the cuts made under last Government, that the Sentencing Bill is passing through Parliament and that we have come forward with a courts Bill. Those measures are all to deal with the chaos that we inherited in our justice system. I have got to tell the hon. Gentleman: his question is really rich when it was his party that cut 20,000 police officers in our country.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May I say to the Justice Secretary that referring to the last Government’s record is wearing a bit thin? This Government have been in power for over 12 months, so what he says is not going to wash with the British public. May I also say to him that I think he does his calm better than he does his livid?

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), I think he paraphrased his own statement, but his statement clearly says:

“Over the weekend, I chaired three operational meetings with the police.”

Hon. Members will know that we can attend strategy meetings, but we never interfere with operational matters. The House, members of the public and police officers deserve clarity about that. He also said:

“Members will be aware that there are national security considerations within a case like this.”

We are talking about a criminal conviction made in open court, so what are those national security implications?

Finally—so he knows that I have not been too tough on him today—I commend his decision to appoint Dame Lynne Owens; she is a first-class public servant.

[Mr Lammy]

Despite the nature of the right hon. Gentleman’s questioning, he and I are actually friends. I think it was important that the police were able to give me an operational update, and I thank the Metropolitan police, Essex police and the British Transport police for their work, which I am sure his constituents value. I am sorry that he does not want me to mention the record of the last Government, but I have a feeling that when he was sitting on the Government Benches, he was hugely disappointed with their record on crime and on the justice system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right. We have to ensure that the system works for victims. Under the previous Government, half of all magistrates courts closed, and in December 2023, the Crown court backlog had increased by 77%. We are dealing with that—we have to do so as swiftly as possible. I will of course ensure that he meets with the appropriate Minister.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I pay tribute to my predecessor, who is mentioned on the face of the Order Paper, who was killed in 1940.

The Justice Secretary keeps referring to the previous Government, and I sort of get that, but I remind him that the new Government have been in post for some 14 or 15 months—over a year—and at some point, that particular argument is going to wear very thin. Is he aware of the extraordinary length of time that victims of serious sexual assault and crimes must wait in the Shropshire courts, particularly Shrewsbury Crown court? It is double the 363 days that we have just heard from the Lib Dem Benches. What will the Justice Secretary do to help those victims, as well as the defendants who may, on occasion, be innocent?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman and I are friends across this House. However, I have to say to him—and he should say this to his constituents—that under the previous Government, we saw devastating cuts to the police, with a reduction of 20,000 officers; we saw no building of prisons at all, effectively—only 500 places; we saw the decimation of the Probation Service, which we are rebuilding; and we saw a reduction in sitting days. We have had to get on with all that. Yes, we have made some strides in 14 months, but the devastation was big, and it will take a bit longer.

Independent Sentencing Review

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is a day of shame for the Conservative party. I am sorry to see that the attitude of Conservative Members today is shameless. He makes a very important point on policing. I have had a good conversation with police leaders. I am determined to use the national Criminal Justice Board to ensure that every part of the criminal justice system is aligned and that we take into account all the interactions—based on this review, and on the upcoming criminal courts review—and think about the impact they have not just on the bit of the justice system I am directly responsible for, but on the wider criminal justice system, including policing as a whole.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May I first say to the Lord Chancellor that I have huge personal respect for her? I may disagree with some—some, by the way, not all—of what she has announced today, but I would like to put that on the record. She mentions female offending. She will know that there are six mother and baby units in female prisons in England. There were 90 applications for the last period we know about, up to March 2024, with 64 places for mothers and 70 places for babies, allowing for twins. Clearly, there are not enough places. Has she considered as part of this review, when there is not serious and violent offending by female prisoners, getting more of those mothers and babies into the community, rather than having them in prison?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks of personal respect, which are shared across this House. I thank him for that and for the important issue he raises. I hope to move to a position where the combined impact of the changes in the review and the work we are doing with the Women’s Justice Board mean that we see a huge drop in the number of female prisoners. I am particularly keen to ensure that pregnant women and mothers of young children are not anywhere near our female prison estate in future. Of course, for serious offenders we will always need to make sure that prison is an option, but the vast majority of women go to prison on short sentences for much less serious offences and we need to turn that around.

Points of Order

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that today we have had the heavy assent from the Foreign Secretary that, ahead of the Palestinian state discussions led by Saudi Arabia and France at the UN in June, the British Government are on their way to recognising a Palestinian state, which I would welcome. But ahead of that, may I seek your guidance on how Members across this House who feel very strongly about this issue will have an opportunity to vote ahead of that meeting in order that the Government have full authority from this Parliament on the issue of recognising a Palestinian state?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I think the right hon. Member knows that that point of order is a matter not for the Chair, but for the Government. No doubt the Foreign Secretary and those on the Front Bench will have heard him and will respond in due course.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but let us be very, very clear. Huge amounts of research has been done by the Health and Social Care Committee, and indeed by myself and others. The model being proposed here is nothing like what happens in Belgium. It is nothing like what happens in Canada. There are strict, stringent criteria, and if the House chooses to pass the Bill, those criteria cannot be changed.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and congratulate her on the measured way in which she has conducted this debate over the last few weeks. Whatever side of the House and whatever side of the debate, I would like to recognise that—it is not always the case. But is it not the case that the Bill crosses a new and irreversible medical red line for doctors and nurses? Is it not the case that in other Bills we have seen in this House over the years, the safeguards invariably become obsolete over time, and so the safeguards in this Bill, however well meant, should be seen as temporary safeguards and not immutable safeguards?