Causing Death by Dangerous or Careless Driving: Sentencing

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady and extend my condolences to the constituent she is so admirably representing. I agree that it is about accountability, justice and the message that it sends to the victims and their families who have to live with that loss for the rest of their lives.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I am so glad the hon. Gentleman has called this debate. I want to include the feeling of injustice that there is for those who suffer the loss of a family member. The person who killed the wife of one of my constituents with a car chose to give a “no comment” interview. There were only two vehicles involved: a bike ridden by my constituent’s wife, and a car. The perpetrator did not deny that she had done it, but she gave a “no comment” interview throughout the proceedings, which just added to the grief and injustice that that family feels.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

I thank the hon. Lady for sharing that tragic story and I again extend my condolences to those affected. I entirely agree. We have to think of this issue holistically, because the impact is forever for the families and friends of the victims.

If two different families and two different MPs from the same constituency have been raising the same concerns for almost a decade, Parliament has a responsibility to listen. We must ask whether our laws provide sufficient punishment, deterrence and protection for the public. If they do not, we must have the courage to change them.

Every day, residents cross the zebra crossing in Caerau to visit the park. For the community there, it is a daily reminder of Keely and the life lost. I know that the community support for the family has been tremendous, but no amount of flowers, murals or kind words will bring Keely back to Sian and her lovely family. I am grateful and thank Sian and her family, as well as everyone who supported her campaign, for their courage. They have channelled their grief in an attempt to get the productive outcome that we are talking about here today.

Keely should have been able to cross that road safely and return home. She was so much more than the circumstances of her death. She was a daughter, a sister and a young girl with her whole life ahead of her. Her family should be able to remember her for who she was, rather than having to fight to ensure that no other family has to suffer the same indignity.

Ultimately, this issue is about ensuring that our sentencing framework reflects the seriousness of these offences, gives families confidence that justice has been served and acts as a meaningful deterrent to prevent further tragedies. We must ensure that the consequences are serious enough to reflect the harm caused, hold offenders accountable and deter others from taking the same risks. I urge the Government to review the legislation and sentencing framework and to take meaningful action. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and the further contributions of colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) for securing this debate.

To pick up on something that the hon. Gentleman said, driving is a privilege. Allowing somebody who has killed or caused serious injury to another person to be able to return to the road immediately seems particularly injurious. I hope that the Minister will be able to address the hon. Gentleman’s call for automatic license revocation. The current situation feels incredibly lenient, especially considering that people have to wait a very long time for court cases to come around. The perpetrator can carry on with the rest of their life while the family is suspended in utter grief. My sense is that suspended sentences are not appropriate either, particularly in the case I am thinking of, where somebody has given a “no comment” interview to the police and chosen not to speak. It just seems so desperately unfair.

It has already been mentioned, but I also want to address the fact that there are people who are driving without insurance, tax or a valid MOT, but the police are so stretched that they cannot deal with those sorts of issue when they come along. Those “minor” infringements, as considered by those who commit them, only increase the likelihood of someone carrying on to behave more irresponsibly. I ask the Minister to look at what is happening in France and Ireland, our nearest neighbours, who take different views and actions. I am happy to send the Minister information on that.

I want to talk about one other aspect: how to prevent dangerous behaviour before it results in even one more death. I will concentrate on speeding and racing, which is a serious concern in my constituency. Between 2019 and 2024, 204 people were killed or seriously injured: 29 lost their lives and 175 suffered serious injuries. I am thinking about accidents that happened in Dinder, just outside Wells; in Blackford; and recently in the village of Ston Easton.

Those incidents are catastrophic, not just for the people who live nearby and the families but desperate for everyone involved. The people killed or seriously injured are not just statistics; they represent individuals, families and communities, whose lives are often changed for ever. I do not suggest that all those collisions involved speeding, but nationally excessive speed was a contributory factor in around one in five fatal collisions in 2024. That surely underlines why tackling excessive speeding must be central to any serious strategy to reduce road deaths.

It is great that the Department for Transport has published the first road safety strategy in over a decade, but we have a Justice Minister here. I ask him to work with colleagues in the Department for Transport to address my straightforward question. The strategy includes a welcome ambition to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 65% by 2035, but where will that 65% reduction will come from? Many in the road safety community question whether the currently proposed measures are sufficient to achieve that ambition.

The strategy is relatively light on specific measures to tackle serious and persistent speeding, despite recognising speeding as one of the fatal four causes of death or serious injury on our roads. Since that strategy was published back in January, there must be an urgent need to finalise the Government’s response to the consultations, set out a clear delivery plan and to begin implementing the measures that will save lives.

I attended an event here in the Houses of Parliament where I was interested to see the intervening intelligent speed assistant, or IISA. I recognise that technology is fitted to new cars, but this feature can be fitted to cars that are already on the road. I have asked for some, as I drive 25,000 miles a year, going in and out of 20, 30 and 40 limits regularly, and I do not wish to get any points on my licence. I should declare an interest there.

Unlike the intelligence speed assistance technology fitted to new cars, which can warn drivers when they exceed the speed limit but can be overridden or switched off—although it should not be—intervening technology can actively prevent a vehicle from accelerating beyond the legal limit. That is not a theoretical idea; it is already happening in Virginia in the United States. A programme was introduced this year that allows the courts to require certain speeding offenders to use vehicles that are fitted with speed-limiting technology, which is an advance. Transport for London has also demonstrated high levels of speed-limit compliance, using intervening technology in its bus fleet.

Can this Minister get Transport Ministers to reassure us that the Secretary of State’s officials have examined the progress being made in other jurisdictions using IISA as part of offender management? Might he take a slightly different angle and just ask why we would not do that rather than why we would do it. It seems that it has been demonstrated to be effective and practical, and it has the potential to save lives, so I think that we should trial it at least.

I return to the families whose experiences lie at the heart of today’s debate. They deserve justice. They also deserve to know that we are doing everything reasonably possible to prevent other families from suffering as they have suffered.

[Tahir Ali]

I agree with the hon. Lady that we welcome the target of 65% by 2035, but by 2035 we could have had at least two general elections if not more. This is not fair on the families who have lost loved ones. We need to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries more quickly—more urgently—than 2035. If that target is set, perhaps it needs to be brought forward, into this Parliament, so that we can make a significant start on achieving that objective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I would say to the Minister that, even with all the optimism in the world that there might be another two lots of elections, that does not provide a reason not to act. This timetable really does need to be contracted. When such simple wins could be achieved, we should do things as quickly as we possibly can: 2035 does seem an awfully long way away.

There is an ambitious target—I understand that—but we need the measures, the right timetable and determination. I ask the Minister to answer those questions that are relevant to him, and I ask him kindly to pass those that he will not be able to answer on to the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State in particular.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that Parliament could pass a law to introduce an automatic driving ban, but I think he was referring to a ban after conviction for dangerous driving. Automating such a ban before conviction would be more complex.

There is a general principle. As a Government, like Governments before us, we try to allow judicial discretion. Every case is different. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point; I am not trying to hide from the argument. The judges have the power. We need to get and understand the evidence on how often they use it and why they are not using it. Legislating to force judges’ hands can lead to further absurdities and injustices in very different ways. We allow judicial discretion because every case is different, but as I say, I accept the point.

[Tessa Munt]

I regard this as a really serious matter. I hope the Minister will address potential suspension immediately after an accident, so that people are not driving around for a year, two years, three years, or four years while they await a court case. In the same way as a perpetrator of sexual abuse, domestic abuse or whatever has to say where they live, so that the local police know where they live, one could ensure that the local police are aware that person X is not permitted to drive for a period of five years, 10 years or even forever. The local police will be the people who pick that up.

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Lady is right to raise the duration of the period before trial or conviction; too often, it is far too long, but solving this problem is not as straightforward as potentially suspending someone immediately after the event. As she is no doubt aware, often very complex investigations have to take place. Of course, suspension can be a bail condition, and I am trying to assess why in too many cases it is not used.

I remember a case raised with me by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), in which someone had been bailed for causing death by dangerous driving—I think that is correct. They immediately got in a car and were convicted of drunk driving just a few hours later. That is absurd. More generally, we have to start taking driving offences, whether they are low level or high level, more seriously. The road safety strategy seeks to do that, and we want to get on with it. I am pushing the Roads Minister to work with me to make sure that seriousness of these offences is reflected in sentencing guidelines as much as possible.

As well as sentencing, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West spoke about graduated driving licensing. I hope I have dealt with that issue; it is on the agenda. It is very much a DFT issue, so I do not want to comment too much on it.

On sentencing guidelines, I am in a constitutional dialogue with the Sentencing Council on lots of issues and that is one of them. I will be careful what else I say about it, but I am very much alive to it.

I am also very alive to the ULS scheme. The Law Commission is working on the ULS scheme, as my hon. Friend no doubt knows from his time working with the Law Officers. We need to assess whether death by careless driving should be added to the list of offences that can be considered under the scheme. I can commit today to doing that.

[Jake Richards]

I am happy to write to the Law Commission to ask whether to consider that specific issue. I am going to consider it anyway. I want the Law Commission to do it—evidence would be helpful—but we will work with the Attorney General’s office to do that none the less. There will no doubt be some effects to that, but let us see what we can do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West talked last about prevention. Again, at its heart the road safety strategy tries to reach its 65% reduction target by through prevention. There is a serious amount of investment. This is the first road safety strategy in a decade, and it is backed with, I think, £18 million in prevention work, which is not an insignificant sum. We would like to do more, but I know that my hon. Friend the Roads Minister will work hard.

In terms of other questions from Members about the road safety strategy more generally, it is not my strategy, so it is difficult for me to comment on timings and when that will be. I will ask my hon. Friend the Roads Minister to write to Members who have raised specific questions and make sure that my office gets in touch with him on that.

[Tessa Munt]

I know that everybody has the right not to comment, but it is simply outrageous when that has no weight. It would be different if someone had had some sort of medical episode that meant that they were not able to remember what had happened, but where that is clearly not the case, and someone is advised by their solicitor not to comment throughout proceedings, it is really very tough on the families. Will the Minister consider that point and see if there is a way to put some weighting behind that? Will he also speak to the Victims Minister at the Ministry of Justice, because it happens repeatedly?

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Lady raises a wider point about defendant conduct during a criminal investigation and how that should be taken into account in the sentencing. There are mechanisms by which that is done already. The judge considers a large number of factors, including whether the defendant has taken responsibility for their actions. If they have undertaken a “no comment” interview consistently, and simply not engaged with the criminal investigation process, that should be taken into account in sentencing.

[Tessa Munt]

I do not want to whang on, but I know that the Minister’s Department has looked just recently at what happens to people who refuse to come to court to hear their sentence, so clearly there is the ability to intervene in the process. I entreat the Minister to do something more.

[Jake Richards]

I think the Lord Chancellor announced last week further action on getting defendants to face up to their actions as much as is possible. Frankly, that is what we are talking about. We cannot force a defendant to give answers if they do not want to, but that can certainly be reflected in the sentencing regime, and it is reflected in the sentencing regime. If there are any other suggestions about how we can go further, I would be more than happy to hear from the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, as a member of the Justice Committee. She always gives me the signal that she will write to me, and I look forward to responding to her in due course.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Tessa Munt Excerpts

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

[Nick Timothy]

I am tempted to say that the hon. Lady should have a conversation with the Attorney General, who used to prosecute British soldiers and was still appointed to one of the highest offices in the land.

Irish republicans, Islamist extremists, useful idiots deployed by Putin’s Russia—they will all see the opportunity in this law, as we know they have seen the opportunity in examples of lawfare fought elsewhere, including Northern Ireland. These are known unknowns, but there are also unknown unknowns. [Interruption.] There is an additional risk that the security services will be tied up in court cases, thanks to differing interpretations of the legislation, or that the scope of the Bill and the information that must be disclosed will be widened over time. I can hear sighs and complaints from Government Members, but they do not seem to understand that new laws—especially when they are to be taken in balance with existing laws—are tested in the courts, and their interpretation widens. That is a fact, and it is one of the concerns expressed by the intelligence agencies, the police and others. If Government Members think they are above listening to those people, I am very sorry about that.

There are questions, too, about the role of investigations and inquiries set up by the devolved Governments, including in Northern Ireland. I was alarmed by the Minister’s earlier answer to a question about the need to reveal information about intelligence agency sources in that context. These are the reasons that my party proposes an amendment, informed in part by the Government’s own proposed amendment back in January, to give control of secret material back to service leaders, who are rightly then accountable to elected Ministers, in not only the intelligence services but the armed forces, the National Crime Agency and counter-terrorism policing.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

One of the hon. Gentleman’s former colleagues went to Downing Street just a month ago with a letter that says he believes he was misled by his own Department when he was the Secretary of State for Defence, so why on earth is the hon. Gentleman arguing this particular case? If Defence Secretaries are misled by their Departments, I do not really understand his faith in leaders of intelligence services and others not being able to hide the truth purely to defend their own Departments.

[Nick Timothy]

I think the hon. Lady, whether it is by design or by mistake, misunderstands my point. Of course, there should be accountability and transparency, and there are many ways in which we can do that, but there are ways of doing it that do not jeopardise the operations of the most sensitive organisations in the country by revealing their sources, their methods and their technological capabilities.

There are also serious flaws in the proposals to create a new duty to prevent death or serious injury and the new crime of misleading the public. Senior police officers are concerned that the new duty will have a chilling effect on operations. Police officers may be deterred from taking vital split-second decisions to give chase or to restrain, for fear of being sued or charged, placing their careers and livelihoods in jeopardy. Those employed in other parts of the public sector, such as the welfare system or the health service, might also be affected. These measures also risk snarling up the police and others in time-consuming and costly litigation.

There is also a serious risk that the new crime of misleading the public could stifle legitimate political disagreement and debate, criminalise honest mistakes, or punish people for making statements that we only later learn are wrong when the facts change. That is why a lock on such prosecutions, with a requirement for the Attorney General to approve them, is absolutely essential, and we invite hon. Members to support our amendment to ensure that this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, may I say what a relief it is to see a compromise reached between the Hillsborough families and the Government on the application of the duty of candour to the security services? While I understand the Government’s desire to strike a balance in this area, a carve-out would erode the effectiveness of the Bill. As we have seen on multiple occasions, including in the investigation of the Manchester Arena bombing, the Stakeknife case in Northern Ireland and the Attorney General v. the BBC—the “Beth” case, as it is known—it is vital for public confidence and accountability that there is transparency in cases where there have been failings in the conduct of the security services. In the Attorney General v. the BBC, I note that MI5 was found to have provided false evidence to the courts, and it paid damages to “Beth”, alongside giving an apology, but that was only after repeated interventions by the BBC and the courts. That demonstrates the importance of the duty of candour applying to the intelligence services.

[Tessa Munt]

Can the hon. Member spot the irony in the fact that today, while the Government are considering this legislation, which is designed to prevent public bodies from obstructing the truth, the Ministry of Defence is in the High Court in London, trying very hard to silence the Chinook families by saying that they are out of time in seeking an independent inquiry on why their loved ones were allowed to board a Chinook helicopter that the Ministry of Defence knew was unairworthy, positively dangerous and not to be relied on in any way? There is surely an irony in that. It is absurd. I know that the hon. Member was talking about the intelligence services, but the Bill surely has to cover the Ministry of Defence and how it behaves, too, because it is utterly inappropriate.

[Andy Slaughter]

I know that case means a huge amount to the hon. Lady as a constituency MP, and I thank her for all the work she does on the Justice Committee. I think we have only begun to scratch the surface. This Bill will be a transforming piece of legislation.

I will make one final comment. Several Members have welcomed, as I do, the huge increase in the provision of legal aid that will come, but for that to be effective, we have to look at legal aid rates and the availability of legal aid practitioners. Simply having the funding available does not ensure that there will be representation and equality of arms, which I think we all wish for.

[Tessa Munt]

My sense is that we could have some equity in the amount of legal aid given to families and individuals fighting big organisations, such as public bodies. If the rates of the specialists and professionals who are supporting the public bodies came down, and matched the rising rate of legal aid for the support of those individuals and families, we might be in a situation where could be some equity. That would make investigation much simpler for the courts and inquests dealing with such cases, because they would have people who understood the process better.

[Andy Slaughter]

I think I have taken enough time, but I thank the Member for that intervention. This afternoon, the Justice Committee signed off a new major report on legal aid, which will be published on Friday. Those who are interested can read more there. In conclusion, this is a landmark piece of legislation, which we should all welcome, and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Concerns were raised about candour in relation to health. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) for his contribution. We do not disagree with the intent of his new clause 11 and amendment 150. Our concern is that the detail is not necessary on the face of the Bill and that it would be disproportionate to do so. The Bill requires public authorities to set out how a professional duty of candour must be met with clear professional sanctions. We will work with organisations on how best to fulfil those obligations and ensure full implementation.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I am afraid I will not. To respond to as many points raised as I can, I do not have time to take interventions.

The Bill is about the duty of candour to an inquiry or investigation, and the onward disclosure of information will be determined by each inquiry, inquest or investigation as to what is appropriate and relevant. I would be eager to meet the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash to discuss what more can be done through the implementation of the Bill and separately to achieve the culture change that we want to see.

Other Members raised the Nottingham maternity review, which I have followed closely, as I have the work of the Government’s maternity adviser, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), because of my experience in Nottingham when I was giving birth to my eldest son in 2014. Each contraction meant that his heartbeat stopped and what began as a normal labour suddenly turned to panic and ended with an emergency caesarean to save his life. I was one of the lucky ones, because I got to take him home. I will always hold in my mind the 500 mothers and babies who suffered potentially avoidable harm or death around that time in Nottingham. The message that we are sending with this legislation is that cover-up culture is over and that women and families must be listened to. Public bodies, including NHS trusts, must be open and candid when things go wrong. We are clear that we will apply the duty of candour to the Leeds and Sussex maternity reviews.

On the national oversight mechanism and the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), we have taken steps to improve transparency in how we respond to inquiry recommendations. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is currently considering how the implementation of recommendations resulting from future public inquiries should be scrutinised. We welcome that and will continue to work with the Committee on next steps. The Office of the Chief Coroner is also continuing work to improve access to the prevention of future death reports while the Government seek to strengthen arrangements for responding to the concerns raised through them, including better and more strategic use of technology.

On the Independent Public Advocate, I welcome the contribution and work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). I thank my right hon. Friend and the others who have raised this, and I take on my right hon. Friend’s points. Legislation requires that there be a review on the role within 18 months of the IPA being stood up, and that is in train. The Ethics and Integrity Commission will also be developing guidance on the code of ethics and will have a role in monitoring and overseeing it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) raises in his amendments some serious concerns about disinformation and the risk of eroding trust in our institutions and weakening our country. While Back-Bench MPs are not included in the new offence, as they are responsible for scrutinising the decisions of the Government of the day, Parliament does already have processes for determining whether Members have misled the House and has its own arrangements for ensuring truthfulness and accuracy from Members. However, I would be keen to work with my hon. Friend to look at how we strengthen matters in relation to his concerns.

On whistleblowing and amendments 3 and 6, the Bill provides safeguards for sensitive information and whistleblowers, and the code of ethics must contain information on whistleblowing policies. We are actively exploring opportunities for reform, as set out in the anti-corruption strategy 2025, and a consultation on whistleblowing will be launched this summer.

We have heard many contributions about placing water companies under obligations of a code of ethical conduct, and although the code of conduct provisions do not apply to private water companies in England and Wales, the Bill contains a power to extend this. The Government will consult on that in due course.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) raised concerns about the additional work needed and the additional measures coming into force being put in place as soon as possible. We are conscious that families have waited long enough for this law. Putting commencement dates on the face of the Bill could cause practical difficulties, but we are doing all we can to ensure that it is in place as soon as possible.

Members have also spoken about amendments relating to former public officials. To be clear, those individuals will remain subject to the duty of candour, provided that an investigation or inquiry relates to their former role, and the offence of misleading the public will also still apply, even if they have retired.

On subcontractors, the main contractors will be accountable for their subcontractors’ performance. The Government are open to exploring further measures to strengthen accountability and candour through supply chains.

Concerns about journalism have also been raised. The Government have already narrowed the journalism exemptions and made it clear that the offence covers misleading recognised news publishers. Sufficient safeguards are provided through the requirement for consent from the Director of Public Prosecutions before any prosecution can proceed.

I wish to thank a number of people before I conclude. I pay tribute to all those who have shaped the Bill, ensured that it delivers as intended, held us to account and made sure that we got to this point. I thank the families and campaigners for their courage and for sharing their experiences, often at great personal cost. They have challenged successive Governments and worked constructively with us, and without them we would not be here today.

I also thank the Members of this House who have stood alongside the families and campaigners over many years, championing their cause and helping to strengthen this Bill. In particular, I thank the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Attorney General. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam for all his assistance and expertise on the Government amendments on the security services. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), whose contribution was so powerful. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (David Baines) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), whose passion for this matter long predates his return to this House.

Nothing can bring back those who were lost, and we can never undo the suffering that so many families have endured. But what we can and must do is ensure that the truth is never again buried by institutions whose first instinct is to protect themselves. That is what the Bill is designed to combat, and I am incredibly grateful to all involved that we have been able to bring the Bill back before the House.

As Victims Minister, I am determined to see the Bill deliver the lasting cultural change that families have fought for over so many years. I hope that in years to come it will be remembered not only for the duties and offences it creates, but because it helped to change the relationship between the state and those that it exists to serve.

We have listened, and we have acted. We will continue to listen as the Bill makes its way through the House. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 8 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

Abolition of common law offence: Northern Ireland

“(1) The offence of misconduct in public office under the common law of Northern Ireland is abolished.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to—

(a) any act which was done before the coming into force of this section, or

(b) any act which began before the coming into force of this section and continues after its coming into force.

(3) Subsection (1) does not affect—

(a) the liability of any person for an offence other than the offence of misconduct in public office under the common law of Northern Ireland, or

(b) the civil liability of any person for the tort of misfeasance in public office.”—(Catherine Atkinson.)

This new clause provides for the abolition of the offence of misconduct in public office under the common law of Northern Ireland.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 2

Duty of candour and assistance

Amendments made: 151, page 2, line 25, leave out “likely to be” and insert “that is”.

This amendment clarifies that information must be provided under the duty of candour and assistance if it is relevant to the inquiry or investigation concerned.

Amendment 152, page 2, line 30, leave out “likely to be”.—(Catherine Atkinson.)

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 151.

Amendment proposed: 3, page 2, line 39, at end insert—

“(f) ensure all relevant public officials can safely disclose information to an inquiry, investigation or inquest.”—(Jess Brown-Fuller.)

This amendment requires public authorities or officials who are assisting an inquiry, investigation or inquest to demonstrate that they have taken steps to ensure relevant persons can safely disclose information relevant to an investigation.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend is right that community initiatives are at the heart of how we confront knife crime and crime more generally. I credit the boxing gym in her constituency. I know that Dinnington boxing club does great work in my constituency, too, and I have been there on numerous occasions. Just last month we published the youth justice White Paper, and at its heart is ensuring that we involve children’s voices so that our interventions, as policymakers in this place and in government, are tailored to the challenges and issues that children are facing. She is absolutely right, and we are getting on with the job of doing it.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

13. What steps he is taking to make all court transcripts free for victims.

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

The Government are committed to greater transparency and access to justice in our courts. Transcripts are an important part of that, and I know that there has been a lot of cross-party campaigning on this issue. Victims of sexual offences and bereaved families of homicide can already request a free copy of sentencing remarks. From spring 2027, eligibility will be extended so that all victims can request them.

[Tessa Munt]

I am particularly keen that this matter is progressed at speed, because the fees for victims who want to get their transcripts are eye-watering. My constituent is a victim of domestic violence and her barrister needs transcripts of her hearing in the family court now to appeal against procedural irregularities and errors in the published judgment, but the transcripts will cost her thousands of pounds. Will the Minister address this gross inequality and waive court transcript fees as soon as she can for all victims, including for the family courts—with the requisite redactions to protect anonymity of the parties—to ensure robust justice, transparency and fairness for all?

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend has been consistent in raising that important issue, and we are committed to ensuring sufficient education provision for prisoners. I would gently stress, however, that we can only provide that education if we are able to get prisoners into the classroom. We need to stabilise and get order back into the prison system after the chaos that we inherited, but this Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that prisoners have education and work opportunities on leaving prison.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I represent a very rural area, and people have to drive many miles to get to a court. With fuel prices currently so high, why are ordinary citizens reimbursed for jury service at the rate of only 31.4p per mile for travel by car, yet the standard HMRC approved rate is 45p per mile? It does not cover the cost of travel, and penalises those who live in rural areas.

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Member is a member of the Justice Committee, and she raises an important and practical point. The Government recognise the hugely important civic duty role that jurors play day in, day out across the country, and we will always keep remuneration and travel costs under review. We have heard the question.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will tell you what makes me angry, Mr Speaker: it is the fact that the last Government presided over an increase in the number of crimes of violence against women and girls of 37% in just five years. That was not a Government who tackled violence against women and girls. That was not a Government who took it seriously. As for communication and notification, it is this Government who are introducing the victim contact scheme in our Victims and Courts Bill to ensure that victims are notified, which the last Government refused to do. It is this Government who are writing to victims to ensure that they are given information. I will take no lectures about how the last Government tackled these crimes; it is this Government who are getting on with the job.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

3. What discussions he has had with his counterparts in countries to which foreign national prisoners will be returned on ensuring that prisoners serve the full term of a sentence handed down by the UK courts.

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

This Government are focused on removing foreign national offenders so that they are no longer a burden on the taxpayer. Strengthening prisoner transfer arrangements is a priority, and we are actively engaging with a number of countries to do that, so that more offenders can be removed and serve their sentences in their home countries.

[Tessa Munt]

I am not sure that that really answers my question. Let me set out the details of what I am asking about.

One of my constituents was murdered by a foreign national, which robbed her mother of her daughter and her mother’s grandsons of their much-loved mother. Her mother is very distressed to discover that the murderer is being repatriated a short while into his sentence, which was over 14 years, at which juncture she will lose what remaining input the family has into his parole arrangements, which was promised to her when the man was sentenced. What can the Minister say to reassure my constituents that, as victims, they will not see him released early in the country where he was born? What voice will victims have in situations like that in future?

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Member raises an important point. This Government are committed to ensuring that, where possible, foreign national offenders serve their sentence outside this country. To do so, we have to engage in bilateral negotiations with countries to achieve proper and rigorous prisoner transfer arrangements. That is why I have had discussions with colleagues in Ghana, Nigeria, Albania and Poland in the last few weeks; indeed, last month we signed a new arrangement with Italy. We are working at pace to ensure that those agreements are as rigorous as possible. On the individual case that she mentions, I am very happy to meet her, and indeed her constituents, to discuss the details.

Court Reporting Data

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that this is a matter of concern, although it is clearly not a concern that is shared by the Front Benchers in his party. Our understanding is that some 700 individual cases, at least, were shared with the AI company. We have sought to understand what more may have been shared and who else may have been put at risk, but the mere fact that the agreement was breached in that way is incredibly serious. That is why all this needs to be put on a much more licence-secure and regulatorily secure footing.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

My observation is that surely it is for the Information Commissioner’s Office to decide whether the data breach is serious or not, and if the ICO does not have the information it cannot make that judgment. My question is this: when the contract was procured, was there a clause in the specification that prevented the release of personal and sensitive data? If so, is the company in breach of its contract, in which case the aggression should perhaps come from the Government as opposed to their waiting for the company to threaten them with legal action?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Lady is right, in that the original agreement that was reached between Courtsdesk and the previous Government made it clear that there should not be further sharing of the data with additional parties. It is one thing to share the data with accredited journalists who are subject to their own codes and who are expected to adhere to reporting restrictions, but Courtsdesk breached that agreement by sharing the information with an AI company. That is simply irresponsible, and when it came to light, I took the decision—I did not take it lightly, but I certainly remain confident in that decision—to cease giving Courtsdesk access unless and until it, or any other party, showed that it could use that information responsibly. Open justice is very important, but such information should not be shared with an AI company in breach of the agreement that exists with Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend is a fine champion for her constituency, and has raised this case with both me and other Ministers on numerous occasions. Baroness Levitt, who is responsible for Parole Board hearings, will meet Ralph Bulger and his legal advisers this afternoon to discuss this very issue, and I am sure she will be able to offer some more substantive answers to my hon. Friend’s constituent’s question. I put on record my thanks to Ralph for his campaign, and am very happy to meet him or anyone else on this issue in due course.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

There is an 82-year-old man who has been in prison for 38 years. He was convicted of murder, and the trial judge in 1989 said that this was “not a violent process” and gave him a life sentence with a 15-year tariff, which expired over 22 years ago. He is repeatedly described as an exemplary prisoner. Because he has maintained his innocence over the past 38 years, he has not attended the prerequisite courses that would require an acceptance of guilt, so the Parole Board assesses his risk to the public if he is released as “unmanageable”, which seems ludicrous. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the Parole Board’s repeated response to this situation and whether there should be some sort of system for those who maintain their innocence for a great number of years?

[Jake Richards]

As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, I am unable to talk about the specifics of that case, but if she writes to me, I will make sure I get back to her with any details I am able to share.

Prison Capacity: Annual Statement

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement. He has said that the number of extra prison places created since July 2024 is 2,900, but can he say how many cells have been temporarily or permanently closed due to fire safety concerns and other maintenance issues? Can he also state what his Department anticipates will be the result of the Leveson review? Will the Justice Committee—on which I sit—receive his updated modelling, which includes these reforms, and will he come and speak to the Committee about these things?

[Jake Richards]

I am very happy to come and speak to the Justice Committee as and when invited. The hon. Member raises an important point about fire safety; I do not have the exact figures to hand, but there are definitely issues with fire safety across the prison estate—of course, safety is the primary focus, but that has an effect on capacity and maintenance more generally. I am happy to write to her with those figures. As for the effect of part 1 of Leveson’s report and the forthcoming part 2, the modelling and assessments will be set out as and when the legislation comes before the House, and I am sure they will be sent to the Justice Committee as well.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome that question from my hon. Friend, who, as the MP for Merseyside and Ellesmere Port, has been a vocal champion for the families at every stage of this process. It has been a privilege to work with him and other colleagues on this directly. He is right. This Bill might colloquially be called the Hillsborough law, and many people outside this place who are not aware of the issues might think it is about a tragic football match that happened 36 years ago, but it is about so much more than that. This Bill will provide the biggest expansion of legal aid for a generation to anyone who has been affected by a death in which the state had a role, and it will be non-means-tested legal aid for the first time ever.

The Bill will also ensure that all public servants and authorities are bound by a legal and criminalised duty of candour. It will bring in new criminal offences of misleading the public and of misconduct in public office. This will be a truly landmark Bill that will change the culture of British life for the better, forever. That is what is at stake here. That is why this Bill is so important, and we are committed to bringing it forward as soon as possible, but we need to get it right for everyone. That is what the Government are committed to doing.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. I know that she is a woman on a mission, and let us hope that we get to the end of this before terribly long. We know that the Government are struggling with accepting the families’ wish that we should pick up amendment 23 and its consequential amendments. I am mystified about the business of a balance being struck between intelligence services personnel being transparent and the protection of national security, because my understanding was that we already had that balance; national security is safeguarded by the fact that in any inquiry, the release of sensitive information happens in closed session, via a High Court judge.

Schedule 1 includes a carve-out for the intelligence and security services, who are proven not to have told the truth. That is a dreadful shame. I am told that we have to trust what is said, but that seems entirely inappropriate, as the heads of the security services have unfortunately shown themselves not to be trustworthy. People talk about our allies being able to trust us, but if the heads of the security services are lying, I do not know how our allies are meant to trust us. Will the Minister please tell us what the problem is with amendment 23? It has been put together by Pete Wetherby, Elkan and others, and the families support it. Why can we not just agree to it?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for her service on the Public Bill Committee. Her thoughtful contributions there have made the Bill better. I will cite the great Pete Wetherby KC now at this Dispatch Box, and I hope I do him justice: there is no balance to be struck on national security, because national security should always come first. That is Pete Wetherby’s position, that is the families’ position, and that is the Government’s position. The Government always have to protect national security, and we will always do that, but the families have a right to the truth. I want to restate that there is no carve-out in this Bill for the intelligence services. They will be bound by a legal duty of candour, and it will apply to individual agents. All we need to do is find the mechanism by which that information is passed on to an investigation or inquiry. We are working at pace with the intelligence services and the families to find a way forward. This is very complex. It sounds simple, but I assure the hon. Lady that it is not. I am a woman on a mission, and I am determined to do this as soon as possible, but we need to get it right, and that is what this Government will do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Mediation is hugely successful, and I reassure my hon. Friend that we will continue to talk to the sector about this issue. I will update him in the coming weeks.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I served on the Bill Committee for the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—better known as the Hillsborough law—and was very grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and me to discuss 11 amendments, two new clauses and general points that came up in the line-by-line scrutiny. The Minister was very clear that she is a woman on a mission and that she wants the Bill to be on the statute book as soon as possible. May I seek an assurance that she will meet my colleague and me before the Bill is considered on Report?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The hon. Lady is right: I am a woman on a mission. I will meet her early in the new year, ahead of Report, to discuss her amendments and the Bill’s progress through the House.