Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I commend my hon. Friend on his work, looking at how we can combat predatory marriages and those who prey on the vulnerable. The Law Commission’s recommendation that the rule that marriage revokes a will be abolished is well evidenced. We will take a holistic look at the issue, but we will certainly consider carefully.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) back after his operation. It is good to see him again, and I wish him a speedy recovery.

I thank the Minister for her answer. What steps is her Department taking to ensure that the insights and the drafting expertise in the “Modernising Wills Law” report are taken on board by the Northern Ireland Executive, to ensure families in Northern Ireland can benefit from similar modernised protections against predatory marriage through updated legislation?

[Sarah Sackman]

As we consider the Law Commission’s recommendations, we will of course consider how they might lead to law changes and law reform across the United Kingdom. However, where matters are devolved, we respect that as well.

Prisoner Early Release

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

Let me put on the record my gratitude for the bravery of those victims that the hon. and learned Gentleman identified for what they undertook to ensure that there was justice. What undermines confidence in the criminal justice system is a system that completely unravels. Without the appropriate prison places and without getting down the Crown Court backlog, which my hon. and learned Friend the Courts Minister is busy doing, we undermine faith in the system completely. We cannot let that happen. That will mean difficult decisions, but we will not shy away from them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers to the questions. My constituents are horrified by the early release of rapists and child groomers. If a criminal is sentenced to 15 years for destroying a child’s life or committing a horrific rape, they should serve every single day—indeed, every single hour—of that sentence behind bars. Opening the prison gates early does not fix the justice system; it actively endangers women and children across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Will the Minister urgently review these catastrophic legal changes and guarantee that no convicted rapist or child groomer will be given a get-out-of-jail card by this Minister’s Department and this Government?

[Jake Richards]

We will not shy away from the difficult decisions needed to save the criminal justice system to ensure that we have prison places to put criminals behind bars. By the end of this Parliament, more criminals will be behind bars than ever before. This is not a matter of being soft on crime; it is a matter of ensuring that we can put criminals away in future.

Home Office and Ministry of Justice

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee, Mr Speaker, and yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting the debate, and the Minister for being here—I hope she will find it useful.

We often speak in this Chamber about defence spending, and rightly so. Defence keeps our nation safe, but justice is what keeps the public safe, ensuring that victims receive justice and that offenders are removed from our streets. According to the National Audit Office, the Ministry of Justice’s total expenditure for 2024-25 was £15.5 billion, with an income of £1.9 billion, resulting in a net cost to the taxpayer of £13.6 billion. To put that into perspective, it is the equivalent of just two weeks of welfare spending.

When I refer to one justice system, I mean the police, the courts, prison officers and the Probation Service working together as a single interdependent system. When one part underperforms, it creates a domino effect across the entire system. Since the beginning of this parliamentary term, the Public Accounts Committee has published a number of critical reports on the criminal justice system, covering Crown courts, police productivity, probation efficiency, violence against women and girls, MOJ reports and prison estate capacity. These are not separate issues; they are interconnected pressures within one system, and they must be analysed, funded and reformed accordingly, not in isolation. I suggest that the PAC is a very useful Committee for considering these types of cross-cutting issues.

It is clear that the criminal justice system has considerable weaknesses. A central issue is the lack of usable integrated data. The police, courts and prisons operate on separate systems that do not effectively communicate with one another. This fragmentation makes it difficult for the system to function efficiently as a whole and increases the risk of serious administrative errors. That is reflected in the number of erroneous prisoner releases. In the last 12 months to March 2025, 262 prisoners were mistakenly released—an increase of 128% compared with the previous years.

Let me turn first to the estimates themselves—after all, that is what the debate is about. It is striking that even identifying a clear, unified figure for the system is difficult because of the fragmented way in which the funding is structured and assessed. The House of Commons Library has confirmed that the Ministry of Justice 2026-27 main estimate for resource departmental expenditure limit—running expenditure—is £12.69 billion, and capital departmental expenditure limit is confirmed at £2.36 billion. That represents a 4.4% and 2.6% increase compared with last year respectively. By contrast, the Home Office main estimate for RDEL for 2026-27 was £19.5% billion, representing a 10.8% increase on last year.

The Prime Minister has said that governing this country is about choices, so the question is: are these the right choices? Although the Government have committed to increasing the Ministry of Justice budget by more than 2% per year, the Department faces mounting pressures, as the Minister will know. Half its running costs are spent on staff, and it has experienced rising demand, inflationary pressures, and higher than expected costs. It has responded by transferring £695 million from underspent capital budgets into day-to-day expenditure, largely due to delays in the prison expansion programme. At the same time, it has committed to delivering at least 5% in savings, reducing administrative costs by 15% by 2029-30, and introducing AI to drive efficiencies. Those are all good things, but they do put pressure on the current budget. These ambitious targets must not come at the expense of frontline services, and they must come with the data to back up the ambition.

Let me turn to some of the issues in more detail. Police officers are on the frontline, and too often they face criticism without proper recognition for the vital work they do to keep our communities up and down the country safe. Although their funding has increased, with a £535.8 million uplift in 2026-27, forces are dealing with the growing complexity of crime, sustained financial pressure and persistent productivity challenges. In Gloucestershire, the Government are not delivering sufficient funding through the police grant to invest in any new digital IT, which would enable the police to be more efficient, and such pressures inevitably feed into the courts, which are already under severe strain.

The rising population in this country is bound to mean that more people will be going through our court system. Around 4 million new cases are now entering our courts and tribunals each year in England and Wales, and the average time to resolve a case has risen dramatically, from 481 days to 685. The backlog in the criminal courts remains exceptionally high, with an unprecedented 88,200 Crown court cases open as of December 2025—it might have come down a little since then. The median time from an offence being committed to the case being completed is 355 days, with some rape and other serious sexual offences—the so-called RASSO cases—taking three years or more, and some being postponed up to six times. Many victims simply give up before their cases come to court in order to try to put the trauma they have suffered behind them.

Is the system any better in the magistrates courts, where there is a backlog in excess of 310,000 cases? Through the Courts and Tribunals Bill, the Government propose to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers to up to 36 months. However, we have a huge problem with the recruitment of magistrates, meaning that the system is likely to be overwhelmed if more cases are diverted to them. It cannot be right that we have empty courtrooms and burgeoning waiting lists. The Government’s changes to legal aid have also led to inefficiency, with more people now representing themselves; I do not blame them at all, but it means that each case takes longer because people often need the court procedure explained to them.

Crown court sitting days have not kept pace with demand, despite offers from the Lady Chief Justice to increase capacity, which have not been taken up fully by the Government. Around 11% of courts are inactive on any given day. Delays of that scale are unacceptable for victims, defendants and public confidence in the system. These delays have the direct impact on the prison population, with more people being held on remand due to the backlog, as well as increased time for preliminary hearings and the granting of bail.

We are also seeing an increase in the number of people received into prison, driven by tougher sentencing and a rising remand population. Currently, between 16,600 and 18,000 people are held on remand in UK prisons, meaning they have been denied bail or are awaiting trial. Many of those people have been on remand for over six months, which is the target for maximum remand. That accounts for nearly 20% of the prison population. The increased flow of untried defendants and extended waiting times due to court backlogs is leading to that unacceptable increase in the prison population. If dealt with more efficiently, it would help with overcrowding in our prisons, but without sufficient capacity or staffing, the trend is unsustainable. The prison population reached a record high of 98% capacity, or 88,000, in August 2024—the highest ever. Overcrowding is driving violence, placing staff at risk, and undermining rehabilitation efforts.

As we know, the Government have committed to creating 20,000 new prison places, yet progress has been slow, with repeated delays and underspending. In a recent accounting officer assessment, there were significant delays in awarding new contracts at both HMP Forest Bank and HMP Rye Hill. The AOA does not set out the cause for those delays or for the additional costs incurred.

At the same time, retention of prison officers remains a serious challenge, affecting safety and stability across the prison estate. To give just one example of what is going on in the prison system, at our hearing on HMP Dartmoor the issue of radon was raised. The Ministry of Justice has signed a lease that cannot be broken until 2033, yet no sooner had that lease been signed, the prison was deemed unsafe because of radon. It is costing £4 million a year for an empty prison. HMP Dartmoor is an example of a Department making a decision under pressure and at speed, leading to a complete waste of public money.

In March 2025, approximately 242,000 individuals were under probation supervision. Vacancy rates in the probation service have risen from 14% in 2021 to 21% in 2025. Staff are routinely working beyond capacity, estimated at 118%, although the figure is likely to be higher, particularly in London. That workload will be increased further with the Government’s early release scheme. We heard deeply concerning evidence describing a culture of emotional strain and trauma among probation staff. This is not just a workforce issue, but a public safety issue, because when probation fails, reoffending rises, placing additional burdens on the police, courts and prisons.

The cost to this country of reoffending alone stands at a staggering £20.9 million, but the human cost to victims and communities is immeasurable. In part that is because our prisons are so overcrowded that prisoners are not being given meaningful activity, for example work training, so that when they are released they have developed skills that could help them to find work and reduce the reoffending rate.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when prisoners are engaged in retraining or rehabilitation, they can then return to the community they were brought up in, but that is often where their problems started? The report might be able to recommend things that can be done in prison, but when people get back to their community, that takes over and they start where they left off. Does he agree that such issues must be sorted out in the location, in the community, and in the place people come from, to ensure that they do not go back to their bad habits?

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The hon. Member makes an interesting point, and the Government must consider in the round how they can give people useful training, work and leisure in prison, so that they come out with some skills. Where people go, how they are housed and what employment offers they get are issues that the Government need to consider seriously—it is a really big problem.

The number of recalls to prison is now at an all-time high, demonstrating a system under severe stress. Planned reforms, including early-release schemes, risk placing even greater pressure on an already overstretched probation service. Well-run probation is not optional; it is essential. It is what enables people to reintegrate into society and prevents the cycle of crime from continuing.

In conclusion, the criminal justice system must be treated as one system. The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice need to work much more closely together to resolve some of the serious problems that I have outlined. Investment, reform and accountability must reflect that reality. Fixing one part in isolation will not solve the wider problem. As I have said, democracy is founded on an effective and properly functioning criminal justice system to keep its citizens safe. Serious criminals need to be removed from society by imprisonment, but the system must help itself by taking strenuous steps to reduce reoffending, which I repeat costs this country £20.9 billion a year. It is a well-thumbed maxim that, whatever the cause, justice delayed is justice denied.

Prison Safety

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jake Richards]

Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am a massive champion of Andy’s Man Club up and down the country, but especially in south Yorkshire. It does really important work with ex-offenders and indeed more generally. We have continued as a Government to fund the Samaritans’ Listener scheme, which trains prisoners to support other prisoners who are in crisis. It is a brilliant initiative and I urge any parliamentarian to engage with it in their area.

I want to touch on what we are doing to try to protect our prison staff, because numerous Members raised that issue. We have invested £15 million in protective equipment, including up to 10,000 units of protective body armour. As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest set out in her opening speech, that is a transformative approach to protecting our prison officers compared with what the previous Government were able to do. Half those units are allocated to the long-term high-security estate, including at HMP Lowdham Grange. So, as we roll out body armour across the LTHSE, HMP Lowdham Grange will benefit.

That is why all staff in the adult male estate now have access to body-worn video cameras, batons, rigid-bar handcuffs and synthetic pepper spray as part of their standard equipment. It is why we have introduced PAVA spray in the Youth Custody Service. Very difficult decisions and considerations about the use of such equipment have to be made, but they are the right decisions to ensure that we protect prison officers, both in the youth estate and in the adult estate.

That is why we have trained and equipped up to 500 additional officers in the use of Tasers and why we are already installing up to 50 ligature-resistant cells, in order to prevent self-harm, and have confirmed funding for the installation of more. Because safety and security are innately intertwined, the Deputy Prime Minister has announced an extra £35 million this year to improve security at 17 of our most at-risk prisons, on top of the £40 million that we have already invested in this area. In addition, up to 13,000 new heavy-duty steel window grilles will be in place by next spring. The picture is getting better—we have stabilised the prison system and we are investing in security measures—but there is a lot more work to be done.

The rate of assaults on staff has decreased under this Government by 4.5%. I accept that that is a modest figure, but it is moving in the right direction. The rate of self-harm among prisoners has also decreased, by 8%, but I absolutely accept that it is far too high. As the Minister who shares responsibility for this area with my noble Friend in the other place, I get regular updates about serious incidents in prisons. They are far too frequent and far too serious, and much more has to be done.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for outlining the issues. One of the critical problems in prisons is the mental health crisis. People are coming in with complex needs, including complex emotional needs; sometimes they have addiction issues; and they may have experienced abuse in the past as well. Those things need to be addressed. We can provide all the body armour and other equipment that needs to be provided, as we should, but he and the Government need to address the mental health crisis as well.

[Jake Richards]

Absolutely. The NHS works in our prisons up and down the country every day, and it does incredible work. We have bolstered the approach to people identified as being at risk of suicide and self-harm. There is a comprehensive package of support for what is called “individualised case management process”. It sounds technical, but it is very important, because it means that for the first time we are treating prisoners, and looking at their needs and their history, in a much more tailored and individualised way. As I mentioned earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), we continue to fund the Samaritans’ Listener scheme, which is really important, but much more needs to be done, so I accept the hon. Member’s point.

I want to touch on security and drugs. Hon. Members will be aware that one of the biggest drivers of serious violence and instability in prisons is the influx of contraband, particularly drugs. In prisons up and down the country, essentially of all categories, the No. 1 issue keeping the governor up at night is security and drugs.

We inherited a prison system that was awash with a shocking amount of drugs. They compromise not only the safety of hard-working staff and the prisoners themselves, but make it far harder for staff to do the important work that turns prisoners’ lives around. That is why we are tackling drugs on every front. We have invested in drug-detecting dogs; we have machines to detect drugs impregnated into paper and fabric; and we now have X-ray body scanners across the whole adult male estate.

Certainly, drones continue to be a significant challenge. We are investing in state-of-the-art technology; indeed, my colleague Lord Timpson was in Ukraine recently to look at the technology that it is using as part of the war effort, and what we can learn in terms of investing to secure our high-security estate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest raised valid specific concerns about safety at HMP Lowdham Grange. She will know that the prison was brought under public management following serious issues with safety and security under the previous private provider. During my visit in April, I was encouraged by the progress being made. I have seen a much stronger approach to managing individuals at risk of self-harm or suicide, and we have supported HMP Lowdham Grange with additional investment in safety resources, better staff training and closer working with healthcare partners.

Through the long-term high-security estate taskforce, further action is being taken to tackle weapons and drugs in our prisons, and those measures are beginning to have an impact. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons conducted an independent review of progress in May and published its findings yesterday, as I said. It confirmed that the prison has made progress and has a clear path to improve safety and security.

I reassure my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood Forest and for Gedling, and others, that I remain fully committed, together with my colleague Lord Timpson, to improving safety at HMP Lowdham Grange and making sure that it receives sustained attention and action from the Government. The governor has also assured me personally that she and her team will continue to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest and other local MPs, and that my hon. Friend will shortly be invited back into the prison to see the progress and ask any questions that she has.

I again place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate, for her continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents, and for the opportunity to respond. The challenges facing our prison system are significant and we do not underestimate or shy away from them. The Government are investing, modernising and taking action to make our prisons safer for staff and prisoners alike and, above all, better able to deliver rehabilitation, which cuts crime, reduces reoffending and protects the British public. That is the progress we are making, and the work we will continue to drive forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jo Stevens]

The strategic defence review reinforces the importance of close collaboration between all Governments on defence, particularly where key levers such as skills and planning are devolved. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that I have written to the Cabinet Minister for Finance in the new minority Plaid Welsh Government on Wales’s role in the defence of the UK. I regret to inform the House that the Minister did not respond to my request for confirmation that the Welsh Government will support the UK’s full membership of NATO, but I can assure the House that the UK Labour Government are wholeheartedly committed to our defence and security.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The increase in spending for Wales should encourage us all, as it does across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the extra money for defence spending underlines the importance of being a member of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all have the advantages of the Union. Does she also agree that our friends, the Plaid Cymru MPs in front of me—and they are my friends—should recognise that being part of the United Kingdom brings benefits?

[Jo Stevens]

I could not agree more. As I said earlier, the increase in defence spending creates not only a defence dividend but a Union dividend, too. That is why every nation and every Government in the United Kingdom should stand together and play their part in our national security.

Child Contact Arrangements

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered children in child contact arrangements.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and to lead a debate on putting children first in child contact arrangements, an issue that is of great importance to me, to my constituents and to other Members of this House.

When parents have separated and children are involved, they often turn to the family court. Family courts are at the centre of a child’s right to safe family arrangements. However, so many are not functioning in the child’s best interests. Allegations of domestic abuse are estimated to occur in up to 62% of private law cases under the Children Act 1989 in family courts in England and Wales, and counterclaims of parental alienation are increasingly being made in response to allegations of abuse.

So-called parental alienation syndrome is when one parent undermines or destroys the child’s relationship to the other parent through a pattern of manipulative behaviour. It is a pseudoscientific concept with no basis in law or medicine. However, accusations of parental alienation have been made on multiple occasions by unregulated experts appointed to assess the family and provide recommendations to the court.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate on a very complex issue. There were elements of the Courts and Tribunals Bill that were impossible to support, but it also sought to address the issue of a child’s consent in contact arrangements and, importantly, the need for the child’s opinion to be a consideration that is given weight. Does she agree that the child’s desires must be considered, not simply overlooked, and that the Government must make these changes outside the Bill if it falls?

[Alison Hume]

I completely agree that the child’s voice must be heard and is too often overlooked.

Some of these so-called experts lack proper qualifications and are not regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council. Changes proposed in 2025 to address the issue of unregulated psychologists have been criticised as too weak and do not affect experts who are registered with the HCPC. HCPC regulation is also limited, with complaints taking up to seven years, during which experts can continue to practise. The proposed changes will not do anything to address parental alienation experts who are successfully registered and regulated. I am concerned that if any reviews or reform focus only on unregulated experts, all that will do is drive more business into the hands and pockets of experts.

If parents do file a complaint, that in itself can be used as evidence against the parent alleged to be practising parental alienation, as proof that they are entrenched and unable to accept professional opinions that do not align with theirs.

Youth Justice

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise the work that Turnaround is doing in Birmingham to make a difference and create effective diversionary activity for these young people, so that they do not continue in a life of crime. He is absolutely right about the devastating cuts to youth centres that we saw across the country. It will take some time to rebuild them, but I know that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, has a strategy. It has set about that strategy, alongside the youth guarantee that also exists for the young people of Birmingham.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement—it would be churlish of anyone in this Chamber not to welcome the White Paper’s proposals, which have been put forward in a positive fashion. Can I perhaps help the Secretary of State in a gentle way? The Youth Justice Agency in Newtownards in my constituency is doing a phenomenal job of liaising with young offenders to help them understand the impact of crime on victims. The reoffending rates of those who have been attending the Youth Justice Agency in Newtownards are significantly reduced, so could the Secretary of State share what he intends to do with so much understanding and development, which is something that the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can benefit from? Newtownards is doing it; let us do it here as well.

[Mr Lammy]

On the issue of restorative justice, we are working with Jacob Dunne in particular to make a difference—he was involved in that punch situation. I hope to get to Northern Ireland particularly over the coming months, because I know that very good work in this area goes on there.

Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 29th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of the Community Infrastructure Levy on private homeowners.

Thank you, Mr Turner, for presiding over this debate on an issue that is having profound life-changing consequences for ordinary families across the country. I also thank the Minister for his interest in the issue. Politics can be very tribal, but I have already met him twice to discuss it, both times with Councillor Jane Austin from my constituency—once in July last year and once in December last year, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford). I know he wants to solve the issue.

The community infrastructure levy, or CIL, was introduced for the best of reasons: to ensure that commercial developers contribute towards the cost of the infrastructure needed as a result of their developments. It was never intended as an extra tax on people doing home extensions, and certainly never as a retrospective tax that people are landed with unexpectedly after the event. Most councils understand that, but one or two have ruthlessly exploited loopholes that allow them to punish homeowners, including Lib Dem-run Waverley in my constituency, which charges over £550 per square metre, one of the highest in the country.

But it is not just there. This morning, I heard about a case in Sevenoaks, where the district council pursued a stay-at-home mother relentlessly, in a case championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott). For many families the consequences have been devastating. Some have been forced to sell or remortgage their homes, and the financial burden, alongside the stress and uncertainty, has been immense. Some have fought their councils for years, hitting brick walls at every turn. I am aware of 15 families in Waverley alone who faced unexpected charges, ranging from £26,000 to £235,000.

There are now more than 100 known other cases across the country. Here are some examples: Steve Dally and his wife Caroline have been forced to remortgage their home to pay a £70,000 CIL charge on a home extension in Godalming. As they explained to me and local councillor Jane Austin, they are not developers; they simply extended their home. They hit a brick wall when they challenged Waverley and had to risk additional penalties and compounded interest in the process.

Another Godalming couple were hit with a £70,000 bill because they were living in rented accommodation while their home was being renovated. In Milford in my constituency, a homeowner was forced to pay a £120,000 CIL bill when forced to submit a retrospective planning application because two walls of his existing home fell down. For failing to give notice of the walls falling down he was charged £2,500 in penalties because he had failed to submit a commencement notice, something he had never heard of.

Enton resident Helen Grant reluctantly settled a £56,000 CIL charge on the family home, only to be sent a bill for a further £3,000 in interest charges when the council reviewed her case, which had already been closed. It is not just Waverley; I pay tribute to the CIL Injustice Group, which operates across the whole country. Many of its members are watching from the Gallery today, including people from Wokingham, Tonbridge and Devon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Member for bringing this issue forward. I remind him of the cautionary tale from Northern Ireland. We operate without a CIL-style levy. Instead, we rely on bespoke section 76 agreements, which avoid the tax-like rigidity of CIL. That has left us in Northern Ireland with a multibillion-pound funding gap for infrastructure—specifically, for our waste water systems—which is now halting thousands of developments across 25 cities and towns in our 11 council areas. Does he agree that we must ensure that this measure is not just a sales tax on development value but a ringfenced guarantee for the specific pipes and roads that make those homes habitable? The cautionary tale from Northern Ireland is an example of where this has gone wrong.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt]

I thank the hon. Member; he always makes very thoughtful contributions. He makes two very important points. The first is that we do need developers to contribute towards infrastructure costs. The risk of the appalling injustice that I am drawing attention to today is that we lose social consent for very important contributions that enable much-needed infrastructure to be built. Secondly, he is absolutely right to say that not having CIL at all would be very bad. In my area in particular, there is constant concern about the lack of infrastructure to keep pace with new housing developments.

I want to return to the CIL Injustice Group, because their accounts are extremely concerning. Some are nervous about dealing with their council because of the bad way they are treated. Others spend thousands of pounds on legal fees, often unsuccessfully. Part of the issue is that CIL is an extraordinarily complex process. Forms must be filled in in the correct order and are subject to strict timetables. Even professionals struggle. It is very unforgiving if someone gets it wrong. They have to pay within 90 days, under threat of seizure of assets and imprisonment, and if they do not comply, they get slammed with thousands of pounds in late charges and interest on top of that. There is effectively no right of appeal, and most importantly, there is no ability to correct errors. Ordinary homeowners inevitably do make errors, but there is no latitude in the system to allow them to correct those errors.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Carry-over)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.

This motion is purely procedural, to allow the Bill to be carried over to the next Session and for the remaining stages to take place following the King’s Speech. The Government remain absolutely committed to delivering this Bill. As the House will be aware, it was introduced into this place on 16 September 2025, with its Commons Committee stage taking place in November and December last year. I want to thank again all the Bill Committee members from across the House for their work on this fundamentally important Bill. This motion will allow the Commons remaining stages to take place at the start of the next Session before the Bill moves on to the other place.

The Bill is a product of the decades of campaigning from families affected by state-related deaths and tragedies. We have heard from a range of campaigns, from families and from those affected, on the desperate need for change to ensure that when things go wrong, public authorities will act with candour and transparency, and in the public interest.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this forward. There is much in the Bill to be recognised and welcomed, but does she agree that this is not just about the Hillsborough tragedy, which was awful, but about my constituents in Strangford, who, when they seek the truth from public bodies, are met with a wall of silence or, worse, a culture of circling the wagons? Does she further agree that the legal duty of candour is not just about paperwork and that it must be about restoring the fundamental bond of trust between the Government and those who govern?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. He is fundamentally correct that the Bill is about much more than just the duty of candour. This is about rebuilding the trust between the public and the state. It is about ensuring that there is accountability, transparency, openness and parity, and that the state remembers who it is that we are meant to serve. This is not just about the Hillsborough law, although this legislation will hopefully bear that name; it is about all those campaigns that have suffered as a result of state cover-ups and tragedies. It is really important that we recognise all those campaigning under the umbrella of the Hillsborough Law Now campaign.

At inquiries, inquests and investigations, public authorities and officials will be put under powerful obligations to help investigations to find the truth. They will all be legally required to provide information and evidence with candour, proactively and without favour to any of their own positions. Public servants will also be placed under a new professional duty of candour, which will be set out in each organisation’s mandatory code of ethics. This will ensure that individuals act with integrity and honesty at all times in their day-to-day work. The families made it clear to us that when it becomes apparent that someone has sought to evade accountability or prevent the truth from being uncovered—whether through dishonesty and deliberately withholding information, or through the perpetuation of false narratives—there must be clear accountability and appropriate sanctions.

The Bill will provide this through a new criminal offence of breaching the duty of candour and a new criminal offence of misleading the public. It will also provide non-means-tested legal aid for bereaved families at inquests where a public authority is an interested person, and place a duty on all public authorities to ensure that their use of lawyers is proportionate. It represents an important milestone in rebalancing the system, ensuring that the bereaved, grieving families are supported to participate in the inquest process where the state is represented, introducing the parity of arms that we have heard so much about. It also helps to ensure proper standards of conduct by public authorities at an inquest or inquiry.

Drawing on experiences shared with us by the families, the Bill will introduce measures placing a duty on all public authorities, and those that represent them, to act in line with statutory guidance and to support families’ participation in the process. Where there are concerns regarding the conduct of public authorities or their legal teams, the Bill grants the power to the coroner or the inquiry chair to raise those concerns with the appropriate senior individual level of public authority.

The Bill also abolishes the current common law offences of misconduct in public office following the Law Commission recommendations in its 2020 report. In its place will be two new statutory offences: the breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury, and seriously improper acts. By putting these offences on the statute book, we are making it clear what types of behaviour are covered by this offence and who exactly it applies to.

This is a landmark Bill. It will transform the way that public authorities and officials interact with official investigations and will act as a catalyst for the radical change in culture across the public sector that we so desperately need. It will deliver the largest expansion of civil legal aid in a generation and a move away from that culture of cover up and distrust in the state.

The Bill was due to return to the Commons for remaining stages in January. However, as many in this House will be aware, concerns were raised on how the duty of candour and assistance would apply to the intelligence and security services. The Government brought forward several amendments to strengthen the Bill in this area. However, it became clear from our conversations with families and stakeholders that they had concerns about how the accompanying safeguards we proposed might work in practice. We have always been clear that this is a Bill for and by the families, and where they have concerns, we will always listen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

It would be remiss of this House not to put on record our thanks to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for all their hard work to make this happen, and for their endurance, perseverance, determination, courage and commitment. We are all greatly moved by the efforts they have made over the years, and because of them, the Minister and this Government have brought forward a legislative change, with this carry-over motion tonight. This great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is better off for their collective efforts.

[Ian Byrne]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those kind words.

The Minister and I both stood for election in 2024 on a clear manifesto commitment to deliver the Hillsborough law in full. The Prime Minister promised on multiple occasions that passing the Hillsborough law would be among the first acts of this Government, yet two anniversaries of Hillsborough and an entire parliamentary Session have passed without it being delivered. That is simply not good enough. I hear that certain Ministers oppose this legislation due to pressure from the security services and the Ministry of Defence, and that is precisely why leadership is required. The buck stops with the Prime Minister. We must push through disagreement and ensure that this Bill is delivered in its entirety.

Every delay causes real and profound distress to bereaved families, survivors and campaigners—people who have spent decades fighting for truth, justice and accountability against a state that failed them and sought to cover up those failures. Crucially, as we have always said, this law is vital for the many people who do not yet know that they will one day need it, so it is essential that this carry-over motion is not merely a procedural device to keep this Bill alive, but a clear signal of the Government’s intention to implement the Hillsborough law in full at the earliest opportunity, as has been promised. This motion must now be matched with urgency and action.

The truth is that if the political will existed, this could be resolved in a single day by the Government adopting my amendments, which would restore the Bill to the full Hillsborough law that was promised. I commend every single person who has fought for this legislation. It is my job in this place to ensure that the Government deliver a Hillsborough law worthy of the name. It is rightly described as a legacy for many, but more than that, if we get this Bill right, it will ensure that state cover-ups are far harder to carry out in future. That would be a legacy of real and lasting value to this country, for future generations, and for those whom we will never forget.

A duty of candour that applies to all and ensures that nobody is above the law is essential to groups still fighting for justice. That includes families affected by the nuclear test scandal and those impacted by the Chinook disaster, whose pursuit of truth has been obstructed for far too long. In both cases, it is understood that thousands of documents remain restricted, despite the events being decades ago. There must be no built-in escape route, whereby any state body can decide for itself what evidence it provides to an inquiry or an investigation, as exists in the Government’s current provisions; that would be carte blanche for future cover-ups. Campaigners on these causes have stood shoulder to shoulder in the fight for a Hillsborough law, and I and many other hon. Members from across the House will not abandon them now, nor should this Government. Any proposed amendments that weaken that commitment must be withdrawn.

My amendment 23, which is supported by more than 70 Members of this House, would remove the carve-out for the intelligence and security services that exempts them from the duty of candour. Since the Bill was shelved in January, no Minister has been able to explain why my amendments cannot be accepted, or why those services should not be subject to the same duty. The amendment, which is fully supported by all campaigns connected to the Hillsborough law, simply applies existing national security safeguards that are already used elsewhere to the duty of candour. This ensures that those bodies are not placed above the law, while maintaining full protection for national security. The Government’s stated concerns about national security therefore do not withstand scrutiny. My amendments would have zero adverse impact on national security, so as the parliamentary lead for the Hillsborough law, I ask again: why can those amendments not be adopted, and why can the full Hillsborough law not be passed when the House returns in the next Session?

In what has been a difficult 18 months for this Government, marked at times by damaging and totally avoidable political choices, we must not allow this to become another self-inflicted wound, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The Hillsborough law is far too important. Delivered in full, it would be transformational, placing social justice at the very heart of Government and showing the public clearly and convincingly whose side we are on. I know that that is what we both want, Minister. A firm commitment without delay to delivering on this Government’s promise is the very least that those who have fought for justice for so long deserve. It must happen as soon as this House returns in May.

Victims and Courts Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. This Bill goes beyond party politics; this is a Bill, as I have said, for victims. It has been a sincere pleasure to work across political divides to get this right for victims, who are rightly at the heart of the Bill. I have always stated that I will work with anyone from any party if they have any measure that could make the criminal justice system a better place for victims, so that we start to put victims at its heart. The Bill does exactly that: it takes a step towards putting victims back at the heart of the criminal justice system, where they fundamentally belong.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

No one doubts the Minister’s commitment, honesty and integrity. But can I gently remind her that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) outlined the issue of the glorification of terrorism in relation to this Bill? He raised the issue of children wearing IRA slogans. Just last Saturday, I met a lady whose husband was murdered by the IRA on 9 April 1990. She reminded me that, in Northern Ireland, when she went to visit the memorial for her dead husband who was murdered 36 years ago, she faced slogans against her, like “Up the ’RA”, when she was trying to think of her husband. We need things in this legislation to protect against that. We cannot let people take advantage of others’ sorrow and not recognise that they are grieving, by bringing up the past and trying to glorify terrorism, which murders people and destroys lives.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He will know that my family have also faced tragedy and bereavement at the hands of the IRA. My cousin was killed on Horse Guards Parade serving this country by a serving member of the IRA, and that issue has plagued my family for decades and still hurts to this very day. I have spoken about that tragedy and bereavement in the Chamber before. He will know that the victims code is still open for consultation until the end of this month, and I urge anyone who has such feelings of pain to feed into that to enable us to make the code better for victims. The Policing Minister will have heard his views and the views of other victims on how we can support victims of terrorism. I have met families bereaved by terrorism to work with them on what more we can do, and they will be feeding into the victims code.

That brings me on to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) about the victims code. I have spoken before about ensuring that those bereaved by homicide abroad have rights under the code; although it is not necessarily the right place, we have listened to them and ensured that there is a specific measure for them in the draft consultation. We are working with the FCDO and the Home Office to ensure that that can be strengthened so that support is available for them. The review will be published in 2027. It will be robust and comprehensive, and will put families at the centre, so that we can improve the support available to them where it is needed.

On court transcripts, I thank Liberal Democrat and Labour Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for all the work they have done on ensuring that victims have access to court transcripts that relate to their cases. As the Minister set out in the other place last week, the Government are acutely aware of the need to consider what further action we can take to support victims to access information on court proceedings relating to their case, particularly in cases that do not result in a conviction. The Government are also fully committed to strengthening transparency. That is why I am pleased to restate that the Government are commencing a study on AI transcription in the criminal courts. That will look at how AI transcription could lead to producing court transcripts more quickly and at a lower cost for victims. The findings of that study have the potential to reduce fees and improve access to court transcripts. This will mean that further reform will be underpinned by confidence in accuracy, as well as appropriate safeguards, and that it will deliver for victims.

I will now move on to the remaining topics for discussion. The Government have agreed with the sentiment of the amendments to the unduly lenient sentence scheme but, as I have said previously, we needed to return to those to ensure that they were workable and effective and would bring the change necessary, following direct engagement with victims and bereaved families. That is what we have done, and I am pleased to confirm that we have now tabled two amendments to the ULS scheme that will deliver what victims have been calling for.