Asked by: Melanie Onn (Labour - Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions he has had with the Sentencing Council on introducing tougher sentences for repeat (a) motorbike and (b) car theft offenders.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The maximum sentences available for criminal offences are set by Parliament. Theft of a motor vehicle may be prosecuted under different provisions of the Theft Act 1968 (“the Act”). For example, theft of a motor vehicle under section 1 of the Act is a triable either way offence, with a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment.
The independent judiciary will determine the appropriate sentence in individual cases within the maximums set by Parliament, and in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.
The Sentencing Council has issued guidelines on theft of a motor vehicle, which provide the Court with guidance on factors that should be considered, which may affect the sentence given. They set out different levels of sentence based on the harm caused and how culpable the offender is. The guidelines also include non-exhaustive lists of aggravating and mitigating factors which can result in an upward or downward adjustment in the sentence. Previous convictions can be taken into account by the Court as aggravating factor, increasing the seriousness of an offence; the guidelines are clear that sentencers must consider their nature and relevance, as well as the time elapsed since the previous conviction(s). The guidelines can be found online at the Council’s website: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/.
Whilst the Government has no current plans to ask the Council to consider reviewing the guidelines on motor theft, it is open to individuals to approach the Council to ask that it does so.
Asked by: Melanie Onn (Labour - Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of probation staff pay, in the context of the (a) workload and (b) public safety responsibilities of probation staff.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
We are committed to supporting probation staff and value their hard work, commitment and dedication. We recognise that fair and competitive pay is essential not only for staff wellbeing and retention, but also for maintaining the resilience of the Probation Service in its critical public safety role.
In recent years, we have made significant investments in pay through a multi-year pay deal (2022–2025), which provided certainty in pay increases and addressed longstanding structural issues. In June 2025, we secured exceptional agreement to pay the Competency Based Framework (CBF) Progression element of the award to eligible staff, recognising their contribution during a period of exceptional operational pressure.
We are currently working with senior leaders, ministers and recognised Trade Unions to agree the best possible outcome for the 2025/26 pay award, in line with Civil Service Pay Remit Guidance and our priorities for attraction and retention.
We also recognise the link between pay, workload and public safety. To address workload pressures, we have implemented initiatives such as “Probation Reset” and “Impact” and launched the “Our Future Probation Service” programme, which aims to reduce workload by 25% by April 2027. Recruitment remains a priority, with significant numbers of probation officer trainees onboarded in 2024/25 and a commitment to onboard a further 1,300 by March 2026.
These efforts are supported by a new wellbeing support model across HMPPS, including regional plans such as the Midlands wellbeing strategy, to ensure staff are supported in delivering their vital public safety responsibilities.
Asked by: Melanie Onn (Labour - Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent steps her Department has taken to help ensure that individuals carrying out jury duty do not experience financial hardship.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Jury service is a vital civic duty, and the Government is committed to ensuring jurors feel supported throughout their service. Jurors can claim subsistence and travel expenses, as well as a loss of earnings allowance from the court. The jury summoning process provides for applications for deferral or excusal from service based upon financial hardship.
Asked by: Melanie Onn (Labour - Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment he has made of the susceptibility of the lasting power of attorney process to fraud.
Answered by Edward Argar
OPG are aware of 2 cases of the fraudulent creation of LPAs in the last 6 months – out of over 890,000 registered in 2018/19. We are not aware of any concerns of fraud being raised with the OPG in relation to the process of creating LPAs in the previous 5 years. Both cases have been thoroughly investigated and a lessons learned exercise conducted – part of which was an assessment of the process of registering an LPA. We have extremely good working relationships with the financial and legal sectors – and work closely with them to ensure that our processes together do all they can to eliminate fraud.
As of 31st March 2019, OPG had 3,906,416 powers of attorney and deputyship orders on its register and in the financial year 2018/19 we undertook 2,883 investigations covering a whole range of issues. This represented 0.07% of the total powers on the register. And only in 25% of those cases was there any need for court action in relation to the deputy or attorney albeit not all court applications were for removal of an attorney or deputy, some applications relate to requests for information or clarifying a person’s capacity. Where, as a result of an investigation, OPG has evidence that fraud may have taken place we will make a referral to the relevant police authority.
Asked by: Melanie Onn (Labour - Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will seek to quash convictions for child prostitution of any victim of child abuse.
Answered by Phillip Lee
There is not an offence of child prostitution. Section 1 of the Street Offences Act was amended by section 68(7) of the Serious Crime Act 2015 so that the offence of loitering or soliciting applies only to persons aged 18 or over. In so doing, it recognises children as victims in such circumstances.
Before the statutory amendment was introduced the legislation applied equally to adults and children, although policing guidance and legal guidance to prosecutors advised that it was not in the public interest to prosecute anyone under the age of 18. The legislation in 2015 confirmed the position in law.
The Secretary of State does not have the power to quash a conviction and there are currently no plans to extend the statutory pardon scheme for historical criminal convictions, including those for child prostitution.
Asked by: Melanie Onn (Labour - Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether her Department is in communication with iNHouse Communications Ltd in relation to any ongoing commercial tender process.
Answered by Phillip Lee
Between April 2011 and March 2016 the Ministry of Justice has not awarded any contracts to iNHouse Communications Ltd.
The information requested cannot be disclosed as it would prejudice the commercial interests of Ministry of Justice as well as the third party organisations currently taking part in tender exercises across the department.
Asked by: Melanie Onn (Labour - Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether her Department has awarded any commercial contracts to iNHouse Communications Ltd in the last five years.
Answered by Phillip Lee
Between April 2011 and March 2016 the Ministry of Justice has not awarded any contracts to iNHouse Communications Ltd.
The information requested cannot be disclosed as it would prejudice the commercial interests of Ministry of Justice as well as the third party organisations currently taking part in tender exercises across the department.