Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I believe many children were treated with puberty blockers, among other drugs, before the Gender Identity Development Service programme was closed down. Does the hon. Member know what has happened to all the data from those children who were previously treated, or why it should be necessary to treat any more children with these drugs until enough time has elapsed to enable that data, and the treatment’s consequences, to be verified?
May I remind Defence Ministers yet again that they should be comparing increases in defence expenditure not with the post-cold war years, but with what we used to spend on defence during the cold war years, which was between 4.5% and 5% of GDP? Can the Secretary of State look the House straight in the eye, as it were, and say that, given the very close relationship between China and the Mauritians, which includes a 25-year treaty of co-operation, it would be a sounder situation if Mauritius had sovereignty over Diego Garcia and we were only lessees to them?
The people who carry out such attacks are mainly seeking to terrorise the target community, but the people who plan such attacks often have another end in mind, which is to set two communities at each other’s throats. Without revealing anything that one should not about the techniques of the Security Service, can we spare a moment to pay tribute to those members of the Muslim community who bravely go undercover to infiltrate plots of this sort, who are briefly seen in court, often under an assumed name, when convictions are assured, and without whose work many more such plots would succeed than is the case?
We can debate what the armed forces think or do not think, but I always think it best to leave them out of these debates. However, there is an issue here at home, and defence of the realm is defence at home first and foremost. We know that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has threatened us on these shores endlessly for a number of years, and many colleagues across the House have called for it to be proscribed. As yet, in the middle of this war, we have not proscribed the IRGC, but it would make the life of our security services so much easier if we did so. Will the Secretary of State please get up and say that it is his determination that the IRGC should be proscribed and kicked out, or arrested for all the awful deeds that it does by chasing, hounding, and killing people on British shores?
With the Government’s plans to regionalise police forces and the potential scrapping of Staffordshire constabulary, many involved in the care of vulnerable young people fear that there will be less focus on protecting children as fewer senior police officers will be working with local authorities to ensure that they are cared for. What actions will the Minister take to ensure that that does not happen?
1. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the number of asylum seekers on levels of recorded crime.
The Home Secretary knows perfectly well how much it worries and infuriates people that people can enter this country illegally and commit crimes, and that there is no proper vetting procedure before they are unloosed on society. To reassure our own citizens, will she ensure that everybody who enters this country illegally is detained and fully vetted, and, as most of their asylum claims are bogus anyway, perhaps deal with their asylum claims while they are in detention and then deport them to protect our own people?
On an occasion like this, it is right that we should not apportion blame, but try to unite as the House of Commons and say that it is fine to be a critical friend of Israel, but it is not fine to go around fully masked up and call for the destruction of Israel and therefore the Jewish people. I think we should be even more positive and say that we love the Jewish people and think they are the most successful immigrant community we have ever had in this country. They are fantastic, they have our complete, utter and full support, and we will protect them at every opportunity.
Does the Secretary of State have contacts at US Central Command that can give reassurance that there is a plan? The President’s social media feed gives the opposite impression. Is Britain at war?
The Lords amendments might not be perfect, but do they not set out the principled objection to the Government taxing some basic rate taxpayers more for choosing to save for their pension and at the same time using that money to increase welfare spending?
Rather than raising taxes, could the Minister perhaps not send £36 billion to the Government of Mauritius to rent back an airbase that we already own?
The two-child benefit cap. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Further to the answer the Secretary of State has just given, he has confirmed to the House this afternoon that mines have been laid in the strait of Hormuz. Therefore, one of the biggest problems—whether there was a cessation of violence overnight—will be getting vessels insured. How quickly can the Secretary of State give the other side of that coin to the markets and the insurance companies that, even if de-escalation happened overnight, they can have faith that the strait of Hormuz will be demined? That will take a military operation led by Europe. The Americans will not get involved—we know that. How quickly can he say what the counterbalance is to the fact that he has confirmed this afternoon that the strait of Hormuz has indeed been mined?
16. How many asylum seekers were accommodated in asylum accommodation on (a) 30 December 2025 and (b) 30 June 2024.
Since Labour came to power, the number of people in asylum accommodation—be it in hotels or dispersal accommodation—is up by more than 6,000. With figures like that, no South Northamptonshire resident believes that the Government are tackling this issue, especially given the continued operation of the migrant hotel in my constituency. With better weather coming, boat crossings will increase, so what will the Government do differently to stop the boats, as they promised they would?
Much old ground has been gone over by the Secretary of State, but our service personnel live in the here and now. The defence investment plan is absolutely vital for their future, whether we are talking about operations in the field, or upgrading housing for their families—a subject that we are discussing in the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. Given that he did not answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), may I ask if “working flat out” means that the DIP will be published in days, weeks or months?
I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 756036 relating to access to court and tribunal transcripts. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and a privilege to introduce this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I put on record my thanks to Daniel ShenSmith for creating the petition, and to Dr Natalie Byrom, Adam Wren and Fiona Goddard, whose insights on this issue have proved invaluable to me in preparation for the debate. The petition seeks to make it a legal obligation for all courts and tribunals to make transcripts available free of change. Currently, in both civil and criminal cases an application for transcripts may be made for all or part of a hearing, with such an application generally requiring the payment of a fee. However, there are circumstances where parties can appeal for the cost of the fee for transcripts to be paid at public expense. For that to happen, the court must be satisfied that the requesting party qualifies for free remission, or is otherwise in such poor financial circumstance that the cost of obtaining a transcript would be an excessive burden, and satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice for such a transcript to be obtained. That brings me to the key question that the petition seeks to address: does Parliament think that access to records of court proceedings should be treated as a public good? The petition has over 200,000 signatures from members of the public, so this is clearly an issue that has struck a chord with many of our constituents. The problem is that the current system is not fit for purpose. It undermines transparency and disproportionately affects the aspiration of a court to protect victims, bereaved families, and those who are wrongly accused or seeking to challenge injustice. Let us concentrate on how unfit for purpose the system is. His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service commissions transcription services through a procurement framework: a pre-approved panel of private suppliers established via a competitive tender. The current framework was awarded in June 2023 and runs until June 2027. Under that model, HMCTS pays suppliers for the transcripts that it requires for court purposes. The transcription company is responsible for any anonymisation that may be required and for applying any reporting restrictions that are in place. When a member of the public requests a transcript, however, they must make a request to the court in which the hearing took place and pay the transcription company directly at commercial rates. If the hearing has already been transcribed for HMCTS or another member of the public, a lower copy rate will apply. If a member of the public wants a transcript of court or tribunal proceedings, they must complete a lengthy form and pay the court the cost of the transcript. The cost will be determined by the length of the transcript, with transcription companies charging per block of 72 words. More complex cases will have longer transcripts and therefore costs will be much higher. Only a handful of transcription companies are part of the tender process and each is attached to a particular court on a geographical basis, creating a monopoly with no competition. That only drives up prices. There are accounts of people being quoted up to £50,000 for the release of these important documents. The Government’s website promises that those who apply for a free transcript will hear back within 20 days of submitting a request. If they are not eligible, they will be invited to apply for all or part of the transcript and to pay for it at a commercial rate. The judge assigned to the court case must give approval for the transcripts to be released in the first place. That approval alone can add weeks, if not months, to the process. That is a significant problem for the groups who need to receive the most protection—victims or, in cases in which the victim has died, their families. That is because the court judge might rule otherwise and rule against a request that has been put in place, quite rightly, by victims or survivors, who want to understand the true, underlying reasons behind a jury making a decision or that were part of the court process writ large.
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member. For a witness or a victim or survivor of a crime who has gone through a lengthy court process to then have to pay what is sometimes a huge cost for the transcript of those proceedings to be made available to them is deeply unfair. A victim or a witness participates in only part of the court proceeding and is therefore unable to fully understand the complexities of the case or the contributions to it that other witnesses may have made. They are able to gain a full understanding of it only once the full transcript has been made available to them. That brings me to a key point, which is that the unduly lenient licensing scheme means that victims and victims’ families have just 28 days to appeal the sentences of their abusers. Having court transcripts is a vital part of the appeal process, so the current system creates another huge barrier to justice for victims and their families, because it might only be once they have looked at the transcript that they decide to appeal to the Attorney General against an unduly lenient sentence. Another significant reason for delays is the technology being used to record and produce these transcripts, because some courtrooms are still using tape recorders to produce transcripts. The need to create a justice system fit for the digital age is not a new one. A 2022 report by the Justice Committee described the situation on court transcripts as unsatisfactory and recommended that HMCTS should explore whether greater use of technology, such as AI-powered transcription, could be piloted to establish whether it can be used to reduce the cost of producing court transcripts.
My response to the hon. Gentleman’s points is that AI is a technology that exists. It is rolling out and therefore, as recommended by the Justice Committee, it should absolutely be looked at by the Government, in order to make sure that court transcripts can be made available, ultimately—ideally—free of charge to the public. I will go on to build the case that that is actually in the interests of the public good, from a transparency point of view. I now turn to victims. I have been lucky enough to meet many victims as part of the outreach process to prepare for this debate. Ultimately, they are at the heart of this issue. It is a sad situation, but in this country we have a judicial system that fundamentally disempowers victims instead of empowering them. Fiona Goddard is a woman I have worked with for several years. She is a champion of victims, who has tirelessly campaigned for the victims of grooming gangs. Fiona spent years being abused by a grooming gang in Bradford. When her case was finally brought to court, there were over 100 witness statements that she was not aware of. Therefore, she went on to say that her contribution was literally only part of her own story, despite the fact that she was the victim and witness in her own case. That is a common theme in experiences throughout the judicial system; witnesses will see and contribute to only part of their case and will not be aware of the full extent of all the contributions. Another case reported by the BBC involved a woman from Berkshire who, as a victim, endured a seven-week trial. The accused was cleared of rape and the victim was told that securing transcripts for the whole trial would cost more than £30,000. She said: “The entirety of my sexual violence trial hinged around me. There are five weeks of material that debate me”. She said the material dealt with the details of her case, including her words and experience, and her levels of anxiety increased. She said: “I waited five years for justice and I leave the system mystified as to what happened”. Another case was previously brought to this House by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney)—I commend her for all her work in this space and for bringing many cases to the House. She spoke of her constituent who was drugged and raped in her sleep by her former partner, and was then forced to wait two years for her case to be heard in court. Her attacker was finally convicted, but due to trauma and emotional distress she can understandably barely remember what was said in the courtroom. She was left so traumatised by the trial that her therapist advised her to apply for transcripts of the proceedings to aid her healing. The application for a free copy was denied and she was quoted a fee of £7,500 by a tender company for them.
I absolutely agree. The amendments in the other place and the aspirations of the Government do not go anywhere near achieving the transparency associated with the full transcripts being made available, free of charge, to any victim, survivor or witness, should they wish to get clarity around the court cases that they have been involved in.
I agree with my right hon. Friend. If a victim has gone through a challenging court case, having immediate access to some of the witness statements and contributions that were made during the court proceedings —which can happen without difficulty, following a judge’s ruling—will potentially enable that victim to properly seek closure regarding the sentence that has been given. Probably more importantly, if they wish to challenge that sentence—and currently, under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, they must do so within a 28-day period—being able to look at the transcripts, albeit only what can be released in the short term, could provide them with the opportunity to do so.
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member’s points. They were some of the key ones picked up in the Justice Committee’s report, because they not only advocated for better use of technology but argued that there was a skill challenge among the various courts. That feeds back into the issue’s narrative: when the tender was given back in June 2023, it was geographically based, and once that tender was locked in, it was very difficult to alter it, despite challenge, our raising it in the House of Commons, and a petition coming down the line with more than 200,000 signatures. So I would like put the hon. Member’s points directly to the Minister.
That is very kind, Mr Pritchard, but I will give way.
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. Those points were not put to me in the outreach I have done, but based on the narrative and level of concern about transparency and reassurance, there could be examples of that out there. I suspect that is why more than 200,000 people have signed the petition and feel so strongly that this should be brought directly to the Minister’s attention, so that we can give better clarity and reassurance to many victims and survivors who have been through horrendous court cases. Victims should, and must, be at the heart of the justice system, yet time and again they are made to feel completely disregarded—like an inconvenience, as some victims have put it to me. The feeling among victims I have spoken to is that trust needs to be rebuilt, and that is partly done through increasing transparency. This is a timely debate: the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which represents the most significant reform to the criminal procedure in decades, is making its way through Parliament. It will abolish jury trials for crimes likely to carry a sentence of fewer than three years, but the Institute for Government has warned that judge-only trials risk damage to public confidence in a criminal justice system. The Bar Council chair has cautioned directly that the reforms “compromise public trust and confidence.” In addition, local media is facing unprecedented pressure —gone are the days when each paper had a local court reporter to sit in on court proceedings. Despite the Government’s recently announced local media action plan, investing in local news while maintaining cost barriers to court transcripts is directly contradictory. Without affordable access to clear records of what is said in court, local journalists cannot hold the justice system to account or ensure that accurate information is shared with the public. What can be done to increase transparency and trust in the justice system? Increased access to court and tribunal transcripts will absolutely be part of that, hence the nature of this debate. I acknowledge that some progress is being made towards greater availability of court transcripts. The previous Conservative Government launched a pilot scheme that enabled victims of serious sexual assault to request a free copy of the sentencing remarks, and that pilot was extended by the previous Government last year. More recently, following pressure from the Conservative Opposition, who tabled amendments during proceedings on the Sentencing Act 2026 and the Victims and Courts Bill, the Government agreed to expand free access to Crown court sentencing remarks to all victims, but disappointingly, they confirmed that they had no plans to do so in magistrates courts. There are several legitimate options for increasing transparency through access to court and tribunal transcripts. To start with, HMCTS could absorb the cost by paying suppliers for public request transcripts rather than passing the costs on to individuals. A central transcript repository could also be created, which would require transcripts already produced to be held in a central system, such as the National Archives. The current tender process is locked in until 2027, but it is essential that a public access requirement is built into the next framework tender from the outset. The Government could also dedicate parliamentary time to producing legislation that would place a statutory duty on courts to provide transcripts, with funding flowing down into procurement requirements. Having spoken to others in preparing for this debate, I also encourage the Government to relaunch the senior data governance panel, which was set up by the previous Conservative Government to provide independent expert advice on the use of justice data across courts and tribunals. I understand, however, that that has not been taken forward, much to the annoyance of many involved in the process. I remind Members that this petition has more than 200,000 signatures from across the country. The issue clearly demands time and good debate, which I am sure we will have. Whatever views the public and Members have on this petition, we clearly have a justice system that is stuck in the past and becoming less transparent, and which makes the victims that it exists to serve feel the least important of all. I come back to the overarching question put forward by the petition: does Parliament think that court and tribunal transcripts should be treated as a public good? When I think of the cases I have outlined, and particularly of a quote from Fiona Goddard, who described the current system as just another “way in which the victim is treated like the least important person” in the judicial system, I think the answer is most definitely yes. It is in the interest of the public to make sure that these transcripts are free to access for all.
In the Government’s response to the petition, they said quite rightly that by spring 2027 they would expand free access to Crown Court sentencing remarks and that transcripts would be made available to anyone who wishes to utilise the ULS scheme within the timeframe that the scheme provides. As that is 28 days at the moment, can the Minister provide some reassurance as to how the Government will ensure that that level of information is provided within the timeframe? Are the Government looking, as I would wish, at expanding the period for appeal beyond 28 days, which is far too short?
On behalf of the Petitions Committee and the more than 200,000 signatories to the petition, may I thank all hon. Members for their engagement? We have demonstrated clearly to the Minister that there is consensus in all parts of the House: we all wish to see transcripts provided free of charge for victims, for witnesses and, indeed, for anyone who wishes to apply, to build better trust and better transparency in the process. All hon. Members have a vote on the issue, potentially this Wednesday, so it will be interesting to see how the Government instruct their Members to vote. I turn briefly to the Minister’s response. He was articulate in his delivery, but it feels as if there is an issue with the system stalling. Dare I say it, while I give the Minister the benefit of the doubt in his aspirations to unblock the system, I would like to understand more clearly the point he made about the judiciary being responsible and the engagement the Government have to have with it. Who in the judiciary are the Government having that level of correspondence and communication with? Perhaps the Minister could write to the Petitions Committee with his understanding of who the individual is, so that petitioners and Members of Parliament know who they need to engage with to unlock the situation, for the good of all those who signed the petition and all Members across the House who have brought their concerns to the Minister today. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 756036 relating to access to court and tribunal transcripts.
7. What steps she is taking to help tackle shop theft.
Colin Appleyard Motorcycles in Keighley was recently the victim of a ram raid, which involved a vehicle being used to smash the entrance before a gang of seven individuals entered the business and stole nine off-road bikes worth approximately £80,000. Will the Minister tell me what the Government are doing to work with local police forces such as West Yorkshire police to identify and shut down these Mafia-style criminal gangs that are causing significant harm, distress and suffering for local businesses across Keighley and our wider area?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I have strong concerns about artificially delaying puberty, but at the same time, I also want high quality, holistic support for young people who question their gender. The Cass review recommended psychological care as the first port of call for managing gender distress, yet the NHS trial shows a worrying bias towards medicalisation. As a former corporate parent, I am alarmed that looked-after children were over-represented in referrals to the NHS Gender Identity Development Service. At the time, they made up just under 0.6% of the general population, but 5.9% of referrals. For children in care, the transition to adulthood is already a challenging time. They are often more vulnerable to the suggestion that puberty blockers could solve their problems. Despite that, children in care will still be allowed to enrol in any trial. Who will consent to their treatment? The state itself, represented by a corporate parenting board. That blurs the line between child safeguarding and institutional interest. The state is wearing two hats: legal guardian and trial sponsor. Another serious issue is that the trial risks treating young lesbians as if they were born in the wrong body. Shortly before GIDS closed, 74% of teenagers referred to the clinic were girls. Most identified as lesbian or bisexual. Almost 70% said that they were attracted only to other girls, and 20% that they were attracted to both sexes. Yet in recent years, some young women have been encouraged to identify as trans rather than lesbian, and my view is that the trial will only reinforce that belief. Lastly, at least 64 patients from the Tavistock clinic returned to living as their birth sex between 2010 and 2020. Detransitioners face huge social pressure to stay silent about their experiences, so I conclude by quoting the brave detransitioner Keira Bell, who said: “The state assisted me in destroying my body during a period of distress. I was a tomboy who came out of an abusive, neglectful environment with a lack of positive role models, and I struggled with my sexuality. Stopping children’s brains and bodies from developing is not a solution, nor is it healthcare. It’s like giving Ozempic to an anorexic or alcohol to an alcoholic.” We need a permanent end to the trial, not just a pause. Otherwise, even more young people will be left asking the same question: why did no one stop me?
The use of puberty blockers on healthy children is deeply wrong. Children given those drugs are being locked into their discomfort and put on a one-way pathway to cross-sex hormones and surgeries. All of that leads to a lifetime of sexual impairment, fertility issues, bone density loss and other catastrophic psychological and emotional impacts. No child put on puberty blockers at the earliest stage of puberty and whose natural puberty is blocked will ever have an orgasm or be fertile. That is what anyone in this room cheerleading this trial is supporting. In December, the Health Secretary said at the Dispatch Box: “Am I comfortable that this clinical trial has undergone the proper process and ethical approval to ensure the highest standards and supervision? Yes, I am comfortable about that.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 929.] However, on 20 February, we found out that the MHRA had U-turned and was expressing serious concerns about the current trial. The issues it raised were not new, though, having been raised from the outset by many in this room. Making children infertile and harming bone structure are not minor points of detail, but fundamental safety flaws. That last-minute intervention raises questions about the rigour and diligence of the overall approval process. How did a trial with such potentially catastrophic health impacts make it through the research ethics committee approval process? Having looked through the minutes of the meetings, I can see that the committee members met three times over Zoom; nine out of 12 attended the first, only five attended the second and only three attended the third. What stands out most to me is the REC’s delegation to a sub-committee of approval responsibilities for such a profoundly dangerous trial. Section 4.2.24 of the REC governance policy document indicates that sub-committees can be used when “research proposals…present no material ethical issues”. I am therefore staggered that it took the decision to delegate approval responsibilities in this case.
Given that the individual grants can exceed £30 million and are monitored for only 10 years, if a company, say, relocates to another country or fails to deliver over that period, is there any mechanism for the Government to claw back some of that money?
T3. During the recent London elections, Sadiq Khan made a manifesto pledge not to close Bromley’s 24-hour police counter, so Bromley’s 24-hour police counter is obviously now closed. Does the Minister think that the closure of this vital service is good for my constituents or the safety of the community?
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech, and I empathise with her, because communities in Biggin Hill in my constituency are also completely without a railway station. Although the distance to Biggin Hill is 12 miles as the crow flies, it takes an absolute age to get there. Does she agree that such communities need to be served by efficient bus services, which are just as important?
Order. I need to squeeze in many people, so questions need to be short, and answers just as short.
I call John Cooper.
Ready?
I call Jim Shannon to ask the final question.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the Father of the House.