Courts and Tribunals Bill

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

This is the thin end of the wedge for me. The problem is that the powers are available to the Government to keep pushing forward with more “complex” cases.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about complex and lengthy trials. Has he considered the effect on the Court of Appeal of making those types of trial judge-only? If I have correctly understood the Government’s proposals, they wish to require a judge to give reasons for conviction. Juries need give no reasons for conviction. Does he think that that will change the rate and frequency of appeals to the Court of Appeal in such cases?

[Karl Turner]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very good point—of course it will. When a judge is required to give reasons, counsel for the by-then appellant is poring over the judge’s statement, looking at every single line. Clever people such as the very eminent King’s counsel, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox), will be instructed to pore over the judgments in those cases, and the likelihood of an appeal will increase. The beauty of a jury trial is that the men and women—the ordinary citizens who are picked at random and summoned to court to hear a trial as a member of a jury—go home at the end of the case and very rarely, and certainly not publicly, speak about the case again. There is no requirement to give reasons in that scenario.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Under Keir Starmer, this Government led us down a path towards curtailing jury trials, presenting it as the only way to deal with the backlog. That was despite widespread opposition from the legal profession and Parliament, including from their own Benches, and despite the absence of any coherent modelling or trialling to demonstrate the impact of the proposed Crown court bench division. Political capital was wasted pursuing a solution that was never feasible. What we are presented with today is still fundamentally a flawed plan.

We remain deeply concerned about the pressure that these changes will place on magistrates courts. The plans for those charged with either-way offences to lose their right to elect trial by jury, alongside the increases in sentencing powers and the removal of the right to appeal, will place immense and dangerous pressure on magistrates courts, while simultaneously removing vital safeguards. The Government now predict that an additional 25,000 cases will be added to magistrates court caseloads each year, and the current rate of increase in the backlog of open cases is expected to be 9%—it is exceeding that of the Crown court backlog.

Increased complexity also raises questions regarding the suitability of summary justice to deal with these cases—a point that has been raised by the Bar Council and others. I also have profound concerns about the experiences of victims in summary justice; it is not just the Crown court where victims are so often failed. The Minister spoke very powerfully about Morwenna. I remember Morwenna’s powerful testimony. I am thinking today about Georgia, whose case in the magistrates court was postponed four times in a row. She spent months and months of building herself up for that moment before being totally failed because she did not get her day in court. The Government have done little to address those concerns, which is why amendment 11, tabled in my name, remains on the amendment paper. It would prevent magistrates’ sentencing powers from being increased beyond 12 months.

The Liberal Democrats also fundamentally oppose the removal of the automatic right to appeal decisions made by magistrates. This is a vital safeguard for summary justice, where lay magistrates are expected to make decisions with significant and real consequences. On the whole, we all agree that they make these decisions very well, with fewer than 1% of cases being appealed. But of those cases, the latest figures show that 56% were successful. We are now expecting magistrates courts to hear more complex cases carrying higher sentences at the same time as the Government are bluntly removing this protection against those miscarriages of justice. The Government want to speed up the process within a system, but changing the appeals process at this point is unnecessary and frankly dangerous. The reasoning, as per their own response, is:

“If we do not reform the appeals process, we expect absolute volumes of appeals to the Crown Court to increase given the impact of other reforms will be to retain more cases in magistrates’ courts.”

Let us reflect on that for a moment. Over half of current appeals are currently successful, and because the Government believe this number may increase, they are satisfied to remove that safeguard. How can the Minister defend a position that removes that vital safeguard in summary justice, while also accepting that it would be more needed than ever?

There is also scant provision in this Bill for, or consideration of, the implications for legal representation in magistrates court. Currently, there are differing income thresholds for legal aid between the Crown and magistrates courts. Shifting cases from the Crown courts will mean that many more defendants who may be accused of crimes carrying sentences of up to 24 months will be ineligible for legal aid, leaving them unrepresented. Baron Leveson reflected in his review that the differing thresholds for legal aid could be creating a “perverse incentive” for a defendant to choose the Crown court, but the Government rejected Baron Leveson’s recommendation in their response yesterday.

This not only has a profound effect on fairness in our justice system; it also affects the Government’s assumptions about how quickly the backlogs can be cleared. A lack of legal aid impedes efficiency and will slow down cases, leaving victims and defendants waiting once again. That is why we have tabled amendment 18, which links legal aid to the severity of the sentence, rather than the venue of the trial, and we have written to every Member of the House asking them to support it.

New clause 20, tabled in my name, requires all new contracts for court-related services to include performance penalties, to put an end to these sham contracts that are currently failing to deliver prisoners on time.

The Liberal Democrats also believe that opportunities have been missed to maximise the use of time within the existing court structures. There is scope to increase the number of trials heard in selected courtrooms across England and Wales from one to two a day. That approach was trialled during covid, and it resulted in 3.5 trials per week being cleared, compared with fewer than 0.9 trials in courtrooms operating under standard hours. New clause 4 calls for a review of the feasibility of hearing two trials a day in selected courtrooms, split between morning and afternoon sessions, with each trial sitting for four hours. Solutions such as this—which have not been explored by this Government, as confirmed in Committee—would supercharge the Crown court process, with a specific focus on clearing the backlog.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I recognise the hon. Member’s enthusiasm for making the criminal courts work more efficiently, but I put to her a practical problem with the solution she proposes of courts starting at 9 o’clock in the morning—especially if we were not able to resolve the problem she identified of prisoners not always being brought to court on time. She will recognise that those of us who represent criminal clients in the criminal courts do not start our day at the time the court starts; we start a lot earlier. The opportunity to speak to our client, discuss the case properly with them and perhaps find a way of resolving the case without the need for a trial is extremely valuable. Does she recognise that problem?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Absolutely. The right hon. and learned Member makes a really important point about the prisoner escort and custody services contract and ensuring that defendants are delivered to court on time, but not all defendants going into a Crown court are being held on remand. There are also defendants on bail who can get themselves to court, and it would be up to the listing officers to ensure that those cases are heard in the morning, which would take off the pressure that the PECS contracts clearly have in delivering people to start at a 10 am slot; instead, those defendants might be arriving for a 2 pm slot. He raises an important point and gives me a lovely opportunity to explain why I have thought about that and how we would overcome it.

New clause 2 supports the implementation of fast-track courts for rape and serious sexual offences. We have heard powerful testimony across the House during the passage of the Bill about the need for rape and serious sexual offence courts, which we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have called for. It was therefore welcome when the Government announced their plans to implement them, but it is puzzling that they have not included those provisions in the Bill, because there is no point in waiting—these courts should be implemented urgently, to bring an end to the disgraceful waits that these victims are facing.

The Government also announced when they agreed to roll out these RASSO courts that all judges presiding over them will undergo specialist trauma-informed training. Given the Government’s decision not to include domestic abuse cases in these RASSO courts, that would surely strengthen the case for having universal specialist trauma-informed training for all of the judiciary, which we have called for throughout the passage of the Bill.

New clause 11 would give victims the right to receive transcripts of all judicial summings-up and bail decisions relevant to their case. Amendment 15 is particularly relevant given the direction of the Bill, as it would ensure that magistrates court transcripts are free for victims and accessible within 14 days. On the issue of transcripts, the Government have made real progress, which I welcome. Many victims choose not to attend the entirety of their hearing or trial, and even when they do attend, being able to process the events of a court case afterwards provides a valuable opportunity to better understand why those decisions were made. Transcripts being freely accessible aids in moving forward with one’s life, and at every turn, the Liberal Democrats will continue to push the Government to go further.

Finally, I turn to new clause 17, tabled in my name. The Courts Act 2003 introduced Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Court Administration, which was established in 2005 but then closed in 2010. A 2022 Justice Committee report found that the argument for closing the inspectorate had not stood the test of time and called for the re-establishment of an inspectorate body. In his review, Baron Leveson also recommended a mechanism to inspect His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, which was rejected by the Government. This is a particularly important time to introduce the additional oversight that a courts inspectorate would provide—a position that was also supported by the Victims’ Commissioner.

In conclusion, the Government have approached this issue in the wrong way, pushing unworkable measures, opposed by those working in the legal sector who have to deliver the reforms, and eroding the safeguards that protect those who come into contact with the criminal justice system, be it defendants or victims. The Bill before us today makes dangerous changes that will have little effect on the backlog. That is why the Liberal Democrats will be unable to support the Bill, which is unfortunate especially given the good clauses at the end of the Bill that deal with the serious issues around presumption.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I will not. The Lords tabled 1,000 amendments, many of which were cruel or absurd; they were effectively designed to be sand in the engine, and to slow up what should have been proper parliamentary process—a process that the dying deserve to see operate correctly.

We have to be aware in this House that expectations are high, and the people who send us here should be able to rely on decisions made in this House proceeding into law. I am afraid that what is at stake today is our democracy. If this Bill falls today, one of the biggest losers will be the standing of this House and this institution as a whole.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I applaud my right hon. Friend’s passion and clarity on this issue. On the subject of democratic accountability, he knows that if, as the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) has made clear, no amendments to the Bill can be accepted from this House, the authority to decide whether the Bill changes passes to the other place. There must be a problem in my right hon. Friend’s argument, with this House saying, “If we are worried about the content of this Bill at the moment, we can do nothing about it, and we rely on the other place to do something instead.”

[Kit Malthouse]

I respect my right hon. and learned Friend’s expertise in this matter, but, as he has already heard on the Floor of the House, it is perfectly possible for this House to suggest amendments, negotiate them with the promoters of the Bill, place them against the legislation in the House of Lords and then have them come back to this House for approval. We would much rather that had happened in the first place.

This House now faces an invidious choice: if we amend and pass the Bill in this House, it will just be talked out again. I am afraid I have no faith that the small group that dedicated themselves to holding up the Bill to deny dying people what they seek, because of their own—

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

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

[Derek Twigg]

I support the Bill and the amendments put forward by the Government. Back in May 1998, when I first spoke in a debate about the Hillsborough disaster, I could never have imagined that 28 years later I would be debating new legislation to address the state’s failings in respect of that disaster. My right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) was there with me. She and I first uncovered the altered statements in the House of Commons Library; she played a very important role in getting to the stage we did and in getting justice for the Hillsborough families.

I speak from a unique position, in that I was at the Hillsborough disaster, I have worked closely with the Hillsborough families to obtain justice and there are families in my constituency who lost loved ones or were injured at the Hillsborough disaster and in the Manchester Arena bombing. More recently, I have become a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has oversight of the intelligence community. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), also a member of the ISC, in his place, although unfortunately he is unable to speak in today’s debate because he co-chaired the Bill Committee.

I will keep my comments primarily to aspects of intelligence and controversies around the Bill. Our intelligence services keep us safe every day. Our intelligence officers and agents do difficult and sometimes dangerous work so that we can live safely. They deserve our sincere thanks and praise for the job that they do and it is right that we hold them to the highest standards. As a member of the ISC, which has oversight of the intelligence services, I been involved in trying to find a way forward with colleagues in addressing the concerns about the impact of the Bill on the intelligence services.

I support the Government amendments and the Bill as a whole. It is welcome that the Government have listened to the campaigners and the ISC. I particularly praise Pete Weatherby KC, who has always been available to talk to me and others about the issues, and help us get to the point where the legislation gives clear protections. As I say, we have listened to the campaigners and the ISC has accepted a way forward that addresses the concerns raised in respect of the security services. However, I believe that could have been achieved much earlier, and I would like to make a few comments about that.

I genuinely believe that if the ISC had not got involved in these matters, we would not be discussing the Bill today. That is not to take anything away from all those who had been working so hard on the Bill before that, but it had reached an impasse. I praise the work of the ISC Chair, Lord Beamish, and the Deputy Chair, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is in his place.

It is the view of the ISC that the concerns about the Bill could have been addressed much sooner, as I have said. There has been a lack of direction and grip, with no one taking control. It seemed all too difficult for some, and that has caused the lengthy delays that we have endured. We should not ignore the fact that that has added to the anxiety and concerns of the families and campaigners.

As I stated earlier, the ISC has oversight of the intelligence community. If it felt that the Bill did not address the concerns aired about the impact on the intelligence services or threatened the safety of agents or officers and the security of our country, we would say so—and I, for one, would not vote for it. I do not believe that that is the case; I believe that this Bill, with its amendments, addresses those concerns. Establishing a new duty of candour is key, but I am particularly pleased that the Bill will also bring forward the largest expansion of legal aid in a decade, so that any family facing the might of the state will no longer have to beg and borrow to afford a lawyer, as the Hillsborough families know too well from the early stages of their campaign.

Many of my colleagues have made important contributions to the Bill and ensured that we got to this stage; my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) have been instrumental in that. I put on the record my thanks to them. There has also been support from the Prime Minister. Whatever the problems faced by the Government in getting to this stage, they clearly wanted the Bill to go through and have worked very hard to try to do that. It could have been done better, but I believe that, in the long run, we will look back on the tenacity and drive of the families as being what got us to this stage.

Today is a landmark day for the Hillsborough families and other campaigners. It will help to ensure that the truth will out in the future. The state will not be able to repeat the appalling cover-up that we saw with Hillsborough. This landmark Bill will have a profound influence in helping prevent future injustices.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg), my colleague on the Intelligence and Security Committee. I agree with everything that he has said.

It is important to begin by recognising the remarkable determination of everyone who has sought to translate immense personal pain into an improvement in the way in which the state treats its citizens. That applies to the families who have campaigned so hard and to Members of this House who have applied their own determination to that task.

As the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood and many who have spoken in this debate have said, the obstacle to delivering this legislation has really very clearly been the extent to which the duty of candour should apply to the intelligence services and to others for whom full candour may be inconsistent with professional duties, as well as the additional safeguards and modifications that would need to apply to the Bill to enable it to safely cover such people without preventing them from doing their vital work effectively.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the Government asked members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, including me, to become involved in the process of resolving that challenge. As the House would expect, we engaged with that process as diligently as we could, with no partisan politics, in an effort to make good law in the pursuit of greater state transparency while preserving our national security equities. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, we spent many hours on the task, engaging with both the Government and those representing the Hillsborough families.

It probably would not be right or practical, in the time available, to go into the detail of all the positions taken over many months, but it is fair and important to say that throughout that time, those representing the Hillsborough families have maintained that measures and protections in existing law would prevent national security from being jeopardised if the duty of candour applied to the intelligence services. The Government, for their part, have maintained throughout this period of many months both consistently and robustly that that is not so.

The Government have maintained that the only way to protect national security is to build additional safeguards, protections and exemptions into the Bill. That appeared still to be their position until very recently. Even yesterday, Government amendment 147, which gives the head of an intelligence agency the right to withhold information altogether in certain circumstances, appeared in the amendment paper for the Bill, as it had done in many previous iterations of that document. In today’s version of the amendment paper, for the first time, that amendment has disappeared and been replaced not with the detailed compromise that Intelligence and Security Committee members, who have been engaged with this process, have been working towards, along with many others, but with Government amendment 157.

Government amendment 157 says, in effect, that protections already existing in the law are good enough after all—the Minister made that clear in what she said—and that no substitute further protections or exemptions need to be built into the Bill. That is a remarkable change of position, and a remarkably fast one. It is up to the Government to decide what legislation they propose to this House, and it is perfectly within their rights to propose amendments to their own legislation. We can all cynically speculate about the reasons why this sudden about-turn has taken place this week, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who spoke from the Front Bench, said earlier, it is our job to scrutinise this legislation and to ensure that whatever we put in place does justice to the determination of the Hillsborough families and everybody else to put in place a law that does not just sound good, but does good—makes real change and sticks in that task.

I simply have to observe to the Minister and the House that, after all the painstaking work and hours spent, until late last week, on the basis that further safeguards were required—all the amendments drafted, redrafted and redrafted again—the Government have suddenly said that none of that is necessary. What on earth is going on? It seems to me that there are two possibilities. The first is that, for whatever reason, the Government have now cobbled together a rushed compromise that does not adequately protect our national security and that, inevitably and logically, does the job less effectively than their previous amendments sought to do. The Minister has been very clear that that is not the case. I want to take her at her word, because this is an important subject.

That leaves us with the second possibility, which is that the settlement before us—a settlement that effectively replicates what the advocates for the Hillsborough families have been saying for months—could have been delivered to this House a very long time ago. That needless delay has brought a waste of ministerial time, official time, the ISC’s time, frankly, and the time of the intelligence agencies. That time could certainly have been better spent. But, far, far worse than any of that, it has brought an additional, agonising wait for the Hillsborough families and others for the law that they were promised—an additional wait that, it seems, they did not need to endure. I appreciate that the Minister has come to this matter reasonably late, but, whatever else she may need to answer, I am afraid she needs to explain all that to us and to the Hillsborough families.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Select Committee.

Prison Safety

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I will call Michelle Welsh to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind all other Members present that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister, although they can of course intervene without prior permission. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

It is highly likely that we will be interrupted during this debate for votes on the Floor of the House. I anticipate two votes, which means that I must suspend the sitting for up to 25 minutes. If the hon. Lady, the Minister and I are all back before 25 minutes, we can proceed more quickly, if that is any incentive.

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered safety in prisons.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Since I was elected nearly two years ago, my office and I have been inundated with letters and calls from staff, prisoners and members of the public about the conditions at HMP Lowdham Grange in my constituency. I have heard repeated reports from prisoners of self-harm, deaths in the prison and instances of discrimination. I have also been contacted by staff sharing the impact of these incidents and the pressures on them, such as staffing and violence. These unsafe conditions are deeply concerning not only in their own right, but as a reflection of the wider challenges facing our justice system.

To truly improve safety in our justice system, we must tackle the drivers of this violence. I thank the Minister for visiting HMP Lowdham Grange recently after I raised concerns with him. As he will be aware, the inspectorate released its report just yesterday, following the most recent inspection. It is reassuring to see some progress in areas such as visible leadership, improving health services and security relating to drugs. However, I remain deeply concerned about ongoing problems relating to self-harm and suicide.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

The debate may now continue until 4.50 pm if necessary.

[Jake Richards]

As I was saying before we were interrupted by votes, I want to put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest, her team, and her neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne), who has raised this issue with me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest intimated in her opening speech, on the back of her representations I visited HMP Lowdham Grange in April. I had an important meeting with the governor and her leadership team where I raised many of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend and was reassured to a large degree. I felt that the leadership team there understood the issues and were working at pace to attempt to address them.

However, I also want to place on record that I challenged the team about the work that needs to be done. We have seen in the report published yesterday that although there have been improvements, there is absolutely no doubt that there is a long way to go. I hope that the governor and the leadership team at HMP Lowdham Grange would agree with that.

There is more work to do there and elsewhere. Poor safety in our prisons fundamentally reflects a system under strain. In the summer of 2024, this Government inherited a prison system that was in crisis—in utter collapse—and very soon to run out of places completely. Too many prisons are still struggling at or near capacity, with an increased risk of violence hampering their efforts to turn offenders’ lives around, as we have heard.

I will go on to address some of the particular issues, but we have taken fundamental action to reduce the risk linked to capacity challenges. Ultimately, we can only do all the good work on reoffending, education and rehabilitation if we have a functioning prison system. That is why we are delivering 14,000 new prison places—the biggest expansion of the estate since the Victorian era. We are investing £4.7 billion in that prison-building programme over the next four years, and we introduced landmark sentencing reforms in the Sentencing Act 2026, which received Royal Assent earlier this year, to finally put the prison system on a sustainable footing for the future. That Act was not easy. Difficult decisions have been made, but that legislation means that we can reassure the British public, for the first time in essentially a generation, that there will always be prison spaces for offenders when we need them.

However, there is much more to be done on rehabilitation, education and mental health support. I accept that absolutely.

Youth Justice

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentoring turnaround, which is an important scheme that began under the last Government and has continued under us. It is making a big difference by diverting these young people. I will look closely at its use in her constituency, but we are absolutely clear that it is about not just diverting them but ensuring that we are diverting them to quality. We can see from the recidivism rate of 7% that turnaround is an exceptional programme.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

Can I ask the Secretary of State about two things? The first is education, which he has mentioned. It is, of course, important to look at education for young people in a custodial setting, but does he agree that it is also important to consider the link between attendance at education and rehabilitation for those who have received non-custodial disposals, and will he ensure that his proposals make that link clear?

Secondly, in relation to advocacy on behalf of young people within the youth justice system, the Secretary of State will recognise that, with a smaller number of young people going through the system, it is more and more difficult to maintain a specialist advocacy profession and to ensure that advocates are properly rewarded for the very specific skills they need to develop. Will he look at the fee structure for advocates and ensure that we continue to encourage the right balance of skills, attention to conferences and that they get to know the client, which is particularly important for young people in the youth justice system?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his expertise in this area. He is right to mention the role that the education system plays, and not just for those in custody. There is more to do in respect of education for young people in custody. Too many of them spent time in their cells during the pandemic, and not outside their cells getting skills. We are looking at reforming referral orders and, whereas we previously had just volunteer panels keeping up to date with these young people in communities, we are looking a bit closer at the role of the judge and professionals in those referrals to ensure that education is taking place and that we have a more multidisciplinary approach in respect of the outcomes for those young people. I thank him for mentioning special advocacy and I assure him that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley, is looking closely at this and chairing a group to look at the issues.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is entirely right: 41% are successful, and that, of course, means that 59% are not. With the new permission stage, those 41% would still get through. It seems to me absolutely right that, in order to make the system properly efficient, we have the same set of standards. As is set out in the Bill, people would appeal from a Crown court beyond, as they appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown courts.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

The Lord Chancellor has quite properly recognised the Government’s debt of gratitude to Sir Brian Leveson, but will he accept that the Government have been somewhat selective in adopting Sir Brian’s recommendations? He knows that Sir Brian did not recommend that all cases that are triable either way should have the right to elect for jury trial to be removed from them. He also knows, incidentally, that Sir Brian did not propose an increase in magistrates’ sentencing powers to up to two years; he suggested that it remain at 12 months. What the Lord Chancellor has not done is adopt some of Sir Brian’s recommendations in relation to encouraging early guilty pleas, which would have a significant impact on the backlog. Why have the Government selected for priority purposes the recommendations that would have an impact on the right of jury trial, and not some other recommendations that would have a similar effect on the backlog?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy]

I do not accept that characterisation of magistrates courts. If that were a true cause for concern for the hon. Lady, this Bill would perhaps try to address what she says, yet it does not.

The Government’s claims about what the Bill will achieve are hopelessly confused. The Justice Secretary leans heavily on Sir Brian Leveson, who says that limiting jury trials will save 20% of court time, but there has been no modelling to justify this number, and Sir Brian has admitted that it is little more than a guess. When challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), the Justice Secretary said,

“We will…publish our modelling alongside the…Bill”.—[Official Report, 3 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 109.]

Yet no modelling worthy of the name has been published. The impact assessment takes Sir Brian’s guess and uses it as the median estimate. This is fiction masquerading as science.

The Criminal Bar Association calls the impact assessment “meaningless verbiage”, “total gibberish” and something that

“would make the script writer of ‘In the Thick of it’ wince with embarrassment”.

It concludes:

“If anyone can make any sense of this, please get in touch.”

If the Justice Secretary wanted to accept that invitation right now, I would be willing to give way to him—but he does not.

The Government have overstated the length of trials for cases in scope of the proposed change by more than 100%. The better estimate has been made by the Institute for Government, where researchers have listened to judges and lawyers and understood that only 20% of Crown court time is spent trying either-way offences. Of course, half of those cases will remain jury trials because the likely sentence is above three years. The cases in scope therefore take up only 5% to 10% of Crown court time, so even if they could be tried 20% faster, it would save only 1% or 2% of court time.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend is making the point that consultation on and discussion of the Bill may be fruitful if we are to properly understand its effects. One difference the Bill will make is that when a judge tries a case on his or her own, in the absence of a jury, they will be required by the Bill to give reasons for any conviction that they conclude is appropriate. Does my hon. Friend think that the Government have considered the potential impact of that on likely appeals of those decisions to the Court of Appeal?

[Nick Timothy]

My right hon. and learned Friend is exactly right. I was planning to turn to that point, because the Bill creates a problem not only in the burden of time it creates, but in the politicisation of our judiciary.

The Bill does create new time burdens. When juries deliberate, judges do other work in court, including on other trials. If judges deliberate instead, the court time used to hear other cases is lost. Because a defendant’s right to a jury trial will depend on the likely custodial sentence if he is found guilty, if the Bill becomes law, a judge will, for the first time, be needed to first conduct a hearing to determine the likely sentence. The Bill says that the parties involved should make representations; in cases with several defendants, the judge would need to hear from all their representatives and the prosecutor, taking up hours of time. There is more: defendants often plead guilty after the plea and trial preparation hearing, but before trial. In these cases, the sentencing judge—possibly not the same as the allocating judge—will have to hear the submissions all over again.

Then there are the reasons for conviction or acquittal, as my right hon. and learned Friend has just said. Juries do not have to provide reasons, but the Bill says that judges must. That will inevitably take many hours per case—time that right now is used to try cases.

Criminal Court Reform

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am hugely grateful for my right hon. Friend’s expertise in these areas. She will know that for lots of reasons, particularly to do with poverty, many women are affected by criminal cases that do not command a sentence of much more than 12 months. Actually, the vast majority of crimes committed by women are dealt with by magistrates, and it is my judgment that those magistrates could do more. Keeping in mind the victims and centring them in our thinking, it cannot be right that we are asking women to wait. In a city like London, a woman who is raped tomorrow will not have her trial listed until 2028 or 2029. The Victims’ Commissioner supports these changes because they put those women first. I also remind my right hon. Friend of the £550 million that I am dedicating to victim support to support the very women she talks about.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

The Government deserve credit for taking seriously a serious report into a serious problem, but is it the Justice Secretary’s preference that the changes he has outlined to jury trial will be permanent or that they will recede when the problem of backlogs recedes? In relation to judges alone deciding either-way cases, he knows that Sir Brian’s recommendation is that the presumption should be that there would be judge-only trials for cases where the sentence may be three years or less, but that presumption could be rebutted. Is it the Government’s intention that that should be a presumption and not a definitive rule? Finally, he knows that Sir Brian also recommended that plea hearings be pushed back to allow for advice on guilty pleas to be given more clearly and more fully, and that is likely to increase the number of guilty pleas preventing cracked trials. The Justice Secretary has talked about extra funding for the criminal Bar, but will he focus that funding so that people can be advised early and we can avoid those cracked trials?

[Mr Lammy]

We will consult on how we implement it so that we can deal with cracked trials. I am pleased that the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises the importance of Sir Brian’s work and his deliberations with his panel. It is not my expectation that these rules will change. Sir Brian drew on his tremendous experience to reflect on the complexity and the demand that we are seeing in our criminal justice system. For example, DNA evidence, phenotyping, the range of new laws that this Parliament is introducing, and the increase in sexual crimes as a result of smartphones and other technology all require changes in the system, so I believe that the changes that we are making will be permanent.

Criminal Courts: Independent Review

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Despite the title of this debate—which I will immediately concede is less than exciting—it focuses on a serious problem with significant consequences. The criminal courts of England and Wales are under very significant strain. That is translating to very long delays from early hearings in criminal cases to the hearing of trials. I was at my local Crown court a couple of weeks ago and the delay there was at least 18 months. It is as bad or worse elsewhere.

That delay is not just an administrative problem; it has real, human consequences. It means a longer wait before a victim of crime or a witness in criminal proceedings can see the case resolved and move on with their lives. Of course, the longer it takes to get to trial, the harder it is to remember detail and to give the best evidence possible. For a defendant—and it is worth recalling that not every defendant is found guilty—the case continues to hang over their head along with, in some cases, the threat of potentially losing their liberty. A defendant in custody awaiting trial adds to the pressure on the prison population for longer than they should if the eventual outcome of their trial is acquittal or a non-custodial sentence. We can see that in the statistics: remand prisoners made up 11% of the prison population in 2018 but that figure was up to 20% in 2024.

There are other consequences of long periods on remand. Remand prisoners are not convicted so no work is done on their rehabilitation in prison. Time spent on remand counts towards an eventual prison sentence but spending longer on remand means a greater proportion of the eventual sentence—in some cases, the majority of the sentence that is ultimately handed down—is served without any rehabilitative work being done to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Substantial periods on remand also mean that there are more cases where a custodial sentence is imposed at the end of it but the whole sentence has already been served on remand, so the offender is released immediately after the trial. That can be hard to understand and accept for victims and the public, who have to watch that offender walk free from court despite their conviction.

Long delays in the criminal courts should worry us all. They certainly worry the Government, who have commissioned Sir Brian Leveson, a very senior and experienced judge, to review the operation of the criminal courts and recommend improvements. Part 1 of his review was published on 18 June and deals with the policy changes that he believes may improve the situation. I have no doubt that Ministers will have been considering those recommendations carefully and will take up some or all of them, but we in Parliament should consider them carefully too. That is why I sought this debate.

I have worked with Sir Brian in a variety of roles and have huge respect for his insight and judgment. The report that he published is 378 pages long; I cannot do justice to all of it in this debate—you will be grateful to hear, Mr Efford—but I do want to say something about his analysis of the problem and some of his solutions.

First, I will discuss the problem and the reasons for it. Those interested only in political attack lines will always be able to find them, but this issue deserves deeper analysis. Of course more resources will be important, and Sir Brian makes that clear, but previous reductions in funding can be at least partly explained by periods of reduced demand. The number of cases received by the Crown courts fell, for example, during the nine years I was in government from 150,000 in 2010 to 102,000 in 2019. The open caseload, which is the number of cases begun in the Crown court but not yet completed, fell from 55,000 in 2014 to 33,000 in 2018, but it has increased significantly since, standing at a historical high of 75,000 in 2024. As Sir Brian set out in his review, there are many reasons for that.

It is true that the system has not yet entirely recovered from the covid pandemic, but the other reasons are more structural. Central among them is that the type of cases being heard matters as much as the overall number of cases. The criminal courts are now hearing a greater proportion of cases involving sexual offences or fraud, which are more complex and take longer to resolve, so the length of the average Crown court trial has doubled between 2001 and 2024. The complexity of trials has also been increased by the greater volume of digital evidence, including from mobile phones.

All of that leads Sir Brian to conclude that we cannot go on as we are, and I think he is right. We all know how difficult it will be for the Government to find significant extra resource for the criminal court system. Even if they could, it would not be enough to address the very different workload and ways of working that the system now deals with so, as Sir Brian urges us, we should look at structural change. As I said at the outset, his review makes many recommendations that I do not have time to discuss, but I hope that the Government and the Minister, who I am delighted to see in her place, will look carefully at his proposals to end release under investigation instead of bail, which I think is sensible, and the increased standardisation of out-of-court disposals.

I want to focus on Sir Brian’s recommendations in three areas. The first is how we can encourage guilty pleas, where they are appropriate, to be entered earlier. If a guilty plea is how a criminal case should and will be resolved, the earlier it is given the more quickly victims and witnesses can be reassured that they will not need to relive their experiences by giving evidence, and the more quickly valuable and scarce court time can be allocated to other cases, so that is a change worth pursuing.

Those of us who have practised in the criminal courts know that there is only so much we can do to persuade a guilty defendant to plead guilty—some will always hold out until the day of the trial in the hope that the witnesses against them fail to turn up; I am afraid that delays in hearing the trial make that more likely—but Sir Brian makes three recommendations in particular that might help. Those recommendations are that the discount on sentence for an early guilty plea should be increased from one third to 40%; judges should give defendants more information on what their sentence may be if a guilty plea is forthcoming; and the plea hearing should be delayed to allow defendants to receive fuller advice before entering a plea. I suspect that the first two will receive the most attention, but I believe the third may have the most effect.

Making sure that defendants know how much shorter their sentence may be if they plead guilty rather than are found guilty, and increasing that difference with bigger discounts for early guilty pleas, may well change some minds, but must not and is not intended to constitute inappropriate pressure to plead guilty when not guilty. Defence advocates, of course, have a clear professional duty to advise their clients not to plead guilty if they do not accept their guilt, but discussions between defendants and their advocates about the evidence and the law are very often constrained because they happen only at court on the morning of the trial. It is often that that truly restricts the prospects of realistic pleas at an earlier stage, so allowing more time for that advice to be given is vital.

Such advice has to be accompanied, though, by changes that will make it more likely for that extra time to be productively used. If, as I hope they will be, the Government are attracted to the idea of delaying plea hearings for that purpose, it will also be important to ensure that advocates are properly incentivised, including through fee structures, to conduct conferences with their clients in advance of the plea hearing. Where the client is in custody, allowing access to the client—preferably in person, but via video link if not—must also be made easier than it is now, or appropriate advice will not be delivered early so that appropriate pleas can be delivered early.

It is also worth saying again—these points have been made many times by many people, as the Minister knows—that early advice on the prosecution case and the available defences cannot be given if the prosecution evidence has not been served on the defence in time to allow it to be properly considered. Late disclosure by the prosecution remains a fundamental problem, as does the timely production of defendants in custody at court.

The second area of Sir Brian’s review I want to focus on is the proposed rebalancing of work between the Crown court and the magistrates court. It is important to recognise that, as Sir Brian points out, the bulk of criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates already—around 90%, in fact, with only 1% of criminal cases being resolved by jury trial. Nevertheless, because a magistrates court trial is both quicker and cheaper than a jury trial in the Crown court, it makes sense in resource terms to shift the balance further in the direction of magistrates where there would be no injustice in doing so.

Sir Brian suggests that that can be done in a number of ways. Some are fairly straightforward: for example, we could increase the financial threshold for trials of criminal damage cases in the magistrates court from £5,000 to £10,000. Of perhaps more significance from a policy perspective is the suggestion of removing the automatic right to appeal a magistrates court conviction in the Crown court and replacing it with a permission to appeal process, and that of removing the right to choose a jury trial altogether for offences with a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment or less. In the circumstances, I have no substantive objection to any of those proposals, but in relation to the last of them, I invite Ministers to consider the discrepancy it would create between, on the one hand, trials of offences for which sentences of up to two years’ imprisonment could be imposed taking place in magistrates courts and, on the other, sentencing powers for magistrates remaining limited to 12 months’ imprisonment, which Sir Brian does not seek to change.

I am sure that Ministers will also want to factor in the capacity of magistrates courts to do the extra work, as there is a backlog there too, and consider whether a neater way of rebalancing the caseload towards magistrates courts would be the reclassification of some offences as summary only. They will also want to factor in, of course, the need to ensure that lay magistrates have access to good-quality legal advice when hearing cases.

On changing access to jury trial, the important point is an obvious one, but one that is worth making for context. As things stand, not every criminal charge entitles a defendant to a jury trial. We already restrict the right to jury trial, so this debate is about moving the threshold for eligibility for jury trial, not about abandoning a principle of jury trials for all.

I should say that I have great faith in the jury system. I have sought to persuade juries for the prosecution and for the defence in Crown court trials, and I have heard many jury verdicts, and I have retained throughout my confidence that, in general terms, this is a good system for determining guilt or innocence. However, that does not mean that we should refuse to contemplate any change or to recognise the pressure on jury trials for some of the offences that occupy large amounts of court time.

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

I just wondered whether I might pose the fact that the backlog has been created and exacerbated by problems in the criminal justice system, and that it is certainly nothing to do with the time a jury trial takes to be completed. Jury trial has been statistically proven to be fairer to ethnic minorities and people who are more vulnerable. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not therefore agree that jury trial is definitely the way we should go in some cases? I accept his point that not every case has the right to go to jury trial.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I understand the point the hon. Lady is making, and to be fair to Sir Brian, he is not suggesting that we remove jury trial in all cases; he is very much talking about a subset of cases in which he thinks it is worth restricting that right. However, she is right that we must balance the clear advantages of jury trials, in terms of the interests of justice, with some of the structural and organisational challenge the system undoubtedly faces. To go back to the first point I made, Sir Brian is clear that the current situation cannot persist for much longer without significant change. All the changes we might consider will have downsides as well as upsides, but we must be prepared to contemplate change of some sort.

The hon. Lady is also right that people have come to see jury trials as considerably advantageous in the delivery of justice, particularly for some of our fellow citizens. However, it is also right to recognise that although we cannot blame jury trial for all the mess we are in, jury trials do take longer than other trials. I am afraid that we will exacerbate the pressure on the criminal court system if we do not at least look carefully at the prospects for restricting those sorts of trials, in addition to other changes.

[Tessa Munt]

The point I would make, of course, is that a jury is free, and paid judges are not. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have any observation to make about that? The cost is a problem, is it not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady is right, and juries are cheap—that is undoubtedly the case—but they do not sit without a judge, and I am afraid that we pay the judge for a jury trial, just as we would for a judge-only trial. I do not think that the financial saving, in that sense, can be left out of account, and there is not much difference, in terms of what the judge is paid, whether they are hearing the case on their own or with a jury. The only difference may be that we will make better use of that judge, because the trial will complete more quickly, and they will be able to get on to other business more quickly. However, I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Sir Brian’s proposals to change access to jury trials represent a distinct restriction of freedom for citizens facing trial, yet he does not offer convincing evidence that that will save an enormous amount of time or speed up the trial process, and that that lack of evidence causes concern to many practitioners?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Yes. My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Again, to be fair to Sir Brian, it is not within his capacity to do all the analysis necessary to follow through his recommendations and to understand quite what the effect on the system will be. However, I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. As I was about to say, we have to balance the advantages that Sir Brian sets out with the disadvantages that would undoubtedly arise from his proposals. It is hard to do that in an informed way if we do not know exactly what the resource benefits will be of implementing these proposals.

Let me come on to the third area of recommendations that I want to discuss, regarding the removal of a right to jury trial, particularly in complex fraud cases, where trials can take months and where, apart from anything else, the impact on the lives and jobs of jurors can be immense. As I have suggested, this is not a new idea by any stretch of the imagination, but I am not yet certain that it would be right to conduct all such trials without a jury.

Many who practise in this area, and some judges, continue to believe that juries can consider these cases thoroughly and fairly and reach appropriate verdicts, even when the evidence is complex; indeed, I have seen that for myself. The argument is made that these cases are really about dishonesty, and that it is the job of counsel and of the judge to make the issues and the evidence clear to a jury. All of those are reasonable arguments, and those of us who believe in the jury system instinctively baulk at the idea of restricting it. However, I go back to the central premise of this report: the system is under intolerable pressure, and something must be done about it.

If it can be established—this goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox)—that complex fraud trials are indeed the cause of much of that pressure and, crucially, that judge-only trials would help substantially to relieve it, then given the relatively even balance of arguments for and against this change, which have been made for decades, it is perhaps a least worst option worth considering.

Sir Brian’s proposal to allow most defendants to opt for a judge-only trial if they wish is of course much less controversial and well worth pursuing, as it does not inhibit the right to a jury trial if a defendant still wishes to have one. The only caveat is that we must avoid the complexity of allowing different defendants in the same case to have different types of trial. If all defendants in one trial cannot agree on a judge-only trial, I am afraid that all must be tried by a jury. Any other approach would lead to multiple trials, which could and should have been avoided because of their impact on witnesses, who would have to give evidence repeatedly, and because they would reduce or eliminate the benefit of judge-only trials in using up less court time.

As I said, there is too much in this review of the criminal courts for me to be able to talk about everything, and there are some important recommendations that I have not been able to mention—perhaps others will. I want to finish where I started, with the reason this review was commissioned and the inescapable context of it: our criminal courts are under incredible pressure, and there must be a policy response to relieve it. Otherwise, we may see the expectation of fair and swift justice, which underpins our society, erode or even fail. That is not something that we—Government or Parliament—can allow to happen. If Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals are not to be adopted, others must be. On that crucial question, I look forward to hearing what colleagues and the Minister have to say.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

As the Minister says, she will have to consider each of Sir Brian’s proposals, although she will know that he says that they are to be taken as a “package” and not with a “pick-n-mix” approach. Is that something that the Government accept? Will they take the view that it is either all of Sir Brian’s recommendations or none of them, or not?

[Sarah Sackman]

As the right hon. and learned Member laid out, and as Sir Brian laid out, it is a highly complex system with lots of moving parts. The overall objective is to bear down on the backlog and reduce these delays. We must consider the totality of Sir Brian’s recommendations in careful detail and establish whether they do enough to achieve that overall objective. If we think they do not achieve that objective, it will be necessary to consider other ways to reduce the backlog.

We will put forward a holistic package, but I will not comment at this stage on whether it will include the entirety of these recommendations. That is something we will have to consider very carefully. Ultimately, as I said, our objective is to deliver swifter justice for victims and bear down on the backlog. How we achieve that has to be led by the evidence, and this is an important component of that, which is why I answered the hon. Member for Bridgwater in the way that I did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate. In particular, I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee for rearranging his Committee’s diaries so that its members could do so. This has, I hope, been a constructive debate, not least for the Minister to add to her considerations. I hope she will forgive the damage I do to her career prospects by saying that I am glad she is in a position to do it, and I know that she will approach it with the requisite seriousness that the process demands.

The Minister is right to say that there is a degree of consensus—we all agree there is a problem. As she knows, the curse of this place is that we tend to identify a problem and ask an expert to help us find a solution, but when they do so, we do not always have the courage to implement the solutions that are put to us.

I hope that we find that courage, because it may be that some of these solutions are controversial and have significant downsides, but the burning platform that Sir Brian has described is undoubtedly there. Therefore, we must act and must find a way of doing so with as much consensus as possible, and I know that is the approach that the Government will seek to take over the coming weeks.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) and many others who have given brave testimony of their own personal experience in this matter. I join the tributes to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), who I think has conducted herself with decency, dignity and compassion throughout this process. But I have heard her and others say that the decision we have to make today is whether or not we are in favour of the status quo, and I respectfully disagree. Our job as legislators is to consider rigorously the proposed legislation before us, and those who propose it bear the burden of persuading us that this is the right change to make, and not a change that may bring problems as big or bigger than those we are trying to solve.

I have spent nearly 30 years in this place that makes our laws and practising in the courts that administer them. I have had ministerial responsibility for sentencing and for the Crown Prosecution Service. I have faith in our system of laws, but I have also seen the limitations on our ability to avoid the negative consequences of the laws we make, however hard we try.

So very often the legislative decisions we take are about a balance of risks. In this case, the risk of not changing the law is that we leave some of our constituents in pain where it could be avoided, and expose their loved ones to the fear of prosecution for acts of love and mercy. I acknowledge that risk, and I have felt the anguish and desperation of those who want this Bill to pass for the very best of motives. But good people can come to different conclusions on the balance of risks here, and I think that we take a bigger risk in changing the law. That is because of the signal we send in the legislation we pass.

Signals sent by changes in the law matter. When Parliament changes the law, it brings consequences for those who break the new law, but it also intends to change behaviour. Creating new criminal offences, increasing maximum sentences or even strengthening regulations are acts that we hope everyone will take notice of and behave differently as a result, because they recognise that Parliament, on behalf of society as a whole, is signalling its disapproval of certain actions or practices. If that is true for legislation that makes unlawful what was previously lawful, why should the same not be true for legislation that makes lawful something that was previously unlawful? We are sending a signal there too: that society, through Parliament, believes that something we used to think was unacceptable is now acceptable—in this case, that assisting someone to die is now something of which we approve. I believe that is bound to have an impact on those who, in great distress at the end of their lives, may already be thinking that it would be better if they were out of the way.

I do not want to live in a society in which anyone, including the terminally ill, is encouraged in the belief that their life is not valuable and valued to their very last moment. Though it is not its intent, I fear that the Bill brings such a society closer. That is why I cannot support it.

Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is exactly right to point to that planning application going forward. It is excellent news, and shows that we are cracking on with the job.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

Although the Government should have volunteered to defend their position, I accept, having held ministerial responsibility for the prison estate, that they had no good options at this point. Does the Minister accept that the problem with what he is choosing to do is that the return to prison for breach of important licence conditions is there to be a deterrent, and if we reduce that deterrent, we run the risk of more people breaching licence conditions, which would make the overcrowding problem worse? If he chooses that path, will he consider increasing the deterrent effect by ensuring that, following a 28-day return to prison, there are other restrictions on a prisoner’s freedom, such as electronic tagging?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I certainly hope that all those things will be looked at by the independent sentencing review. The mandating of the 14-day fixed-term release was a measure taken by the previous Government. We are extending that to 28 days for sentences of up to four years because of the situation that we face, to ensure that we do not run out of prison places in the interim.