Court and Tribunal Transcripts

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I almost wanted to have a bet on who would mention AI first in this debate. AI is always said to be the solution, but for once it might be. Everything that the hon. Member is saying about the system of transcripts—that it is anachronistic, lacking in transparency, costly and baroque—is absolutely right. We must move towards greater transparency. Magistrates courts currently do not have recording at all, although they will have to after the Courts and Tribunals Bill is passed. The solution has to be to do this work stage by stage, and AI will be very important in that process.

[Robbie Moore]

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I know that Members from all parts of the House support the Government’s aim to halve violence against women and girls. The metric on which that is based, the crime survey for England, deals with those aged 16 and over, but girls under 16 are also substantially at risk. How will they be included in the recording and monitoring process to ensure that their needs are also addressed?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome the scrutiny from my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee. We have been resolutely clear that the violence against women and girls strategy covers everyone, including children, those under the age of 16 and men and boys. We will be ensuring that the data captures a broad spectrum so that we are able to account for things. I recently met stakeholders who are concerned about the rise in domestic crimes committed against children and pre-teens, including in relationships they are getting into, and how we can best support them. I am working with colleagues across Government on that to ensure that we capture these things correctly, so that young people are not excluded from the data.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing that horrific case to the attention of the House. She is right to draw attention to the impact of social media and online abuse on violence against women and girls. It is why we are working across jurisdictions to try to tackle some of these crimes. We are bringing in the strongest protections against non-consensual intimate imagery, and we are working through the Online Safety Act 2023 and with our regulator, Ofcom, to hold social media accounts accountable. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology recently held a roundtable with the platforms to discuss what more we can do to tackle this heinous abuse. The Government have been clear: where the platforms refuse to act, the Government will.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I have noticed there is a lot of debate on the role of juries at the moment—nothing gets past me. It might be a better informed debate if the researchers and jurors could talk about what happens in the jury room. The Law Commission recommends decriminalising that so it cannot be a criminal offence. Will the Government do that in the Courts and Tribunals Bill?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is something that I will reflect on in the coming days.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The number of outstanding cases in the Crown court is 79,619. The outgoing Conservative Government promised to reduce the backlog; it should have been 53,000 by April last year. Their abject failures led the present Government to ask one of the country’s most foremost experts on the criminal courts, Sir Brian Leveson, to propose comprehensive court reforms—reforms without precedent in half a century. Sir Brian produced his review in two parts, totalling over 1,000 pages and 180 recommendations. The Bill legislates where legislation is necessary to implement parts of Sir Brian’s review.

Given the current dire situation, with many victims waiting two or more years for their cases to be resolved and defendants spending far too long in custodial remand, the Government are right to propose structural change; otherwise, they would be endorsing perpetual delay.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

Not yet; I am conscious of the time.

The removal of the right to elect for either way offences in clause 1 is the single most significant measure in reducing the caseload of the Crown court, with the Bill’s impact assessment indicating that that change will see 16,000 fewer sitting days in the Crown court each year.

In clause 6, the Government propose to increase the maximum sentencing power of the magistrates court to 18 months. We are told that will save a further 8,000 sitting days in the Crown court. Taken together, those two measures—ending election and extending magistrates’ powers—represent a sizeable shift of the caseload out of the Crown court and into the magistrates court. That will deliver on the main objective of these reforms, which is to ensure the capacity of the Crown court to try the most serious criminal cases in a fair and timely manner. There has been less scrutiny on how magistrates will cope with their new responsibilities; I will deal with that in a moment.

Clauses 3 to 5—the provisions that have attracted the most debate—will establish the Crown court bench division to enable cases with a likely sentence of three years or less to be tried on indictment without a jury. Clause 4 will allow trial by judge alone for some complex and lengthy cases. Compared to the other measures in part 1 of the Bill, those will have a less significant effect on the backlog, but a still substantial 5,000 Crown court days will be saved.

I accept the Government’s argument that there is a strong case for modernising how the Crown court operates. Some improvement will be achieved through adopting the measures on efficiency set out in part 2 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review, or the additional resources promised under the concordat with the Lady Chief Justice that will remove restrictions on court sitting days, but those are unlikely to be enough on their own. Given the crisis that the criminal courts are facing, I am willing to support the creation of the Crown court bench division and the other measures in part 1 of the Bill.

I do not accept the case made by some that the proposals represent the end for jury trial and that the Bill should be opposed on that basis. Of the 3% of criminal cases that currently go before a jury, about a third—some 4,000—of the less serious of those offences, such as possession of class A drugs, car theft, affray and large-scale waste dumping, will now go before a judge alone. I do not believe that undermines the jury system, although it will undoubtedly change how some cases are tried. Therefore, arrangements for judge-only trials in the Crown court need to be carefully reviewed once they are in force to test whether they deliver the time saving promised without undermining the right to a fair trial.

I turn to my reservations on the proposals. I am concerned that magistrates courts will not be able to cope with the increase in caseload envisaged by the Bill. The work of the magistrates court is delivered by a range of dedicated public servants: magistrates, district judges, legal advisers, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff, probation, the Crown Prosecution Service and legal aid lawyers. However, we know that recruiting and retaining many of those key personnel are long-standing problems.

The Lord Chancellor wrote to the Justice Committee last week and told us that the Ministry of Justice hopes to recruit thousands of magistrates and hundreds of legal advisers and district judges over the next year or two. I am concerned that those are very ambitious targets, and that even if the recruitment bear fruit, they will not meet the challenge of diverting 24,000 days of complex hearings from the Crown court each year while dealing with the existing problems in the magistrates court, which has its own backlog.

Clause 7, which seeks to reform appeals from the magistrates court, will require electronic recording of proceedings. That strikes me as a significant change. The impact assessment is not clear about how much that will cost, but I doubt whether it can be delivered either quickly or cheaply.

Another area of concern is the process for allocating cases for judge-only trials. Prosecution and defence lawyers will wish to make written and oral submissions, and some may seek to challenge decisions on allocation by judicial review. To those concerns should be added the differing eligibility for legal aid in the Crown and magistrates courts and concerns that the loss of a lay presence in determining innocence or guilt risks losing diversity and adding unconscious bias.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

In the magistrates court, only those who earn less than £21,000 a year—less than a full-time job at real living wage rates—are entitled to legal aid. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is real danger in that in terms of access to justice?

[Andy Slaughter]

That is exactly the point that I somewhat briefly alluded to; I am glad that my hon. Friend outlined it in more detail. The Government really must address that before the Bill concludes its passage through this House and the other place.

In relation to both restriction of jury trials and the decision not to accept Sir Brian’s recommendation that a judge should sit with lay magistrates in the Crown court bench division, the point has been made that the lay element is being limited too far. I could say a lot more, but I am conscious of the time. Many details need to be worked out. I see why the Government are giving themselves until March 2028 to implement the Bill’s proposals.

As the Bill progresses, I hope that the Government will listen to Members of this House and the other place and to those with an interest in the criminal justice system—from lawyers to victims—on how it can be clarified and improved. The Justice Committee has held evidence sessions and been in detailed correspondence with the Lord Chancellor, the Courts Minister and Sir Brian for several months. Our current call for evidence closes tomorrow, and on 17 March we will hold a further evidence session.

I do not have time to cover the other important but less controversial parts of the Bill, but I would like to recognise the Law Commission, which has done the hard work on the proposals on evidence in sexual offence prosecutions that lies behind clauses 8 to 12. I also pay tribute to the campaigners who worked tirelessly for the removal of the presumption of parental involvement. Those measures will help to ensure that some of the most vulnerable in our society are protected by our courts.

Finally, I know that the Lady Chief Justice will be pleased that the Government have found a legislative vehicle to bring the leadership of tribunals within the wider courts structure. That is a good thing. Overall, this is a necessary package of reforms. I look forward to working with the Government to improve it as it progresses through Parliament.

Court Reporting Data

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

It is a pity that the shadow Minister is reducing this issue to one of his conspiracy theories, because I know that the Minister is an advocate of open justice, and the Government are doing a lot on open justice by televising the family courts, publishing transcripts and other means.

Courtsdesk gave evidence to the Select Committee in its 2022 inquiry into open justice, and it is, I think, the only centralised source of information for journalists. It is an important tool, because court reporting and local journalism have suffered greatly over the past years. We do need a service of this kind, so when can the Minister tell us what will replace it? In the meantime, will she continue to talk to Courtsdesk, notwithstanding what she has said today, to ensure that the information can be provided for journalists in a legitimate and legal way?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend has asked a very good question. It is vital for people to know what goes on in our courts, and local reporting of what happens there matters to wider society and, indeed, to our democracy. We recognise that Courtsdesk provided a useful service for journalists in collating information and presenting it in an accessible way, and that is what we want to be able to maintain, while at the same time safeguarding people’s data and putting it on a proper licensing footing.

On the timeline, we aim to initiate that licensing arrangement and make it available to companies more widely so that, next month, there is even more accessibility. We are very close to that, but what I will not abide is a flagrant breach of the agreement that we had with Courtsdesk and the sharing of sensitive data in a way that is irresponsible. I want the data to be available to responsible journalists to use responsibly, and that is exactly what we are getting on with.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

There is a lot of focus on replacing juries with a single judge in some criminal trials, but the Government also intend to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers, so that they can give sentences of up to 18 or 24 months, which is beyond what Sir Brian Leveson suggests. Is it the Government’s intention that district judges sitting alone will be able to sentence offenders to up to 24 months?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend and I have discussed this issue, and he knows that we need to increase the number of district judges. The forthcoming Bill will give us the power to increase the threshold for magistrates. Obviously, it will be essential to look at how that co-ordinates with the new swift bench, once we get Royal Assent towards the end of this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will shortly make a statement on violence in separation centres. I apologise that I will not be here for it as the Select Committee has a long-planned court visit, but I will read Sir Jonathan Hall KC’s report carefully. Will the Secretary of State also look at violence on the youth estate and the 44% year-on-year increase in assaults on staff by children? What are the Government doing about that?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to centre his comments on the youth justice system. We will bring forward an action plan on that area very shortly.

Prison Capacity: Annual Statement

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The prison population is comprised in significant part of cohorts of prisoners who, for a variety of reasons, should not be there in current numbers. That includes prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection, foreign national offenders, remand prisoners and, according to press reports today, record numbers of recalled offenders, only around 20% of whom have committed new offences. What more can the Government do to reduce the numbers in prison without any threat to public safety? Should the annual statement not also include statistics on rehabilitation, as the Justice Committee called for in its recent report? In the long term, stopping reoffending is the surest method of controlling prison numbers, so will the Minister comment on the hugely disappointing news in his response to our report that core education in prisons—one of the keys to rehabilitation —is being cut by an average of 20% to 25%?

[Jake Richards]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Let me deal with the education point up front. There has not been a cut to the overall education budget, but it is right to say that there are challenges because the cost of the contract has increased. We are looking at making proposals about how we can ensure that education provision has the appropriate amount of resource. We will make further announcements in due course, and of course, we have an ongoing dialogue with the Select Committee.

On my hon. Friend’s central point about the number of people in prison who some people feel do not need to be in prison, as the provisions in the Sentencing Act—which received Royal Assent just last week—come into force, they will have an effect on some of that population. We have had a regular dialogue about IPP prisoners. Lord Timpson in the other place is leading on that issue and continues to take that cohort under review.

On foreign national offenders, as I have just said to the shadow Justice Secretary, this Government are taking more action than the last Government, and the legislation we have just passed will make it easier to take further action. We have conversations all the time with other nations about prisoner transfer agreements, which will make it far easier and safer to deport foreign national offenders. This is not the end of the way; the Sentencing Act is just the beginning. As I set out in my statement, we continue to work hard to ensure we are never again in the situation we were in 2024.

Sentencing Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Member says, “It was a team effort.” I am not sure about that. The Conservatives’ position is an example of real constitutional vandalism. It has never been the case that this Bill would threaten the independence of the judiciary. Our amendments, and the proposal set out in this legislation, ensure that there is a democratic lock around sentencing and that there is a role for this place, but that the Sentencing Council remains independent. That is absolutely the right thing to do.

I welcome the degree of consensus on transcripts. The Conservative position on this amendment, at the back end of last week and then early this week, seems to have changed a few times. Our amendment in lieu strikes the right balance. If anyone could seek a free transcript of sentencing remarks, we might be in the position where our court staff, who have a big job in getting a grip of the backlog, spend all their time issuing transcripts.

Let me turn to the issues raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). We have to look into the question of what happens with transcripts when victims are either children, deceased or where there is a lack of capacity. It may be that the victims code does that already for us, but we have to get it right and we will ensure we do so as the policy is developed. She mentioned her concerns about exceptions and omissions and asked me to ponder on examples when those exceptions could be engaged. Of course, this may be relevant when there are issues of national security or public safety, but one would hope that such circumstances would be extremely exceptional. It is important, though, that those provisions are in the Bill.

We believe that our amendments will allow for more openness. They are ambitious but also realistic, considering where the technology is at the moment and the pressures on our court system. Do we want to go further when we can? Absolutely. We believe in the fundamental principle of transparency and openness in our justice system, and where we can, we will.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I apologise that I was not here for the Minister’s opening speech; I was chairing the Justice Committee. I do not think that matters, though, because I agree with him on the amendments. They strengthen the Bill considerably. They bring more openness and transparency, and we welcome all the recommendations here, whether in relation to the Sentencing Council, to the prison capacity report, to the transcripts through the amendments in lieu, or to IPP prisoners. They are all welcome improvements on the Bill. We think that they need to go further in some areas, particularly in relation to IPP prisoners, but this is a good step along the way.

[Jake Richards]

I always welcome an intervention from the Chair of the Justice Committee. As I said following an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox), the work on IPPs is an ongoing process led by Lord Timpson in the other place. I know that he is always happy to engage with hon. Members from the Select Committee.

I conclude my remarks by stating firmly that the Bill will solve the mess that this Government inherited and begin to make sure that our prison system is fit for the future. I once again thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have engaged with the Bill throughout its passage. Their expertise strengthens it in many important respects.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7.

Jury Trials

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The background to this debate is well known. Against that background of a historically high and growing backlog of cases in the Crown court provoked by the previous Government, the former Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to undertake an independent review of the criminal courts with the aim of bringing the backlog down. Part 1 of the review was published in July 2025, and suggests structural and policy changes. Sir Brian made 45 recommendations, a few of which concerned changes in mode of trial; those have become the main issue of contention, because they restrict the right to jury trial. The policy changes proposed came first because some require primary legislation, but in a matter of weeks we will also have part 2, which will look at greater efficiency in the Crown court and may be less contentious.

Sir Brian makes clear that all the recommendations and both parts of his report are a package, not a pick-and-mix selection. That is because he believes that the crisis in the Crown court, with trials for serious offences waiting three or four years to be heard, is so severe that every lever must be pulled to control and then reduce it, and in that he is surely right. Moreover, this is not a short-term problem. Changes in the complexity and detail of criminal cases mean that longer and more legally and factually difficult trials are here to stay. For that reason, Sir Brian does not recommend that changes should be temporary or curtailed, for example by a sunset clause, in any legislation.

So what happens now? First, we must have Sir Brian’s full report to consider, and, as I have said, part 2 is due imminently. Secondly, we must have the Government’s response to the report, saying which recommendations they accept entirely or in part and which they reject. Then will come the Bill putting necessary recommendations into law and accompanied, we are told, by an impact assessment giving greater statistical colour to the effect of the proposals on the backlog.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

I will give way once, but I am aware of time.

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman is an expert in this area, but if every lever needs to be pulled, should not the cap on sitting days be removed? That would make a far bigger difference to the process of clearing the backlog than removing jury trials.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am coming on to that. The number of sitting days has already increased substantially in comparison with what the last Government did, and I think that it should increase further, but I also think that when Sir Brian says “every lever”, that is exactly what he means.

The likely date for all the documents that I have mentioned to surface will be some time in the spring, ahead of the end of the current parliamentary Session, with the Bill carried over into the next Session and becoming law later this year.

On 14 October 2025, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) led a debate in Westminster Hall on

“the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1”.

I commend to Members the report of that debate, which was well informed and measured on all sides. I do not think that today’s debate will take the matter further in the absence of the documents that I have described, but here we are. In the meantime, there have been some loud protests about certain of Sir Brian’s proposals from parts of the legal profession and from some Members of this House. They include replacing the right to a rehearing of a case decided in the magistrates court with a limited right of appeal, and extending trial by judge and magistrates to more serious offences than is currently the practice of district judges in the magistrates and youth courts by creating a Crown court bench division.

The Government have said that they wish to go beyond Sir Brian’s proposal for a judge to sit with two magistrates in some cases currently tried by judge and jury, and allow a single judge to decide guilt or innocence in cases likely to attract a sentence of up to three years’ custody. They also go further than Sir Brian in proposing to extend magistrates’ sentencing powers to 18 or possibly 24 months, and removing entirely the defendant’s right to elect. Where the Government seek to go further than the independent review, they should set out clearly their reasons for so doing.

The most controversial proposal is to curtail the right to trial by jury in between a quarter and a half of cases where it is currently available, while retaining it for more serious offences. My own view is that trial by jury is not an absolute or immutable right. The availability of jury trial has varied and generally become more constricted over the ages, in criminal and civil cases—those involving defamation and inquests—through the reclassifying of offences from either way to summary only.

I am pro-jury. I think that a lay element in the criminal justice process is reassuring, introducing a more democratic element into a profession regarded by some as elitist and homogeneous. I think that the involvement of citizens in the criminal justice system, whether jurors or magistrates, is good not only for the individuals and the legal system but for society generally. However, where we draw the line between jury trial and other modes of trial is a matter of degree and judgment, not of legal or moral principle. I think that there is nothing wrong with reviewing the appropriate forum for trial, as has been done many times, whether in its own right or because it is a piece of the jigsaw that will create a better system overall. I would like to see more evidence to support the contention in Sir Brian’s review that significant time will be saved and a significant increase in the number of cases heard will result. I would like to hear that there is more money for sitting days, for trial counsel and for functioning courts; that courts are run more efficiently; that listing is as good at every Crown court as it is at the best; and that Serco and Amey deliver prisoners to court in good time to start the day’s proceedings, not halfway through the afternoon.

We are not going to get the answers to all these questions today, although I hope that we will before long. I prefer the Government amendment, which anticipates the provision of this information, to the Opposition motion, which prejudges what it will contain, and I acknowledge that the Government have already increased the budget and have already introduced greater-efficiency measures.

The Justice Committee is seized of this issue. We heard evidence from Sir Brian Leveson in November and interrogated the Lord Chancellor in December, and next week we will hear from opponents and supporters of the proposed reforms and from the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, who opened this debate. We may have some criticism of the Bill or of the Government’s response to the review and seek to amend, but, like the Government and, I think, Members in all parts of the House, we hear every week of fresh indignities heaped on victims of crime, and on defendants too, who are made to wait for years beyond what is humane, often in a physical or mental prison, for a resolution of their cases. Not to consider them is not to be serious either about the damage that delay is doing to individuals or about the damage that it is doing to confidence in our courts.

This is not a one-way valve; there are gains and losses, whatever course we take. For the present, I am prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt that they are looking for every possible measure to repair our battered justice system. I certainly prefer their honest endeavour to the gamesmanship of the Conservative party, which broke the system and now seeks to use its dilapidated condition as a political tool.

HMP Leyhill: Offender Abscondments

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

In the light of these escapes from a class D prison, will the Government look again at the policy and process for moving prisoners to open prisons earlier in their sentence as a consequence of prison overcrowding? Does the legacy of the previous Government mean that prisoners may be located in prisons because of the space available, rather than their suitability for the type of offender?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his probing. He will be aware that to deal with the crisis in prison capacity that the Tories left us, this is what we had to do. The policy of moving prisoners to open prisons began under the Conservatives. Typically, they tried to keep quiet about it when they were in government. We have been open and transparent. We have looked at exactly how we have done this as part of our strategy to deal with overcrowding and, thankfully, through our Sentencing Bill—which the Tories are trying to wreck, by the way—we will ensure that our prisons never ever reach breaking point again. However, open prisons are part of the course to rehabilitation and part of ensuring that we make better citizens rather than better criminals, and they have worked and operated effectively under successive Governments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The Select Committee has just begun an inquiry into access to justice. The evidence we are getting suggests that civil and family legal aid in particular are in a dire position, with fees now approximately half what they were 28 years ago. There have been welcome increases in housing and immigration fees, but what wider plans does the Secretary of State have to review legal aid fees, particularly in the area of civil and family law?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will recognise that the uplift of £20 million in housing and immigration is significant; it is actually the first major uplift in his and my time here in Parliament. He is right that we should look across the piece at civil legal aid, combined with what is happening in our courts, and I will continue to do that over this next period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a crisis in family mediation, with no confirmation of mediation vouchers going beyond next April and over half of legal aid providers having been forced to give up in the last eight years? Does he agree that this is short-sighted, as mediation saves time, money and families, and will the Government work with the Family Mediation Council to rescue the sector?

[Mr Lammy]

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