Child Contact Arrangements

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Catherine Atkinson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and commend her for securing such an important debate.

I want to start by reflecting on the stories that she shared—stories of children feeling unheard and of families in anguish. No one could listen to them and fail to be moved. As a mum, I find them really difficult to hear, but people do not need to be parents to understand the pain that they describe. Anyone who cares about children, their safety, their wellbeing and future, as all of us here do, will recognise the profound responsibility carried when decisions are made about their lives. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her determination and persistence in bringing these issues to light.

I know from my hon. Friend’s previous speeches in the main Chamber, as well as from the meetings she has held with my colleague Baroness Levitt, just how deeply she cares about ensuring that children’s voices are not lost in family court proceedings. She is right; no one could disagree that children must be at the heart of any decision that the court makes about contact, or indeed any decision that has a profound impact on their lives. Whenever we seek to reform the family justice system, it is these children we work for. It is their welfare, experiences and futures that matter. They are who I have in mind when I speak today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby spoke powerfully about the work she is doing in the context of the Courts and Tribunals Bill and the need for children’s voices to be heard and believed when they say that they have experienced abuse. The question is, are we listening when a child tells us that something is wrong?

The family courts often deal with the most complex, painful and emotionally charged circumstances imaginable. Throughout those proceedings, the child’s welfare must be the guiding principle. I assure my hon. Friend that that is precisely the approach enshrined in section 1 of the Children Act 1989, which makes it clear that the child’s welfare will be the court’s paramount consideration when the court is making a decision about the upbringing of a child. It is also why the welfare checklist set out in section 1(3) of that Act requires the court to consider, among other things, the clear wishes and feelings of the child concerned. Those requirements reflect a fundamental belief that children are not bystanders; they are individuals with experiences, views and voices that matter.

My hon. Friend also raised the issue of so-called parental alienation—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), who also raised that issue. I reiterate the Government’s position clearly: we do not recognise parental alienation syndrome. We do not believe that it can be diagnosed.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

It is true that the Government do not recognise parental alienation and the syndrome, but courts too often do. In fact, a report released just yesterday by the campaign group Right to Equality that analysed language used in family court judgments found that over 70% of those judgments used victim-blaming language. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to open up the Judicial College to some scrutiny if those are the kinds of judges that it is producing?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I was discussing that report with Baroness Levitt yesterday, so it is one that I am conscious of and one that we will be looking at.

The Family Justice Council has published guidance to assist courts in handling cases of this nature. Importantly, the guidance recognises that there can be entirely justified reasons why a child might fear or reject contact with a parent. Those reasons can include domestic abuse, a parent’s limited involvement in the child’s life and poor parenting. The guidance is explicit that where findings of domestic abuse are made, a child’s rejection is a justified response to that abuse. That behaviour should not be characterised as alienating behaviour. That is incredibly important because children who have experienced abuse have already shown extraordinary courage in speaking about what has happened to them.

The justice system must be capable of hearing those voices fairly and with compassion. Taken together, the legislation and the Family Justice Council’s guidance are clear: children’s voices must always be central in those cases. I also acknowledge the important point made by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), as well as the fantastic work that contact centres undertake. That work is so important to the relationships of parents and their children and wider family relationships as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby also raised the experiences of families who believe that they have been wrongly separated from their children following allegations of so-called parental alienation, and their difficulties in accessing an appeal. As I have said, she is absolutely right to highlight those cases, and the families affected have my deepest sympathies. The human reality of that is of a parent and child being torn apart, and a family living with uncertainty, grief and deep distress, with seemingly no straightforward means of resolution.

That is why I welcome the important work being undertaken by the Family Justice Council at the invitation of the former president of the family division to consider whether an alternative and more appropriate procedural approach is needed in cases where unregulated parental alienation experts have been instructed. Although it would not be appropriate for the Government to pre-empt the outcome of that work, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby that we recognise the importance of the concerns and are closely monitoring the work as it progresses.

My hon. Friend also raised an important question: what more can we do to ensure that children’s voices carry weight in family courts? That is the most important question for our system to consider, and it is right that we continue to ask it. I assure her that there are already encouraging signs of progress. In March, the president of the family division released a toolkit to guide judges on how to write to children so that they better understand the decisions that affect their lives. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and CAFCASS Cymru continue to strengthen the way that their staff engage with children. The Family Justice Board brings the voices of children into the heart of the Government’s work in this area by including representatives of the Family Justice Young People’s Board in its meetings. That means that those responsible for driving improvement in the system hear directly from children and young people, but we know that there is more to do.

My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the child-focused model. Following a highly successful pilot, we are rolling that model out nationally over the next three years. It is a significant change in approach. Too often family proceedings become focused on the conflict between parents—between adults. The child-focused model centres on the needs and views of children at the start of every case through the introduction of the child impact report. That report represents an assessment of risks and issues through direct engagement with the parties, with relevant agencies and, crucially, with the children themselves in most cases. That means that judges receive better information earlier and can make orders that are safe and sustainable, sparing many children the trauma of their cases repeatedly returning to court. The impact is already clear: cases operating under the model were resolved about twice as fast as the national average, which means that children can get on with their lives rather than being stuck in the limbo of family court proceedings. Importantly, children who have experienced the model consistently report feeling listened to; one young person described feeling as though a weight had been lifted from their shoulders. That speaks volumes.

My hon. Friend also spoke about wider reform, including the case for a family justice Bill. I understand that ambition but would point to the significant programme of reform already under way. We are repealing the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989. As my hon. Friend mentioned, that is testament to the brave fight of campaigners such as Claire Throssell, my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) and many more. Through the Victims and Courts Act 2026 we are restricting the exercise of an offender’s parental responsibility in cases of serious child sexual abuse and where a child is born of rape. My colleague Baroness Levitt has confirmed that we will implement Jade’s law by the end of the year. Taken together, those measures will protect thousands of children each year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby also rightly raised the problem of unregulated parental alienation experts. Families facing family court proceedings are often navigating some of the most difficult parts of their lives. It is absolutely essential that experts are suitably qualified, properly regulated and held to appropriate professional standards. So-called experts on parental alienation are practising the kind of pseudoscience that we do not want to see in family proceedings.

I again thank my hon. Friend for securing a debate on such a crucial topic and for her determination in championing these issues. Every child who comes into contact with the family justice system is already navigating the most difficult circumstances. They deserve a system that protects them, that listens to them, and that puts their welfare above everything else. I believe that every hon. Member in the Chamber shares that goal. We want children to be safe, to be heard, and to have the chance to move forward with stability and hope. That is what this Government are determined to achieve.

Question put and agreed to.

Family Justice System: Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Catherine Atkinson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I am honoured to speak in my first Westminster Hall debate as the Minister for Victims and Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls, particularly given how important this topic is. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing the debate. He and many Members, including the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), clearly set out the concerns around family courts enabling the continuity of abuse. The hon. Member for North Cornwall also set out concerns in relation to economic abuse; I would welcome further work with him on that.

The Government have a clear commitment to halving violence against women and girls within a decade, and I want to begin by making it clear that ensuring that victims of domestic abuse are protected in the family court is a core part of the work that we are undertaking to achieve that aim. The courts must deliver safe outcomes for the children and families involved in proceedings, many of whom are among the most vulnerable in our society.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) set out the additional concerns that can be raised when there are further vulnerabilities or special educational needs. There is mandatory training for His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff, and the judiciary is supported by the “Equal Treatment Bench Book” to enable that effective participation in proceedings. Importantly, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service must always consider the impact of protected characteristics, including additional needs or neurodiversity, in relation to a child’s ability to engage. However, there is always more that needs to be done to ensure that the most vulnerable have their voices heard.

I reassure Members that the family courts have a range of measures available to them to protect victims and stop perpetrators. The Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), who has incredible experience, set out some of the special measures that already exist, which include allowing someone to give evidence via video link or from behind a screen. Members also raised the importance of independent domestic violence advisers and independent sexual violence advisers, who are permitted to accompany parties in proceedings in order to provide them with support.

I am also aware that, in some instances, abusers seek to use repeated and vexatious applications to the family courts as a method of furthering their abuse. That is clearly unacceptable. There are means to stop perpetrators when they attempt to make vexatious applications, including making orders under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 to prohibit further applications. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick set out, the courts can prohibit in-person cross examination by alleged abusers and appoint a qualified legal representative to undertake cross-examination instead.

While those measures represent important protections, we are committed to going much further, both in relation to safeguarding victims and reforming the family courts. It cannot be warm words; there needs to be action. A core part of our work to reform the family courts is the child-focused model, which is a new approach to certain private law cases relating to children that is designed to improve the experience and participation of children and families in proceedings. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham and others mentioned the harm panel, which has hugely informed the work of child-focused courts.

Under the child-focused model, families benefit from a streamlined problem-solving approach, which brings forward a holistic assessment of needs and risks, and enables the court to make safe decisions without delay. The model ensures that victims of domestic abuse and other harms receive specialist support from independent domestic violence advisers, who also undertake a risk assessment to provide the court with expert insight into the risk of domestic abuse within the case.

Critically, under the child-focused model, the voice of the child is made central to the case, with the percentage of children seen by social workers more than doubling. Evidence from areas where the model is in place shows that it is working. Cases are being resolved up to seven and a half months faster, and the backlog has fallen by over 50%. That is why, in March, the Deputy Prime Minister committed to rolling out child-focused courts nationally over the next three years, along with an investment of £17 million in 2026-27 to support the next expansion to a further eight court areas across the north-west, the north-east and the midlands.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick also talked about the effectiveness and impact of FDAC courts. I am conscious of how important they have been in many areas and would welcome further engagement on that.

Beyond the new model of child-focused courts, we are committed to a significant legislative package to ensure that victims of domestic abuse can have confidence in the family courts. Through the Courts and Tribunals Bill, we have introduced to Parliament the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement. Alongside our wider changes, that sends a clear signal that the welfare of children must remain paramount. Courts will adopt an open-minded inquiry into what is in the child’s best interests, rather than starting from the assumption that the involvement of parents will be appropriate.

I pay tribute to the Family Justice Young People’s Board and a number of organisations, including Women’s Aid, as well as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner. I also pay tribute to Claire Throssell, whose sons were killed. She has been campaigning for years on this issue. The repeal of the presumption of parental involvement must be dedicated to her and her sons, Jack and Paul.

Through the Victims and Courts Act 2026, we have legislated to automatically restrict the exercise of an offender’s parental responsibility where they have been sentenced to four years or more for a serious child sex abuse offence committed against any child, or where rape has led to the birth of a child. That is in addition to Jade’s law, passed in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which will provide for the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility where one parent kills the other. Baroness Levitt has made it clear that the Government will implement it by the end of this year.

We are also working with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to limit the instruction of unregulated experts, including unregulated “parental alienation” experts, because we know that allegations of parental alienation can be made in response to allegations of domestic abuse, often when a perpetrator is seeking to deflect attention from their own behaviour. The hon. Member for Wokingham and my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) both raised the issue really powerfully, and I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has undertaken in this area.

The Family Procedure Rule Committee approved changes to the family procedure rules in April, and the intention is that those changes will be introduced through a statutory instrument in the summer. Once implemented, the rule changes will require any expert instructed in children’s proceedings, subject to limited exceptions, to be regulated by a UK statutory body or by an approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007, or be on a register accredited by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care.

Taken together, these measures will protect thousands of children every year. I understand the point that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), raised in relation to accountability. The training that the Judicial College provides is essential to ensuring we have the consistency and expertise that we need.

[Dr Mullan]

It is all very well to send people on training. As a doctor, I have sat in on training sessions. People can be in a training seminar together, and some will pay attention and some will not. Some will take it seriously, and some will not. If there is not a system of accountability at the other end, training can become a tick-box exercise if we are not careful.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Of course, as he set out, we always need to be mindful of long-established principles of judicial independence in these matters. However, ensuring that we have the right training in place will go a long way towards ensuring that we have the family courts that we need, and towards ensuring that we have effective systems in place.

Collectively, these reforms represent a large body of work. We want to make sure there is clarity on what we are doing, which is why the Ministry of Justice is working with the Department for Education and partners across the family justice system to draft the family justice strategy. The strategy will be published later this year, and it will set out the Government’s plans to improve the family justice system, reduce court delays and ensure that all families get the support and the outcomes they need.

Alongside that, we must ensure that we support all victims of abuse to recover and rebuild their lives. Over £1 billion is being invested over the next three years to support victims of violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse survivors. That includes funding for safe accommodation, advocacy, counselling and specialist services. In particular, my Department is increasing funding for victim support services, year on year, from 2026 to 2029, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressures of delivery.

[Dr Mullan]

I have asked the Minister about this before, and she did not answer. Maybe I will get an answer this time. One thing she might set those additional support services to do is let people know when perpetrators will get out of prison earlier because of the Government’s decisions. Can she at least commit to writing to victims to let them know in advance that their perpetrator is going to be let out of prison earlier?

[Catherine Atkinson]

Communication is absolutely essential, and a huge amount of work is being done to ensure it is in place. I am proud to be building on the work of my predecessor in that space. In relation to victim support services, it is important that, in total, the Ministry of Justice will invest £550 million in support services over the next three years of the spending review.

Many hon. Members raised the incredible and essential work that so many support services do. I thank Kaleidoscopic UK for being here, and for its work. Many other services were mentioned, including Your Sanctuary, IDAS, Glasgow Women’s Aid and Women’s Aid more broadly, Rights of Women and Refuge. I pay tribute to the work they do and the difference they make to people’s lives.

I hope my remarks have reassured the hon. Member for Wokingham and all hon. Members who spoke in this vital debate. I thank him for securing a debate on such an important subject. We all share a deep commitment to safeguarding victims of domestic abuse, to ensuring that they are fully protected and supported, and to making sure that the family courts cannot be used as an arena for perpetrators to continue their horrific acts.

The Government will continue to press forward with our reforms to the family courts. We will continue to work with operational partners, the courts and all the many groups that do vital work to support victims and protect children and families, and to make those important changes. The hon. Member said that children are at the centre of this, and I agree. They must be our focus, and they always will be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

4. How he plans to work with the Prime Minister’s adviser on women and girls to help tackle violence against women and girls through the criminal justice system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Catherine Atkinson)]

This Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls. Baroness Harman will report directly to the Prime Minister and work across Government to ensure that we deliver the urgent change that is needed. There are few who can match Baroness Harman’s decades-long commitment to women and girls. She has consistently driven change, and I look forward to working closely with her in our new roles.

[Dave Robertson]

In March, the Prime Minister agreed to meet survivors of abuse by Mohammed Fayed, the former owner of Harrods, Fulham football club and other businesses. Almost 500 survivors have come forward, all of whom have been waiting for years, and in many cases decades, for justice. Can the Minister confirm whether the Prime Minister’s adviser on women and girls will attend that meeting, and what progress has been made on scheduling it?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his continued leadership as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the survivors of Fayed and Harrods. I was in contact with Baroness Harman yesterday and will raise the possibility of her joining the Prime Minister’s meeting with victims and survivors. I too would be humbled to meet those for whom my hon. Friend has advocated so powerfully both in and outside this Chamber.

[Dr Gardner]

I welcome the announcement of a record £100 million expansion of GPS tagging for domestic abusers following a pilot by the Greater London Authority that saw reoffending fall by up to 63%. However, the current plans will apply only to the highest-risk offenders. Given that all domestic abuse is serious and many perpetrators escalate their violence on release, I am concerned that this will allow abusers to slip through the net. Will the Minister consider extending GPS tagging to all convicted offenders of domestic abuse, not just those deemed high risk?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her consistent and proactive support for domestic abuse victims. Ensuring that it is perpetrators and not victims who are punished and restricted is key to the DAPOL—domestic abuse perpetrators on licence—pilot that will be rolled out nationally from September. Offenders are tagged on release and subjected to strict conditions, such as exclusion zones and curfews. DAPOL will allow the Probation Service to tag any and all offenders who are considered to be at risk of perpetrating domestic abuse. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her concerns.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Further to the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), and on the basis that justice delayed is justice denied, will she seek to use her good offices with the Home Office to ensure that the Metropolitan police expedite their investigations so that the hundreds of women who suffered at the hands of Fayed can at last have the justice that they deserve?

[Catherine Atkinson]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that justice delayed is justice denied, which is why this Government are taking such proactive steps to reduce the delays that victims are experiencing. I would be happy to meet him and other Members who I know are hugely concerned about the impact of these cases on victims and survivors.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister to her place. Almost the first thing the Prime Minister’s new adviser on women and girls did after she was appointed was to say on social media that Arooj Shah, the recently defeated leader of Oldham council, should be given a peerage. She did so despite the fact that Shah spent years trying to block a full inquiry into rape and grooming gangs in Oldham. What does the Minister think that says to victims and survivors, and how can they and the public trust the new adviser now? I would also be interested to know whether the Minister agrees that Shah should be made a life peer.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Baroness Harman’s record speaks for itself. She has spent decades turning words into action, whether by passing landmark legislation, strengthening protections or relentlessly pushing this issue, which should never be used for party political point scoring, up the political agenda. It is this Prime Minister and this Government who are determined to halve violence against women and girls. Our VAWG strategy sets out the plan to do so, and we are getting on with the job of delivering it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I welcome the new Minister to her post. For all the policies she might be glad to inherit, she is also inheriting a plan later this year to let out potentially thousands of the worst offenders against women and girls, including rapists and those responsible for sexual assault. The Government are refusing to be transparent about this and are not answering freedom of information requests and written questions about how many rapists and sexual assault offenders will be allowed out of prison earlier. Will this new Minister turn over a new leaf and at least be transparent about how many rapists the Government will be letting out of prison early later this year?

[Catherine Atkinson]

The Conservatives left a criminal justice system in which victims wait years for trials and feel traumatised by their experiences in court and in which our prisons were full, with the system at risk of collapse. That is not to mention the Probation Service, which, after the Conservatives’ failed privatisation attempts, was on its knees. It is this Labour Government who are taking action to halve violence against women and girls, reduce the time that victims wait to see justice and better support victims with record investment in victim support services.

[Dr Mullan]

I ask the Minister to think about a situation in which a victim of rape comes to her constituency surgery whose rapist is currently in prison but will now get out of prison earlier. I wonder what that victim would think about the answer the Minister has just given to a serious question about a serious issue. If she refuses to tell the House that information, will she—at the very least—commit to writing to all the women and girls whose offender is currently not due to come out of prison for two or three years, but who will now be getting out this year? Will she at least have the good grace to tell the victims when that is going to happen?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I meet constituents every week, and victims will always be my priority. The hon. Gentleman has come to this House time and again to list horrific offences, but he has not once apologised for the damage that his party did to our justice system. Victims will not forget the mess the Conservatives created, forgive their failure to take action or be fooled by their claims to care now. It is this Labour Government who have committed to halving violence against women and girls, and this Labour Government who have the plan to make it happen.

[Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

5. What steps his Department is taking to help prevent people convicted of domestic abuse from using family court proceedings to harass their victims.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Catherine Atkinson)]

Perpetrators must not be allowed to use the family courts to further their abuse. While the family courts already have a range of tools designed to protect victims, we are going further by rolling out the child-focused courts model nationally.

[Richard Quigley]

While I welcome the steps the Department has already taken to prevent perpetrators of domestic abuse from using the family courts to continue coercive control, will the Minister look to ensure that legal aid is accessible to victims in pathfinder courts, particularly at decision hearings, given the worrying reports that it has become nearly impossible to access it in practice, so that perpetrators cannot exploit this process and continue their campaigns of harassment?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for again speaking up on behalf of domestic abuse victims. I remember the powerful debate that he secured on protecting children from domestic abuse. The Government recognise the vital role that legal aid plays in supporting victims of abuse. Child-focused courts, otherwise known as pathfinder courts, have been rolled out to 10 court areas, most recently the Isle of Wight in January. Legal aid is available in child-focused courts for victims of domestic violence or those at risk of abuse, but we are aware that there are challenges affecting timely access. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend on this issue, and I assure the House that we are working to resolve this matter swiftly.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

About one in 20 rural households experience some form of domestic abuse, although experts believe that this figure is significantly understated owing to chronic under-reporting. Evidence shows that financial control and exclusion from business decisions are a particular feature in rural areas. The pressures of multigenerational living, the unique stresses of farming life and the combination of geographic and digital isolation can all heighten vulnerability. Will the Minister set out what specific steps the Government are taking to address those rural risk factors and improve reporting pathways, and will she consider setting up a special committee to look into this issue?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this important issue. Alongside the roll-out of child-focused courts, more work needs to be done to look at coercive control. I know it is an issue of real interest to many across the House, and it is something that the Government take very seriously.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of proposed changes to jury trials on the criminal justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

9. What progress his Department has made on a new victims code.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Catherine Atkinson)]

The Victims’ Commissioner will deliver a new, strengthened victims code. We have engaged with victims, support services and criminal justice professionals in a consultation that closed on 30 April, and we are now taking time to consider nearly 200 responses. We will issue a public response ahead of finalising the new code and bringing it into force.

[Patrick Hurley]

In my constituency, an acknowledged victim of violent crime is being alleged to be contributorily negligent in the civil courts. That is retraumatising, and appears to be contrary to natural justice. Will the Minister meet me and my constituents to discuss this further, and see what measures can be put in place to address concerns about how the civil law system deals with such cases?

[Catherine Atkinson]

The new victims code will ensure that victims know what services, support and information they are entitled to in the criminal justice system, but our civil and family courts should never be used to perpetuate the trauma that victims have suffered. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend, or to arrange a meeting with the relevant Minister, so that we can better understand the case that my hon. Friend raises, and what his constituent faces.

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

In 1990, Dr David Birkett was brutally murdered in a crime that shocked the Teesside community. He was discovered by his young daughter, who is a constituent of mine. Despite the Deputy Prime Minister’s very welcome opposition, the murderer was recently released. May I thank the Ministry of Justice for agreeing to a request from me and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for a meeting with my constituent to hear her concerns about the process, and about her interactions with the Parole Board leading up to the murderer’s release? I know that the matter is subject to an ongoing judicial review, but I thank the Ministry of Justice for its continued attention to this case, and urge it to learn what we can do to support victims in the future.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for raising this deeply distressing case. I pay tribute to Dr Birkett’s daughter for her courage in continuing to engage, which is truly commendable. He is right that the Parole Board is independent of Government. The Deputy Prime Minister’s application for reconsideration was not considered to have reached the threshold. He decided to seek permission not to set aside the Parole Board’s decision, but for judicial review of the decision, and that has been filed. I await the response, and hope that permission is granted, but I reassure the right hon. Member and Dr Birkett’s family that this Department will continue to seek to mitigate the hurt that they are feeling.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

11. What steps his Department is taking to help prevent the criminalisation of children while in care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

T9. The latest Women’s Aid annual audit highlights that nearly 80% of domestic abuse survivors now face devastating tech-facilitated abuse and online stalking. How will the Ministry of Justice collaborate across Government to ensure that our courts and prosecutors are fully equipped to tackle digital violence?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Catherine Atkinson)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her consistent efforts to raise the issue of online harms. Whether it is physical, verbal or online, abuse is abuse, and this Government are determined to tackle violence against women and girls online as well as off. We are making it illegal to take or make intimate images without consent, including deepfakes. Our new deletion orders will ensure that courts can require offenders convicted of intimate image offences to delete images of their victims. The VAWG strategy sets out our plan across Government to tackle digitally facilitated violence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State outline what steps he is taking through the criminal justice system to support victims of violence against women, particularly those who report historical cases of sexual violence? Several of my young constituents have faced terrible communication, years of delay, and ultimately the Crown Prosecution Service not progressing with prosecution.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Those of us who have spent years campaigning to address violence against women and girls know that we are building on the work of pioneers. Baroness Harman was one of those pioneers, and I am looking forward to working closely with her across Government to deliver our VAWG strategy. As part of that we will be delivering the new victims’ code, which will set out the service, support and information that victims are entitled to. We are supporting victims with the largest ever investment of £550 million in victim support services.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

In the past six months, the black country was rocked by two horrific cases of Sikh women being raped in racially aggravated assaults. The two attacks shook the entire community to our core, but it recently came to light that a Reform party election candidate celebrated those appalling attacks. Thankfully, he has now stood down after being elected just two weeks ago. Will the Minister say more about how women will be supported in such cases, where not only were they victims of horrific sexual attacks, but racial hatred was also involved?

[Catherine Atkinson]

It is unsurprising, but yet again we do not have any Reform MPs in the Chamber. People will be shocked to hear about those cases of racially aggravated sexual violence, and any comments celebrating them are utterly repugnant. The Government are determined to support victims of violence against women and girls. We are committed to supporting victims not only with £550 million for victim support, but we are also introducing independent legal advisers for adult rape victims.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

What assessment has the Minister made of the report concerning communication between the former Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, and the International Criminal Court prosecutor, Karim Khan, regarding the court investigation into war crimes in Gaza? What steps is he taking to uphold the independence of the international judicial institutions that we set up?

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Sexual assaults and harassment on trains have risen by more than a third over the past 10 years, yet too many trains and stations still lack adequate CCTV. That evidence gap lets criminals evade justice and fails victims. What steps are the Secretary of State and his colleagues taking to improve CCTV coverage across the whole rail network, so that perpetrators of violence against women and girls can be brought to justice?

[Catherine Atkinson]

My hon. Friend and neighbour shares with me a keen interest in rail, as we represent a city that is at the centre of the largest cluster of rail companies in Europe. We have launched a new campaign to drive up reporting of harassment on trains, and the new safer railway scheme, under which train operators must show what they are doing to tackle violence against women and girls so that they can travel with confidence. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on that initiative.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The former Minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls said that real change in combating violence usually came only after threats from her following “catastrophic mistakes”. Does that not confirm that the Government are unwilling to take the tough decisions necessary to tackle violence against women and girls?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I am honoured to take up the role and build on the incredible work that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) undertook. She was absolutely essential to the development of the VAWG strategy, “Freedom from violence and abuse”, so that this Government have a plan to prevent violence, pursue and prosecute perpetrators and support victims. We will be working across Government to deliver the strongest crackdown in British history.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

My constituent Tam is a mental health legal aid lawyer who has seen demand in the sector rise while fees fail to keep up. As a result, many have left that line of work, despite the Government’s Mental Health Act 2025 increasing the workload. This is unacceptable when people’s liberty is at stake, so what specific assessments has the Department made of the current sustainability of the mental health legal aid sector, and what concrete steps is it taking to ensure the financial viability of that sector?

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

Not now—later. I will.

I want to appeal to Labour Members. We are engaged in ideological strife. But in the Venn diagram that any society depends upon for the sustaining of sufficient points of common ground to keep a society together, jury trial is one of those that appear in a point of intersection between the vast numbers of this House and outside it.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) first, if she can give me just two seconds. I want to develop this theme, because it is very important to me.

There are some things that have to be above politics. If there are not, we have no society to defend. Jury trial is one of those institutions that have been defended by those across the aisle from me, on the opposite extreme of the political spectrum, and by those on our side of the House, out to the furthest waters of the right. Why is that? Because the administration of justice must be a non-ideological space. Jury trial unites us all for a simple reason: it is the most powerful instrument and engine of social justice that this country has ever invented. It is a safeguard against oppression. It is a built-in defence against establishment and administrative power.

[Catherine Atkinson]

On that point—

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Colchester first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

There has always been a summary jurisdiction—invariably never for offences of dishonesty, and invariably never for offences that might lead to the destruction of the reputation of those who are facing it.

If one Member of this House, who must be disqualified if there is a sentence of imprisonment of more than 12 months, after the passage of this Bill is arraigned before a court on a case that might involve 12 months and one day, he or she will lose the right to a trial by jury, despite the fact that that might be an offence of protest. It might well be an offence where the Member of the House has felt so powerfully that they must breach the law that they are arrested and arraigned on a potential sentence of up to three years. Three years is a long time. As that could easily be an offence of protest, are we therefore saying that those who seek to go to jail, such as the suffragettes, should lose their right to trial by jury—a jury that is not obliged to follow the diktats or directions of a judge on the law; a jury that is entitled to reach its decision on its judgment about what is fair? I say—

[Catherine Atkinson]

Will he give way?

[Andrew Cooper]

Will he give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

No, I am not giving way. I am mindful of time and I must complete what I have to say.

This is a time when not just this House but the judiciary and the courts are under attack. The unprecedented attacks upon the judiciary and the legal profession are deplorable. Institutional trust is under siege, and now is not the time—[Interruption.] I am trying to make a speech that is non-partisan—[Interruption.] It really is not. I remember vividly when I sat where the Lord Chancellor now sits and he was on this side of the House. I remember the fire that breathed from his soul as he spoke about justice. I can hear him now, in my mind’s eye, speaking on this subject, and I know that he would have been saying the direct polar opposite of what he is advancing today in the House. I would say that he was his wiser self in those days. He was his best self then, because at that time he was motivated by those who were oppressed, who were poor and who faced the full phalanx of the state reined against them. It was this Secretary of State in a different guise who was their champion and their voice.

A jury trial is the most potent weapon and instrument against oppression and injustice. It serves not just those who are wealthy but those who are poor, and not just those who have a voice but those who do not. It is the 12 members of a jury who will give a hearing to people who otherwise have no hearing—

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

I will not take interventions now, and certainly not if they are of the quality that we have had up till now.

The reality is that jury trial is the cornerstone of our justice system. Do away with it and we are in trouble. Let us look at the way in which this Bill operates. It automatically presumes jury trial for everything that will have a likely sentence of three years, and those will involve some grave offences. However, in relation to serious, complex or lengthy cases, it could cover any allegation, so long as a judge concludes that it is appropriate that it should be dealt with without a jury. Apart from the excluded offences, which I accept exist, it is not just fraud trials but all kinds of trials that will be tried without a jury if a judge concludes that is appropriate.

The moment we make jury trials subject to the individual view of a judge as to whether that is appropriate or not, we drive a hole through the fundamental, accepted right that all of us on both sides of the House have accepted over so many years, which is that if someone is accused of a serious crime that could destroy their reputation, disqualify them from the House of Commons, wreck their professional reputation or result in the loss of their employment—as with the postmasters and postmistresses—they should be able to be judged by 12 people.

There is a reason why summary justice is called “summary”. There is a reason that summary justice was always subject to a complete rehearing. It has been suggested that there is no right to a jury trial. Of course there is no written right, but there has always been an accepted consensus, on both sides of this House and throughout the system of this country, that jury trials are precious for those kinds of cases, particularly those involving allegations of dishonesty. The right to elect is crucial. That is what this Bill is undermining. That is what is so dangerous about it. And undermining it on what basis? Arbitrary rules and arbitrary divisions. Why three years? Why not next year four or five? Why not extend it gradually, little by little, until we reduce—

[Catherine Atkinson]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

No, I am not giving way. Let me make that clear now. I want to finish in a moment.

The reality is that jury trial is too precious a thing to lose. We are faced with a question of principle here. The savings that the Government claim will be made are contested by many expert analyses from the profession, the Institute for Government and others. They are based on questionable assumptions. Are those savings sufficient for us to abrogate a fundamental principle that attracts almost universal assent across the political spectrum, which is so rare in our institutional and political life? Are they sufficient for us to take this highly unprecedented and questionable step? I would submit that they are not.

I would submit to the House that we should pause long and hard before we encroach upon this fundamental principle. I have seen it work in practice over 40 years and, as I have said, I have never failed to be awe-inspired by the sheer quality of attention and fairness that a jury brings to its deliberations. Summary justice can never replicate that. We are about to take a step that will irretrievably damage the quality of justice in this country.

I do not watch television much, but sometimes I watch something called “Digging for Britain”. It is apparent from that programme that we can tell when a civilisation starts to degrade when the quality of its architectural constructions changes; they start to look cheaper, and there is less attention to detail. If we take this step, we will be degrading our system of justice. A summary justice trial is summary—the clue is in the name—but that has always been corrected by the power to have a full rehearing in the court above: the Crown court. The Bill is even taking that away. We are ensuring that many thousands of people will be dealt with summarily in cases of great importance to their life and reputation.

I can only appeal to the House—ineffectually, perhaps; and I regret that I have attracted comments from Labour Members suggesting that my comments are controversial. They come from the heart, and from my 44 years’ experience of a system and a profession that I love. If I have attracted the ire of Labour Members, I apologise for that; I was hoping to induce reflection on the sheer importance of the institution about which we are to take this important decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course that is an important point—we are not debating that. Of course the backlog is wrong, but this is not the right way to correct it. The backlog is caused by administrative delays or, if hon. Members want, cuts to the judicial system; it is not caused by trial by jury. Of course we put defendants first.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I may give way in a moment.

Others, not necessarily in our country, have commented on this. Alexis de Tocqueville observed in the 19th century that the jury

“places the real direction of society in the hands of the governed”.

That was in his book, “Democracy in America”, and the great republic has followed our example.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

The point I wish to make, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that this Bill should address the challenge faced by the immigration system. Alongside the Bill, the Government have a parallel proposal to abolish the current system and to replace immigration tribunals with a new appeals system. I believe that that should be debated in the House and that it is relevant to this Bill, but I will move quickly through my points about this issue so as not to irritate you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This Bill offers an important opportunity to address the immigration system. I am concerned that the creation of a new body and the abolition of the appeals tribunal is not the right approach, and that it will devalue the tribunal judges who are ready and available to sit and hear more cases. I genuinely welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of an extra 26,000 sitting days for that chamber, but extra days will not be useful if there are not enough judges to sit for them. In the words of a judge who wrote to me,

“there are not enough judges and if the Home Office does not do the work quicker at their end, which is where the delay is, it makes no difference.”

There are enough immigration and asylum tribunal judges, but we need them to be allowed to sit for more than 220 capped days to deal with the backlog. I tabled a written question on this point. Those judges are prevented from being paid more than salaried judges, and therefore there is an effective cap on their sitting. Those are the kinds of issues that we need to deal with, as well as dealing with the backlog in the criminal courts and allowing our courts to be used for two sittings each day—am and pm—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester explained. Those are the kinds of measures that would speed up the criminal justice system, not the abolition of trial by jury for those cases that would be affected.

Some hon. Members have made the point that trial by jury is not necessarily a constitutional right in all cases, and we understand that. However, denigrating trial by jury as unimportant or a minor right does not help the argument of those who are seeking to abolish it for certain cases. Looking back, it has been called in case law a

“highly valued part of our unwritten constitution.”

Going back to the 18th century, Lord Justice Camden said that it was

“the foundation of our free constitution”.

In the 20th century, Lord Justice Devlin said that

“it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives”.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I fully agree that jury trials are a hugely important part of our justice system, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the way that summary offences, either-way offences and indictable-only offences are classified has altered over the years? That classification was changed in the 1970s and in the 1980s, and it is incorrect to try to portray our legal system as one that is unchanged in 800 years.

[Gideon Amos]

Of course I accept that the legal system has evolved and changed, and that the right to trial by jury has changed, but my concern is that in serious cases, where someone could be imprisoned for up to two years and their reputation destroyed, people would want to be tried by jury. Our legal system currently protects that right, but that would be swept away by this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the Bar.

I rise to oppose the plan to curtail jury trials, because restricting jury trials is wrong in principle and wrong in practice. Trial by jury is not some quaint tradition that we can trade away when Ministers feel the pressure. As has been said, it is one of the great democratic safeguards in our justice system; it allows ordinary citizens to be judged by their peers and the power of the state to be held in check. It is dangerous to challenge that principle, because there is a reason for it: the balance between the state and the citizen. History teaches us that changing that balance in favour of the state is a dangerous road to go down. The power that we are giving the state is not simply the power for it to issue a fine; we are talking about people losing their liberty.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I, too, am a passionate believer in the jury system, but Sweden—which is No. 1 in the World Justice Project’s global rankings—does not use jury trials at all, and neither do Norway, Germany or the Netherlands. In France, Denmark and Canada, only the most serious cases are dealt with by juries. My hon. Friend is not suggesting that those countries do not have liberty, is he?

[Imran Hussain]

What I am saying is that there is a reason that we protect this liberty—this cornerstone of our system of justice and democracy. When we see this much of a change in state power, I will tell my hon. Friend who is at the receiving end first: it is black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, working-class communities, elderly communities and women who are disproportionately impacted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It has been a positive debate in terms of the exchange of ideas, and there have been some fantastic contributions. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for the very personal way in which they made their cases. There is consensus that for victims, the current waits are terrible and an experience that they should not have to go through. It is not only damaging for them as individuals, but some of them drop out as a result. We see perpetrators who would have been found guilty walking away and escaping justice, and we see defendants who would have been found innocent having to wait too long to have the accusations over their head removed.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Mullan]

Not yet.

We must have a serious discussion about why that is. It was disappointing for those who sought to put forward a credible analysis of what has happened that the Justice Secretary and most Labour Members did not mention the word “covid” once. In reality, the backlogs in the Crown court under this Government before covid were lower than those we inherited from the previous Government.

It is fair to say that for many years—25 years, as we heard from the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell)—it has been accepted that not enough political attention has been paid to our justice system. The question is, what do we do about it? There is no single answer to that question, because there is no single problem. A whole variety of things are going wrong in our justice system. We are seeing late pleas because of insufficient early advice, faulty courtrooms, a lack of reports from probation services, and problems with prison transport. All those problems, and others, cause the delays and other issues.

The central recommendation of the Leveson report was for more sitting days— 130,000—and that will require more venues, more court staff, more prosecution staff, more solicitors and more barristers. However, as I have mentioned, there are simpler things that we can do ahead of that, and we need look no further than Liverpool Crown court under the leadership of Andrew Menary. At a time when the national average wait from charge to trial is 321 days, that court manages an average wait of 206 days. As far as I am aware, neither the Justice Secretary nor any of his team has visited Liverpool Crown court to speak to the judge and hear how he does that. In fact, he achieves it partly through the use of early guilty pleas. Nationally, we lose court time because too many people—31%—plead guilty on the day of a trial. In Liverpool, the proportion is just 6%. Those are not bold reforms. They are not measures that allow a Secretary of State to give a grand speech and consider himself a great reformer. It is just hard work, or what one Member described as “pretty boring” stuff that gets the job done.

As was pointed out by the hon. Members for Warrington North and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), these reforms will not only fail to achieve what the Government claim they will; they will be an overbearing, destructive distraction from that sort of hard work. And what will the Government gain? Certainly not what they claim in the impact assessment, which is full of assumptions and fantasies, and certainly not anything that might be described as modelling. The Government want us to believe that 24,000 Crown court days will simply be converted into 8,500 magistrate days, but they have no evidence for that claim. They want us to believe that trials without juries will be 20% shorter, but they have no evidence to support that claim either.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she has done, alongside many others, on behalf of black and Asian women in particular to make sure that that work is included in Baroness Amos’s report. That is central to the work that she will do. We know that there are high risks. There are engagement groups as part of that work, and I will make sure that my hon. Friend and others are kept up to date on that.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Earlier this month, Derby County Community Trust launched its “See you at your smear” campaign, encouraging women across the city to visit the pop-up cervical screening clinics that are in place until March. The trust does amazing work on women’s health. We know that increasing the uptake of smear tests is very important as, nationally, one in three women are overdue. Will the Minister outline what work she is undertaking with the Health Secretary to improve smear test uptake?

Sentencing Bill

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Over the course of this speech, I will set out what the Government are doing more generally to increase rehabilitation and crack down on reoffending. The hon. Gentleman states that there is a suggestion that this Bill is somehow soft on crime. I say gently to him that by the end of this Parliament, there will be more offenders in prison than ever before, so I completely reject that assertion.

I want to briefly pay tribute to the campaigners who have informed large parts of this piece of legislation and the amendments we are discussing. We are introducing tough restriction zones that limit the movement of offenders instead of the movement of victims. The new restriction zones, which will be given to the most serious offenders on licence and can be imposed by a court, will pin any offender down to a specific location to ensure that victims can move freely elsewhere. This was campaigned for by Diana Parkes and Hetti Barkworth-Nanton, the founders of the Joanna Simpson Foundation. Once again, I pay tribute to them and all those who have campaigned for this crucial change.

Clause 6 introduces a new judicial finding of domestic abuse in sentencing, which will enable probation services to identify abusers early, track patterns of behaviour and put safeguards in place. I must pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats, and in particular to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for his tireless campaigning and willingness to work across parties to deliver this crucial change, which I know all Opposition parties support.

More generally, it is worth remembering that this legislation was carefully drafted as a result of the independent sentencing review led by the former Conservative Justice Secretary, David Gauke. [Hon. Members: “Great man.”] “Great man”, the Conservatives say, but they are voting against every single one of his proposals. I take this opportunity to thank him again for all his work—it was a thorough, comprehensive and excellent piece of work.

We are determined to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible—there is an urgency to this process. I remind the House that alongside this legislation, the Government are building prison places at a faster rate than ever before. In our first year, we opened nearly 2,500 new places, and we are on track to add 14,000 by 2031. In the next four years alone, we will spend £4.7 billion on prison building, but we cannot simply build our way out of the crisis we inherited from the Conservatives. The pressures on the system demand that we reform sentencing, but I remind the House that nothing in the Bill changes sentences for prisoners convicted of the most serious, heinous crimes who are serving extended determinate sentences or life sentences.

The Bill delivers vital reforms to our probation services. We are rebuilding the service that the last Government decimated, increasing investment by up to £700 million by 2028-29—a 45% increase. We are also recruiting; in our first year, we hired 1,000 trainee probation officers, and we are on track to hire 1,300 more this year. At this point, I want to pay tribute to all the hard-working probation officers in our country. They deserve full credit for what they do, and it has been important for us to find the extra resources to put into this service, to grow the numbers and the support available.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

In government, the Conservative party oversaw a disastrous privatisation of probation, which ended in a £500 million bail-out by taxpayers. Our Probation Service plays a critical role in the rehabilitation of offenders and in keeping our communities safe, so can the Minister further set out how the Bill will ensure that our probation systems are strengthened and fit for purpose?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Can the Minister perhaps restrict himself to the amendments?

Jury Trials

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

We are facing a real and serious crisis in our criminal courts. It did not happen overnight and it certainly did not happen by accident. It is the result of 14 years of neglect, and it is now denying justice to people up and down the country. Right now, around 80,000 cases are waiting to be heard in the Crown court. If we do nothing, that number will only grow. As we have heard today, in some areas cases are being listed in 2030.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really frustrating to hear people say that the backlog is the result of covid, when it is clear that backlogs were increasing before covid as a result of underlying factors including substantial real-terms cuts to the justice system, court closures and reductions in judges and court staff? They began rising in 2019, the same year that the previous Government cut sitting days.

[Emma Foody]

Absolutely. I agree with my hon. Friend. I am immensely frustrated at the rhetoric on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I will touch on some of those points in a moment.

There has quite rightly been much reliance on Sir Brian Leveson’s report; he is a jurist of great distinction, and his work deserves careful reading, rather than convenient citation. Notwithstanding his analysis, this is a fundamental change to our legal system, and what is conspicuously absent from the Government’s argument is compelling evidence that jury trials are the principal driver of delay. If we are serious about confronting the backlog, we must look unflinchingly at the real causes: the prosaic but decisive failures of capacity, of which the jury trial is merely the most visible casualty.

The first issue is judicial sitting days. Courts cannot hear cases without judges. For too long, we have rationed judicial time as though it were a luxury, rather than the lifeblood of the system. Courtrooms stand idle not because juries cannot be summoned, but because there are no judges available to sit.

The second issue is the court estate. In too many parts of the country, criminal courts are dilapidated, unreliable and, frankly, unfit for purpose. Trials are delayed because of leaking roofs, broken technology and inadequate facilities.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Is there a part of the hon. Gentleman’s speech where he says that the reason that so many of our courts are dilapidated and falling down is because we did not see investment in 14 years of Conservative Government?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Lady is right to a degree: there has been failure by successive Governments to invest in the criminal justice system. If we were serious about this issue in this place, we would look at cutting welfare, which spends the entirety of the Ministry of Justice’s annual budget in just two weeks. We need to prioritise spending, and the criminal justice system has been left high and dry for far too long by Governments of all colours.

It is now routine for trials to be adjourned because defendants either arrive late or do not arrive at all, with juries discharged, witnesses turned away and days of court time lost as a consequence. These delays have nothing whatsoever to do with the presence of a jury, and everything to do with operational failure in the system.

The next point I wish to make, and possibly the most grave, is about the erosion of the criminal Bar. We face a serious shortage of suitably qualified advocates both to prosecute and to defend. Cases are delayed because no one of appropriate experience is available or willing to take them on. That is not inefficiency, but attrition. Curtailing jury trial risks mistaking the symptom for the disease. Worse, it risks creating a system that is perhaps faster, but thinner, and ostensibly more efficient, but unquestionably less legitimate.

I think of the words of Lord Hailsham, a former Lord Chancellor and one of the greatest legal minds of the previous century, who warned this very House of the dangers of an “elective dictatorship”, and the slow accretion of power to the state at the expense of the citizen. The jury trial is one of the great counterweights to that tendency, ensuring that the coercive power of criminal law is exercised only with the consent of the community. Juries do much more than merely find facts; they embody public confidence, guard against institutional complacency and remind us that justice is not something merely administered to the people, but done with them. If the Government believe that it is right to curtail that right, they must show clear evidence that jury trials cause the delay, that alternative modes of trial would be demonstrably faster, and that fairness, legitimacy and public confidence would not be diminished.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I wanted to be a barrister from when I was a child. I did not know any lawyers, and I think I got most of my ideas about what lawyers did from TV shows, but jury trials is what I wanted to do. Some of my most memorable moments as a barrister were prosecuting and defending in front of juries, so I get the importance of jury trials, but I also saw courts falling down and delays getting longer and longer, and I have spent recent years hearing former colleagues talk about cases that are listed for three, four or five years’ time. We have heard that the Crown court backlog is sitting at 78,000 cases, and in every single case, justice is being put on hold—a family is left reeling from a burglary, a teenager is recovering from assault, or a survivor of sexual assault is waiting years for her day in court. It is not acceptable.

Of course I want increased funding, and with this Labour Government we are already beginning to see that; an additional £450 million per year has been earmarked for the court system over the spending review period to fund the increased number of court sitting days. However, Sir Brian Leveson made it abundantly clear that the current system cannot stop the backlog from growing. With more digital evidence being presented in court; more DNA, cell site, electronic and social media evidence; and the massive disclosure exercises, trials are more complex. Sir Brian Leveson found that jury trials are taking twice as long as they did in the year 2000.

I spent over a year of my time as a barrister working on a complicated insider trading fraud case. We spent huge amounts of time and resource working out how we would present that prosecution to a jury. This is not to say that juries are not capable, but in terms of suitability and proportionality, I need no persuasion that trial by jury is often not appropriate in fraud trials and similarly technical trials.

We must be absolutely clear that the proposal is not to scrap jury trials. The proposal is to amend the type of cases that are heard by juries. The types of cases being heard by jury have changed and evolved over time. It was the Conservatives who, through the Criminal Justice Act 1988 , made offences such as common assault and criminal damage summary only, and not subject to jury trial. We are rightly proud of our legal traditions, but it is untrue to suggest that the lack of jury trials is somehow unique to despotic regimes. Sweden, which is No. 1 in the World Justice Project’s global rankings, does not use jury trials at all. Norway, which is ranked No. 3, also does not—nor do Germany and the Netherlands. In France, Denmark and Canada, only the most serious cases are heard by juries.

I believe that jury trials are a fundamental part of system, and it is right that they remain so, but something has to change. Without really bold action, the backlog will continue to grow.

[Alison Griffiths]

I just wonder why the hon. Lady would not look to implement the recommendations from the shadow Secretary of State before seeking to restrict jury trials.

[Catherine Atkinson]

There are a huge number of additional measures that will be rolled out, and I look forward to continuing to engage with Justice Ministers on other measures that I believe will help. We have more coming after the next stage of the Leveson review.

We need bold action to ensure justice for victims across the country—and not years in the future. They need a criminal justice system that works. We all—the British people—need to have faith in our criminal justice system again.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson). I listened to her speech very closely, and it was largely invalidated by the admission of the Minister that she would have made this change anyway, irrespective of any backlog. The hon. Member cannot guarantee the House—neither can the Minister—that the backlog would come down after the abolition, or partial abolition, of trial by jury, because there has been no impact assessment or modelling shown to the House. I am sure that the hon. Member will concede that.

The Minister is making this change under the guise of modernisation, but we must be very clear about what is at stake: 800 years of legal precedent. This right is set out in Magna Carta—and how clever they were in 1215 to come up with a legal mechanism that made sure that individual citizens have the right to pass judgment on their peers. This mechanism goes right to the heart of our society and shapes the relationship between the individual, or group of individuals, and the state. That is so the state cannot abuse its power in making a decision about taking away someone’s liberty or livelihood, or their reputation; a panel of peers makes that judgment. That is what is at stake.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Will my hon. Friend consider how Conservative Governments were wrong to reduce the number of types of offences heard by juries? Does he agree that it is absolutely necessary to see some modernisation, acknowledging that criminal trials and the evidence presented in those trials has changed over the years?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I am delighted that the hon. Member called me her hon. Friend; I accept such an accolade. I agree with trial by jury, as stated in the motion—it has validity in where it is in place—and Opposition Members think that reducing it, as the Government propose, without any assessment or guarantee of numbers, is wrong.

The hon. Member and many other Labour Members set out a number of ways—albeit in a party political guise—in which we could reduce the backlog, but the reality is, the Government are not even talking about those seriously; they are talking about reducing jury trials. I was here when the Justice Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box and said that they would reduce jury trials to reduce the backlog. Those two things do not go hand in hand. That is why there is cross-party opposition as well as opposition from judges and all sorts of organisations, including the Criminal Bar Association, which says that this will not achieve what the Government want it to.

A constituent of mine—a local barrister who sees this day in, day out—wrote to me about improvements in sitting days. He wants to see investment in sitting days, and the Conservatives have called for that. We have also called for prisoner transport services to be on time, as well as—I think the Minister referred to some of these points—the targeted removal of cases that can no longer be prosecuted and, of course, investment in basic court infrastructure. If all those issues had been assessed and invested in, there may even have been cross-party support, as offered by the shadow Justice Secretary. I was surprised by the Minister’s tone; she then made the glaring admission that this change would have happened anyway.

This is about big statist ideology, undermining trial by jury. We continue to hear, as we did from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), that this proposal will undermine fairness in the system. Fundamental to this, in my view, is arrogance. There is arrogance in saying, “Actually, lawyers will know better than juries.” The whole nature of trial by jury is not about expecting an individual juror to have expertise in everything; it is about collective decision making that takes away bias and discrimination. No Government Members can guarantee that an individual judge—as neutral as they must be and as professional as they are—will not demonstrate those biases. That is the point we are making: the Government’s plan undermines one of the most fundamental individual liberties that we rely on in society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I am pleased to wind up this Opposition day debate on the Prime Minister and Justice Secretary’s ill-considered, poorly evidenced and rash plan to curtail one of our cornerstone rights—the right to a trial by jury—which the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) colourfully described as one in which the bottom fell out of the Government’s argument.

I disagree with the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary on very many issues, but today, for once, I find myself in fulsome, wholehearted agreement with not just the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary, but the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards). I agree with all three of them that jury trials are a crucial, vital part of our justice system that should be protected wherever possible. Even with this Prime Minister, who has an unrivalled reputation for having opinions that last as long as they remain popular with whoever’s vote he is seeking at a particular point in time, we are in the extraordinary position where the Government are now putting forward a proposal that the Justice Secretary, the Justice Minister and the Prime Minister himself all previously argued vigorously against.

In fact, I am going to indulge in a degree of parliamentary plagiarism—I am going to let them do the hard work of writing at least some of my speech for today. First, I will hand over to the Justice Minister, who previously said on the issue of limiting jury trials:

“Instead of weakening a key constitutional right, the government should do the hard work…We all have the right to be judged by our peers when the prospect of imprisonment from society is before us. To take that right away would be a wholly draconian act.”

Next, let me ask the Justice Secretary to take over. He said:

“Jury trials are fundamental to our democracy. We must protect them.”

He also said:

“Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.”

I could not have said it better myself.

Finally, although I appreciate that he is a busy man, I will lean on the Prime Minister’s carefully considered words. He said:

“The general and overriding presumption should be jury trial, with very, very limited exceptions”,

and,

“The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.”

That question of balance is at the heart of the matter. The Minister, as well as Labour Back Benchers—thin on the ground though they have been—have rightly pointed out that we have criminal trials without juries. That is a fact, but it is no argument for these measures. If that is the Government’s argument, we could simply do away with jury trials entirely without anyone being concerned. It is and has always been a balance, but as the Justice Minister, the Justice Secretary and the Prime Minister understand—or understood at one point at least—altering that balance should be considered only when there is no other option.

To draw a comparison that illustrates the seriousness of the matter, during the pandemic—at the heart of the crisis that was widely accepted to be the biggest challenge to face our nation since world war two—jury trials continued. In fact, it was during world war two that we last saw proposals anything like as radical as those we are considering today, but even they did not come close to this proposed curtailment. During that time, we reduced the number of jurors from 12 to seven in most cases. When our nation was under attack and every element of life was turned over to the war effort, we modified but fundamentally retained the right to jury trials.

I am pleased to say that the meeting of minds between me and the triumvirate who are making this decision is only the beginning; I find myself in common cause with 37 Labour MPs today. It is fair to say that the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), as well as the hon. Members for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) are very far from me on the political spectrum, but, like other colleagues, they are clear that these proposals are wrong, and I wholeheartedly agree. When there are 37 names on a signed public letter, any decent Whip would know that there are at least the same number lurking in the background, not willing to go public but rushing to answer the phone call from the Whips at the weekend to say that they are not happy with the proposals.

What do those 37 Members say? They say that the proposal is “madness”, that it

“will cause more problems than it solves”,

and that

“the public will not stand for the erosion of a fundamental right, particularly given that there are numerous other things the Government could do to more effectively reduce the backlog.”

That final point takes us right back to the issue of balance. The Government have quite simply failed to articulate why these proposals are the only way forward. They might have received a more sympathetic reception had they strained every sinew to tackle the issue and truly exhausted all other options since their election.

As our motion acknowledges, the courts are under unprecedented pressure—no one disputes that. The delays are too long, victims are waiting too long for justice, and defendants are left in limbo. Prior to the pandemic, the Crown court backlogs were lower than those that we inherited from the previous Labour Government—I do not remember Labour MPs being concerned about that at the time—but then covid hit and placed unprecedented strain on the criminal justice system, leaving a long and difficult legacy. The result was an enormous reduction in court capacity that led to backlogs shooting up in a way they never had before.

I remind the ouse again that even during that challenging time, there was cross-party support for the guiding principle that jury trials should continue. After the pandemic, England and Wales resumed jury trials faster than many comparable countries, following one of the shortest suspensions anywhere, because they were treated as a priority. The previous Government opened, and extended the use of, 20 Nightingale courtrooms, increased the number of judges and raised the judicial retirement age to retain experience in the system. In a short number of years, we increased the number of sitting days by more than 20,000—an unprecedented level. Despite that, the loss of capacity could not simply be undone.

[Catherine Atkinson]

In the light of the shadow Minister’s comments about sitting days, does he condemn the Conservative cut of nearly 15% of sitting days in 2019 and congratulate this Labour Government on increasing the number of sitting days?

[Dr Mullan]

As the shadow Justice Secretary outlined, there has not been enough investment in the justice system over many decades. I also want to make it clear that the claim about a record number of sitting days is a bit of a statistical anomaly, because, as the Government know, there was a change in how sitting days are measured. Using the historical measure to make the comparison, we matched that number of sitting days—and perhaps even surpassed it. Of course, we uncapped sitting days for a number of years during the pandemic. This Government have failed to do that, and they have failed to rapidly increase the number of sitting days, which the Institute for Government said makes things more difficult. As I said, there is no dispute about whether there are long-standing issues, as Members across the House acknowledge. The question is what to do about them.

Let us be clear about how many of the unacceptably long waits are the result of a wait for a jury trial. The Justice Secretary has rightly been criticised for quoting statistics about victim drop-out rates in a deeply misleading way. We do not want to see any victims drop out for any reason, or any long waits, but fewer than 10% of drop-outs occur post-charge, and that figure is coming down. It is not helpful to understanding this issue for Members to cite waits of six or seven years that in fact relate to the delay from alleged offence to sentencing. Yes, waits for trial from point of charge are too long, but that is just part of the picture.

Jury trials are not a quirk or a happenstance for how we deliver criminal justice in this country; they are a foundational principle of our justice system reaching back to Magna Carta. For more than 800 years, ordinary men and women have been trusted to sit in judgment, to weigh evidence, and to decide guilt or innocence. That public participation is not a flaw in the system; it is one of its greatest sources of legitimacy. Removing juries, even for a narrow category of cases, let alone the radical changes before us, alters the relationship between the citizen and the state, and replaces collective judgment with individual arbitrary authority.

[Catherine Atkinson]

In light of the shadow Minister’s comments, does he think it was wrong of the then Conservative Government, through the Criminal Justice Act 1988, to make offences such as criminal damage and common assault summary only, removing juries for those offences?

[Dr Mullan]

I wonder whether the hon. Member was listening to my speech. I have said throughout that the issue is one of balance. As the Prime Minister, the Justice Secretary and the Minister have said, we must tread carefully; for the hon. Member to draw comparisons between minor changes and wholescale huge reductions in the use of jury trials shows that she fails to understand that the issue is one of balance. The obvious flaw in the argument being made by the Government in support of these measures—that they are to tackle what we should all consider a temporary problem—is that the measures are permanent. There is no plan to reverse them when the backlog is down, as the temporary measures in world war two that I mentioned were reversed.

HMP Leyhill: Offender Abscondments

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The right hon. Lady will be aware that the decision regarding Parole Board recommendations to move prisoners to open prisons has been made by successive Governments. This is a policy decision. The Parole Board makes independent decisions. At the time of those risk assessments, no concerns were raised about the risk of harm to the public or absconding in relation to any of the prisoners who have absconded.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

When we see offenders abscond from prison, it is understandable that many people feel unsafe. Our thoughts are particularly with the victims and their friends and families. Does the Minister agree that absconding is not only a serious criminal offence, but a symptom of years of austerity and chronic underfunding that saw our prison system pushed to breaking point?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. This is just another symptom of the crisis we inherited in our criminal justice system. Whether prisons, courts or probation, every single aspect of the system was at breaking point following 14 years of underfunding and mismanagement by the Conservative party. We are working as quickly as we can to bring back to justice the two prisoners who absconded. My thoughts are with the victims. We have made contact with two of the victims and their families via the victim contact scheme. I encourage the public to get behind the police’s public appeal to bring those prisoners to justice.

Criminal Court Reform

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

No, I do not.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Victims are waiting for years for their cases to go to trial. Christmas after Christmas, they are unable to heal or move on. The backlog of cases is now a record 78,000, and it was growing under the Conservative Government before the covid pandemic. Does the Secretary of State find the hypocrisy and faux outrage of the Conservative Opposition as galling as I do, given that reform is needed to clear up the mess that they made of our criminal justice system?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend has put it very well. As I have said, it worried me when the shadow Justice Secretary did not mention victims at all, and he did not talk about the Conservatives’ record in office, either. Much has been said about further investment, but behind those questions is the suggestion that we should ask victims to wait for another decade for it, and I do not think we can do that.

Prisoner Releases in Error

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The Government inherited a prison system so weakened by austerity, but it was also overcrowded by a justice system that failed to look at rehabilitation as well as punishment. Will the Secretary of State redouble the Department’s efforts to match employers who want to give prisoners a chance to learn skills and the habit of work with the opportunity to do so while serving their sentences and afterwards, so that we can ensure that our communities are safer because we rehabilitate as well as punish?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because she emphasises punishment that works, and that has to mean skills, education and employment so that people do not go on to reoffend. We have inherited a system where recidivism rates are beyond 60%, which means that the system is not working even though it is overheated. We have to look at those issues in time. The Sentencing Bill is the beginning of the story, but we will have to return to those issues if we are serious about reducing reoffending.