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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Cambridgeshire is a part of the country that I know well, having spent seven years of my life in Peterborough. I will look closely at this issue, and I will ask the Prisons Minister to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss how we move forward.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The Probation Service plays a vital role in our justice system, and is integral to ensuring that community sentences are effective and that our communities are kept safe. The Conservatives’ part-privatisation reforms were disastrous for our Probation Service. What are this Government doing to ensure that our probation officers are properly supported in carrying out their vital jobs?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The decisions that were made under the last Government by the then Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, were catastrophic for a wonderful service, and we are now in the business of rebuilding the Probation Service. I have been very pleased to visit probation workers in Chatham, Kent, and in Islington recently, and one of the things they raise is their caseload. In Kent they were trialling our transformation fund money, which is introducing artificial intelligence that can help them do what they want to do: provide face-to-face contact and reduce their caseloads. I want to see that rolled out across the country.

Sentencing Bill

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

As always, I welcome the contributions of the Chair of the Justice Committee. I am very aware of the array of amendments that he and I discussed before Committee stage last week. I have not returned to them in the last seven days, but we will no doubt do so in the coming weeks as the Bill progresses.

I will briefly touch on the issue of probation. A number of amendments have been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and spoken to by other hon. Members. The Government accept that the Bill places an extra responsibility on the Probation Service. That is why we are investing £750 million in probation—a 45% increase, and the biggest upgrade to investment in probation for a generation. We are investing £8 million to improve technology, so that probation officers can undertake probation work rather than be stifled by the burden of paperwork. We recruited 1,000 probation officers in our first year and 1,300 this year. However, there is undoubtedly more work to be done, and we will undertake that work in the coming weeks and months.

This Government have been very clear that work must be at the heart of our prisons. Ensuring that offenders work will mean that they can be rehabilitated and, when they leave prison, can enter society with the prospect of employment. Clearly, some of the details of how that work provision is provided and the role of the private sector have to be worked out carefully. I am very happy to meet the justice unions parliamentary group to discuss that, but I will never apologise for ensuring that there is work provision in our prisons, because it is absolutely vital. Labour is the party of work. We believe in the inherent value of work, and work in our prisons plays a vital role in rehabilitation.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his response on work in prison. I completely agree that it makes a huge difference in enabling prisoners to stop their reoffending behaviour. When 80% of offending is reoffending, costing over £18 billion a year, it is clear that we need to enable people to turn their lives around. Does he agree that our communities will be safer when we are able to tackle reoffending rates?

[Jake Richards]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. She raised this important issue in a recent Adjournment debate. We are taking steps to provide further work provision in our prisons, working with the private sector, the third sector and others, but we certainly accept that there is more to do.

I will briefly respond to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on new clause 24. He asked me a direct question, and simply put, we do not agree. The Government do not think that this new clause is necessary. Our view is very clear on the legal analysis of the proposed change. The deportation of foreign national offenders will not be prohibited by the provisions of the Windsor framework. If he disagrees with that analysis, I am very happy to meet him to discuss it and look into it. He is absolutely right that it would be wrong if, in the scenario he painted towards the end of his speech, different parts of the country had different provisions for the deportation of foreign national offenders. I want to give him that reassurance at the Dispatch Box.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson]

Domestic abuse remains the deepest scar on our society, and it demands our collective action to eradicate it. Please can the Minister outline the measures in the Bill that will help tackle this invidious form of violence and enable improved support for victims during the process?

[Jake Richards]

In that regard, the most important part of the Bill is the domestic abuse identifier. It has been worked on, on a cross-party basis, with outside organisations that are campaigning for it. It is an innovative and important step to ensure that these cases—it is a broadbrush so that different offences can all be covered by the one term—can be tracked through the criminal justice system and out to safeguarding agencies to ensure that women are kept safe from their abusers.

Sentencing Bill

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

My right hon. Friend makes his point clear. The Minister was listening, and I hope that he will answer that question in his remarks.

People cannot seriously think it is acceptable for those who commit offences involving firearms or ammunition, or even those who commit terror-related offences, to be eligible for a suspended sentence, but as things stand, those offences would be covered by the Bill. My new clauses 51 and 53 would amend that ludicrous position, and new clause 52 would exclude burglars. We do not see nearly enough burglars in court, because of a lack of detection of their crimes, so the ones we do see in court should routinely go to prison, not be spared jail, as they would be under these measures.

New clauses 43 and 45 would mean that those assaulting our dedicated police officers or emergency workers would not be eligible for suspended sentences; they are eligible for them under this Bill, and that is an absolute disgrace. When the Government were in opposition, they made a huge noise about how those who assault emergency workers, police officers and prison officers should be sent to prison. For example, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) introduced a private Member’s Bill that became the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, under which the maximum prison sentence for assault on an emergency worker was increased from six months to 1 year.

Part of the problem is that all too often people do not feel that there will be justice at the end of the process. When in opposition, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) said:

“the attitude…sadly exists across the criminal justice system…that being punched or kicked is somehow to be expected and accepted....we will never accept that people should be assaulted while they are doing their job and we will do everything in our power to protect them.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 1150.]

The hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) said:

“We must put legislation in place to guarantee that a tough line will be taken on anyone who assaults an emergency worker.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 1172.]

That is what Government Members said when they were in opposition, but they are ensuring the exact opposite now; these offenders will be let out on a suspended sentence. I cannot believe that Government Members would not join me in voting for new clause 43. I would like to test the will and the temperature of the House on that matter, and I will not back down on that.

The presumption in the Bill against immediate custody will also apply to those committing a host of other nasty, violent and sexual crimes, all of whom will be eligible for these get-out-of-jail-free suspended sentences, if they are sentenced to 12 months or less for their crimes. New clause 50 would mean that offences with a mandatory minimum sentence would not be included in the Bill; that would alleviate the damage in some cases.

New clause 54 would exclude from mandatory suspension sentences that can be appealed for being unduly lenient. The unduly lenient sentence scheme covers sexual offences; stalking; putting someone in fear of violence, serious harm or distress; controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship; and inflicting grievous bodily harm or unlawful wounding, among other offences. It would be nonsense for crimes included among the most serious under the scheme to be dealt with by way of a suspended sentence, instead of immediate custody. How would the measures in the Bill work on appeal? Would all sentences be overturned as being unduly lenient, or would the new law trump that scheme? My new clause would inject a bit of common sense and avoid all these questions.

My other amendments mainly concern the past of the offender. It is bad enough that a first-time offender who has committed a serious crime will avoid prison, but it is outrageous that under the Bill, serial offenders will be rewarded for reoffending. New clause 46 would mean that any offender who has committed three or more offences in the preceding 12 months would not be eligible for a mandatory suspended sentence, and new clause 47 would stop them from qualifying if they had committed 10 or more offences previously. People are committing multiple offences, yet the Government are letting them off with a suspended sentence.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Eighty per cent of offenders are reoffenders because of the 14 years of mess that this Government are having to clear up. The real travesty of justice is that there are no prison cells available for people who are convicted. The last Government failed to build the prison places that are needed; this Government will ensure that they exist, because they will always be needed. It is as though the Conservatives left the tap running and are whining about the flood that they let happen.

[Esther McVey]

I am glad that the hon. Lady raised that point. When I was brought back into the Cabinet Office, people in the left-leaning civil service, in the Ministry of Justice, said, “Let’s let people out of prison. It’s running too hot.” Thankfully, I stood firm and said no, and so did the Conservative Government, unlike this Government, who have let thousands of people out of prison and are destined to do so again. I am afraid that this is ideological. Labour Members do not think that more people should go to prison; they think that those people should be in the community. That is ideological, and certainly not logical. It does not support law and order in this country, and it is a slap in the face for victims.

[Catherine Atkinson]

On that point, will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Esther McVey]

I will not.

New clauses 48 and 49 would mean that offenders would not be eligible for a mandatory suspended sentence if they had previously been given a suspended sentence or an immediate prison sentence for the same offence. If an offender commits a burglary now and goes to prison for it, and is convicted of committing another burglary after the measures in the Bill come into force, it would be ludicrous if, instead of being given a longer prison sentence—most people would think that was fair—they were given a suspended sentence; however, the courts would not have any other choice, in many circumstances.

New clause 55 would exclude criminals who had previously breached suspended sentences on three or more occasions from qualifying for a suspended sentence. It could be argued that those who have breached a suspended sentence once should not qualify. I completely agree, but I have decided that it should be “three strikes and you’re out”. People cannot keep committing offences and keep getting suspended sentences.

Another strong case for “three strikes and you’re out” is covered by new clause 61, which covers offenders who are convicted of committing the same crime three or more times. Someone who commits the same crime three or more times will now get only a suspended sentence. These people should be getting appropriate prison sentences, not a guarantee of no prison sentence at all.

New clause 59 lists

“poor compliance with court orders”

as a reason not to suspend a sentence. If a court can see that a criminal has not complied in the past with non-custodial alternatives and is therefore highly likely to breach a suspended sentence, it should have the option of imposing immediate custody on the offender. In fact, that is already what current and past sentencing guidelines say about considering an optional suspended sentence, never mind a mandatory one, which criminals will have if this Bill is brought into being. Under new clause 60, offenders being sentenced in court for three or more offences at once could not expect a presumption in favour of a suspended sentence.

All the examples I have given come from judges and lawyers. These are not possibilities, or scenarios that I have dreamt up; they are happening now. These people should go to prison—and they would have done, but the Government are letting everybody out. That is why I say that we will be dismantling law and order in this country if this Bill goes through. There is nothing to stop magistrates and judges handing out suspended sentences if they think that they are appropriate, but these amendments would not force them to hand them out when they are clearly not appropriate. That is what the Government are doing. They are tying the hands of the justice system.

The Government have already made amendments to earlier legislation after presumably realising that they had missed something. I hope that, on reflection, and having heard about some of the disasters that are about to befall the country as a result of this legislation, they will do likewise today. My new clause 56 is very similar to Government amendments 2 and 4, for example, which will exclude those who are already subject to a suspended sentence. They have seen one loophole, but the Bill is like a colander of loopholes, and I hope that they will see a few more.

The Government have not ensured that the Bill will not apply to those on licence. My new clause 57 says that those who have been released early from prison on licence should not be eligible for a presumption in favour of a suspended prison sentence if they offend again; really, they should be locked up.

Work for Serving Prisoners

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

In my early years as a barrister, I sometimes came across defendants who knew the criminal justice system better than me. Their antecedents—their list of previous convictions—was pages long, showing multiple stints in prison. I used to do both prosecution and defence, and I remember some defendants even sharing with me their top tips as to what might be the strongest arguments for bail or the best mitigation points in sentencing, because they had been through the process so many times.

I also saw offenders sentenced to custody for the first time, taking their turn in what is far too often a revolving door of prison. Sometimes, they were sent to prison far from home. It is so common to see offenders lose family ties, their housing, their job and any sense of purpose. After weeks, months or years, they would come out having achieved nothing, often with little or no money, no job and little confidence or self-worth.

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

I compliment my hon. Friend on her excellent speech. Does she agree that improving literacy in prisons is a powerful tool for rehabilitation and reintegration? Literacy equips prisoners with essential communication and comprehension skills, laying the foundation for further education and vocational training. By fostering reading, writing and critical thinking abilities, inmates become much better prepared for employment opportunities within prison and upon release. That not only enhances their self-worth and confidence, but reduces reoffending by opening pathways to stable work. Does she agree that investing in prison literacy is an investment in safer communities and more productive lives?

[Catherine Atkinson]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Investing in education and work is a key part of preventing reoffending.

Frustratingly, without rehabilitation the alternative is a return to the easiest path—one of crime. We then see the revolving door of prison take another turn. Without intervention, one in two prison leavers reoffend within six months of release. Some 80% of offending is reoffending, and reoffending costs the UK an estimated £18.1 billion per year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on bringing forward this debate. When I heard what she was going to speak about, I wanted to intervene: first, because it is an admirable subject, and secondly, because I fully support what she is trying to achieve. I hope that the Minister will come back to her along those lines. Does the hon. Lady agree that rehabilitation must take place in prisons, that part of rehabilitation is about giving the prisoner confidence that they can do something of value and worth, and that training in a new skill can do more for rehabilitation than group therapy sessions? That is the way to give an ex-inmate or prisoner the opportunity to do better, and that is what we should be doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson]

It is not a bona fide Adjournment debate unless the hon. Member has intervened, so I thank him for his intervention and his insight. I fully agree with him.

As well as having seen countless examples of prison having not worked, I have met former offenders who have escaped the revolving door, often through work. Many have stories like Mark’s. Mark spent 15 years in and out of prison on five separate occasions, but—with the support of a project called Jericho House in Derby—he is now clean, stable and gainfully employed.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

The issue of work in prison is something we have considered on the Justice Committee. Separately, I have recently visited prisons, where I had the opportunity to talk to prisoners. Does my hon. Friend agree that meaningful work in prisons can not only erase the boredom that can lead to drug use but give prisoners skills that they can use to find employment when they are released from prison? It enables them to reintegrate into society, thereby reducing the risk of reoffending.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I agree, and I want to see work in prison start as early as possible—not just at the end of a prisoner’s sentence but during it. I was proud to stand on a manifesto pledge to get offenders into work. That offenders should work is a conclusion that is intuitively obvious to me, having been a barrister, and that is also empirically supported. Rehabilitation without getting into work is rare. For those who have offended, and considering the impact on the rest of us, working is far better than sitting in cells most days.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I agree entirely with what she says about the importance of meaningful work or purposeful activity in prisons. On that basis, does she share my concern that the court backlog means that there are thousands of prisoners on remand who are not required to do purposeful activity and are often sentenced to a walk-out, essentially—going back into our communities without having had the opportunity of working in prison to help with their rehabilitation?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution and for making that powerful point. That is why the Government are doing so much to reduce the backlog.

Work in prison also comes with a host of second-order benefits, such as improving prisoner behaviour, filling skills gaps and boosting the economy. I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge in turning around our prisons; nor do I seek to claim that we could get all prisoners in prison starting to work tomorrow. I pay tribute to the work of our current Home Secretary, who when Justice Secretary got to grips with the crisis she inherited of prisons near to complete collapse.

Over the 14 years of Conservative Government, prisoner participation in education, employment and vocational qualifications dropped sharply. As the previous Government were coming to their end, His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons condemned the “appalling” neglect of how prisoners spend their time; far too many were locked in cells without meaningful activity. In category C prisons—closed prisons, but with lower security than those in category A or B—nearly a quarter of prisoners reported getting less than two hours unlocked each day.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

My local women’s prison is HMP Styal, and my hon. Friend will be aware of the Clink Charity, which does work in developing people’s skills in hospitality. Its ability to operate in HMP Styal collapsed completely because, as there was such a shortage of prison officers, the women were locked up for so much of the time that it was simply unable to provide the service. In other prisons, the charity is being forced to retender for contracts on a commercial basis. It is a not-for-profit that was set up to do that work. I encourage the Minister—I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees—to review whether contracting in the Ministry of Justice is really working as we need it to in that regard.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. There is some really fantastic work being done, which I will come on to, and it is essential that we find ways of enabling even more of that, because time stuck in prisons does not improve behaviour; it makes it worse. In the last year of the Conservative Government, we saw assaults on prison staff increase by 23%.

The £15 million investment in body armour and Tasers announced by the Deputy Prime Minister in recent weeks shows that he is giving prison staff the tools they need to do their jobs safely, but anything we can do to reduce the chances of violent incidents deserves our full support—that includes meaningful activities such as work in prisons—because those on the frontline in our prison system deserve our full support.

Prison officers at HMP Ranby told me what a difference it made to the behaviour of prisoners when they were doing work—when their days had purpose. As well as the improved behaviour that work for prisoners leads to, nearly a fifth of the earnings of prisoners who work out of prisons on licence goes to the Prisoners’ Earnings Act levy, which supports victims of crime. We have a Government committed to investment and reform and taking a long-term view of what is needed for a justice system that works. Our Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, Lord Timpson, was a businessman who throughout his career enabled offenders to turn their lives around and break the cycle.

I have sought to be candid about how bad things are in some of our prisons, but I also want to talk about some of the brilliant work already happening, which can be built on and scaled up. I praise the hundreds of employers who are pointing the way forward. In Derby, we have Pennine Healthcare, an employee-owned medical equipment manufacturer, and its successful experience of employing prisoners has led to its long-term vision for rehabilitation-focused employment opportunities, for itself and potentially across the sector.

Pennine supports a release on temporary licence scheme. I was proud to welcome the former Justice Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), to its headquarters in Derby. I went with him to HMP Ranby to see where Pennine is establishing a workshop, which it calls Project Phoenix. It will operate as an extension of the Derby site, and it will also prevent manufacturing from being offshored to competitors 7,000 km away in China. It could not have been more positive about the motivation and work ethic of the prisoners working for it.

That is a practical solution to meet some of the workforce challenges facing UK manufacturing, at a time when many employers share with me the difficulties that they can have in recruiting people with the skills that they need. It could create a pipeline of trained workers who can have jobs that they know how to do available to them when they leave prison. The difference that could make to offenders’ chances of avoiding another turn of the revolving door of reoffending is clear.

I am the parliamentary champion for the Rebuilding Futures Alliance—the RFA—whose mission is to break the cycle of reoffending by creating smarter pathways into work, often in rail. The evidence is extraordinarily compelling in showing that employment reduces reoffending.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

I visited His Majesty’s prison in Hatfield in my constituency—I have among the highest number of prisons in the whole country—and it was absolutely amazing. The governor there had been creative and innovative in his thinking about rehabilitating the prisoners, working with Tempus Novo. By bringing that charity in, reoffending rates have reduced substantially, giving people hope and a second chance. That is great for their families as well, which we need always to remember, and it makes economic sense. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to get behind those kinds of initiatives to stop reoffending?

[Catherine Atkinson]

That is another fantastic initiative. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Impressively, some of the partner agents and partner charities working with the RFA have achieved reoffending rates of under 5%.

I was told at HMP Ranby that the most popular work with prisoners was for the rail industry, though sometimes a prison struggles to find long-term rail-related work for prisoners. The RFA is working to help address that. That is particularly important in a sector such as rail, which really needs more skilled workers and is anticipated to lose 90,000 workers by 2030.

The RFA has a tracking system that allows it to see how prisoners and placements progress. The Prison Reform Trust reports that, for years, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service

“has not published figures on the number of prisoners working in custody, due to the disruption to data quality.”

We need more data and we need it to be tracked.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The hon. Member makes an important point about data. A colleague of mine said that when they visited a prison they asked what the reoffending rates were and the governor could not answer because reoffending rates were not being tracked. Does she agree that if prisons had an incentive to watch their reoffending rates, they would be more keen to make sure that the rehabilitation programmes made a difference and that they were not seeing the same faces time and again?

[Catherine Atkinson]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. That is one of the reasons that the RFA has created its tracking system: to have tangible evidence of the efficacy of the work that we intuitively know must be successful in preventing reoffending.

The businesses that I have met that are utilising release on temporary licence schemes or have workshops in prisons often act from a really strong ethic and a strong sense of social responsibility. There are also economic benefits and evidence—a clear business case—for providing work in prisons. I thank the East Midlands Chamber for its work with businesses in this area. I was told by their chief executive, Scott Knowles, that

“those employers that can successfully navigate the administrative burden to employ prisoners or offer placements on temporary licence, frequently comment that these members of the team rapidly become their most productive team members.”

A lot of the work taking place in prison is not for the private sector at all. Some 90% of the work at HMP Ranby is for the public sector, in a range of things including building beds, lockers and furniture for use not just in other prisons but in the wider public sector. That means that it does not have to be bought in, providing significant savings to the public purse as a result.

The success of schemes such as those that have been mentioned and those at HMP Ranby raises an important question: how can we scale up the model across more prisons and employers? The goal should be to reach a point where, upon release, prisoners can return to their communities anywhere in the country and find employment that builds on the skills that were developed inside.

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

I completely agree that all the evidence points towards the need to invest in prison training and employment programmes to reduce reoffending. Doing so is good for society and for the public purse, but does my hon. Friend agree that we should reform the system to support shorter, more modular learning in our prisons, in line with the Government’s approach to the growth and skills levy? Rochester prison in my constituency runs a successful stonemasonry course, but the length of time it takes—18 months—makes it difficult for prisoners to complete it, due to shorter sentences, prisoner moves across the prison estate, and early release.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Having a range of options for people is really important, but she also makes it clear that shorter sentences can prevent rehabilitative work being done, which is why it is so important that we are trying to move to a presumption against shorter sentences.

A range of things can be done, and there needs to be a co-ordinated effort to ensure consistency and opportunity across the prison estate. Perhaps that could involve asking different Government Departments to look at the goods and services that they procure from prisons, to ensure that there is that option, or building on the brilliant work being done on procurement to ensure that employers who provide meaningful work opportunities to prisoners see the wider benefit, thereby reinforcing the Government’s commitment to rehabilitation and reducing reoffending.

There is a popular myth that the poorer the quality of a prison, the greater the punishment, but that has been well tested over the last 14 years. His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons suggests not only that purposeless prisons are harmful for prisoners, but that that harm could extend to wider society. We cannot isolate, bore or humiliate someone into being rehabilitated. It is far better that they are able to make amends through work. The idea that giving more people—perhaps people who have never had it—access to good work might strengthen society comes naturally to me as a Labour MP, because Labour is the party of work. Without it, boredom, frustration and despair can thrive.

Work in prisons benefits prisoners, yes, but it also works for those who risk their life and their safety as frontline prison officers and probation officers. It works for companies, and not just because they are keen to do their part for society. It can help us to meet the skills challenges that industry faces, to onshore manufacturing jobs, and to create more funding for victims through the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996 levy. Job or jail? If we truly want to break the cycle of crime, and give people in my constituency of Derby North and across the country the safety and opportunity that they deserve, this is how we begin.

Sentencing Bill

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, put yourself in the place of a victim of crime. You want to go out for a walk with your family, out to the park or to the other side of town, but you are worried that the perpetrator might see you there. You want to go for a night out or to support your football team, but you are worried about what they might do or how you might react if they are there too, so you do not. They are the one who was convicted, but you still feel like the prisoner. They received the sentence, but you are being punished. It happens too often, and I have come across cases like these not just as an MP but in my time as a barrister.

This is a Bill whose time has come, because it turns that injustice on its head. Currently, some offenders can be excluded from certain limited areas, but under this Bill, they can be restricted from all areas apart from a limited one. Whether it is the pub, the match or driving around, expanding community punishments and licensing conditions will ensure that it is the offenders who face restrictions on what they can do and enjoy, not the victims.

I do not need to tell my constituents in Derby North about the situation inherited from the Conservatives—a broken justice system, prisons full and in crisis, severe criminal court backlogs and decaying infrastructure—because too many of them live the reality of having to deal with the thousands of antisocial behaviour incidents that we see in our city every year. There is a need to tackle prolific and persistent offenders with strict monitoring and co-ordinated support. The expansion of intensive supervision courts is designed to do just that, and it is hugely welcomed by those I have spoken to who work in our criminal courts. They have said to me, “Roll this out as fast as possible.”

The additional £700 million that this Government are investing in our Probation Service—with the recruitment of 1,000 trainee probation officers already and 1,300 more to be recruited in the next six months—is rebuilding that service. We are rebuilding after the Conservative Government’s vandalism, their failed experiment in privatising probation, which pushed it to crisis, and their having to bring it back into public hands. Probation officers work incredibly hard to keep our communities safe, and I am grateful that this Government are investing in their essential work.

May I also take this opportunity to thank those who work in our prisons? The number of prisoners will, of course, still go up. The Government are building more prison places—something that the previous Government all but failed to do—and more offenders will be behind bars than ever before under this Government. We therefore need to turn prisons from creating better criminals to creating better citizens. The earned progression model rewards good behaviour and punishes bad behaviour in our prisons. It is an important tool to break the cycles of offending that we have seen for far too long, and when offenders stop offending, our communities are safer.

The Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending—a businessman who throughout his career enabled offenders to turn their lives around and to break those cycles—knows better than anyone how to make this work. I recently visited HMP Ranby to see how it is increasing the type of work that the prisoners there undertake, from creating furniture and doing laundry for prisons and other public services, saving taxpayers’ money, to working on reading and writing, or undertaking work for the private sector, giving offenders the skills to secure work on release. Utilising and increasing the opportunities for offenders to work in prison can build on the important measures in the Bill, reducing reoffending by giving them purpose and skills, while instilling a work routine. I will make that case in an Adjournment debate on 15 October.

I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight these three aspects of the approach: the intensive supervision to tackle antisocial behaviour and prolific offending; measures to help end the revolving door of offending; and new restriction zones and community punishments to give freedom back to victims. The Bill was born of necessity, because of the mess in which the Conservatives left our prisons and criminal courts. While born of necessity, though, I am excited about the transformative difference that the Bill will make, so that fewer offenders reoffend, victims are where they must be—the focus of our criminal justice system—and our communities are safer as a result.

Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

It is a bit rich to accuse those on the Government Benches of being soft on crime. The hon. Gentleman’s party allowed the prisons to run hot and added 500 prison places in 14 years—we have committed the money for 14,000. That simply does not stand up to scrutiny. The Conservatives allowed the backlogs in the courts to simply run out of control, to the point where Alex Chalk—again, another of their own—pointed out that the position would become irrecoverable. That is the consequence of doing nothing. Being tough on crime is about rebuilding and investing in our criminal justice system, investing in prisons and our courts, delivering on the tough reforms that will be required to deliver swifter justice for victims and getting tough on exactly the sorts of gangs that the hon. Gentleman describes.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

After 14 years of Conservative government, victims of rape and serious sexual crimes are waiting years to see justice. It appears that the shadow Justice Secretary has recently discovered that our criminal justice system is broken. When does the Minister think he will discover who broke it?

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

That is not in order.