Criminal Courts: Independent Review

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I call the Chair of the Justice Committee, Andy Slaughter.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate. As he says, the changes being proposed to the way in which the criminal courts operate are very significant, and it is right that we have the opportunity to debate them here. My contribution was to move the time of the Justice Committee to allow its members to take part today, and we therefore see a well-attended debate.

The latest figures show that the current open caseload for criminal cases in the Crown courts now stands at 78,329—more than double the 38,070 cases recorded in December 2019. If no action is taken, that number is projected to increase to between 99,000 and 114,000 by the end of March 2029. In response, the previous Lord Chancellor, on 12 December 2024, announced that she had asked Sir Brian Leveson to review the criminal courts to consider how to accelerate the hearing of cases. The “Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part I”, the subject of this debate, was published on 9 July 2025. The second part of the review will focus on the efficiency of the criminal justice system, and is due to be published later this year. The first part of the review proposes 45 recommendations. Sir Brian stresses that the package needs to be looked at as a whole and

“should not be approached as providing a ‘pick-n-mix’ series of options.”

In the interests of time, I will mention only the most radical and controversial of those proposals.

First, the review recommends an expansion in the use of out-of-court resolutions, noting that their use has fallen by 35% since 2015, from 328,000 to 212,000. Secondly, the review recommends removing the right to elect a Crown court trial for offences with a maximum sentence length of two years. It states that those offences form an obvious grouping, as they have been categorised by Parliament as the least serious of the either-way offences. The review identifies a pool of additional offences for removal of the right to elect, based on the average custodial sentence length they typically involve. It also recommends reclassifying some offences as summary only—in effect, removing the defendant’s right to elect and ensuring that such offences could be tried only in the magistrates court. The review proposes to select offences for reclassification based on whether the average custodial sentence length falls well within the magistrates’ sentencing power limit of 12 months. That requires—this picks up a point the right hon. and learned Gentleman made—reducing the maximum sentence for these offences to 12 months to align with the new maximum sentencing power for the magistrates court.

Thirdly, the review proposes the introduction of a dedicated Crown court bench division, comprising a Crown court judge and two magistrates, ensuring the retention of community participation, in the absence of a jury. Magistrates would have equal decision-making authority on evidence and sentencing, with matters of law reserved to the judge. The Crown court bench division would encompass the same sentencing powers as the Crown court, negating the need to commit cases for sentence. For either-way offences, allocation to the CCBD would be determined at the plea and trial preparation hearing, with cases likely to attract sentences of three years or less anticipated to be heard in this division. Responding to the review, Mark Beattie, chair of the Magistrates’ Association, noted that an extra 6,000 magistrates would be required to ensure that the CCBD runs successfully alongside maintaining capacity in the magistrates court.

Fourthly, the review provides recommendations to incentivise early resolutions in the Crown court: increasing the maximum reduction for early guilty pleas from 33% to 40%; making it mandatory for judges to offer advance sentence indications, allowing defendants greater clarity and confidence in entering a plea early; and establishing a pilot scheme to test whether delaying the pre-trial hearing allows better-informed plea decisions. Appearing before the Justice Committee in December 2024, the Director of Public Prosecutions stated that 70% of cases going through the Crown court eventually end up with guilty pleas, but in only 36% of cases are guilty pleas entered at the first substantive hearing. Fifthly and finally of the points that I want to address, the review recommends that serious and complex fraud cases should be tried by a judge alone, with eligible cases defined by hidden dishonesty or complexity outside the understanding of the general public.

The combined effect of the reforms would be to curtail a defendant’s right to trial by jury, and that has generated adverse comments from the legal profession and some commentators. These are very significant changes to the way the criminal courts operate. As to whether the review’s proposals would achieve their aim of speeding the trial process, it models three recommendations: the introduction of the Crown court bench division, the reclassification of some offences and the removal of the right to elect. Other recommendations made by the review in part 1 were not modelled, and any impact of those would be in addition to those savings. In combination, and with savings measured in Crown court sitting days, the modelled proposals suggest savings of 9,000 Crown court sitting days per annum through the diversion of cases to the magistrates court or the Crown court bench division.

Given that the Leveson review is the Ministry of Justice’s main play to reduce the Crown court backlog, it seems inevitable that it will go forward, and go forward as a package, as Sir Brian requests. Whether it will achieve its targets, and whether it will have the adverse effects on the administration of criminal justice predicted by the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association in their briefings for this debate, we will find out. What is certain is that, by expressing the need to apply to the criminal justice system many of the innovations that have been proposed and rejected over the past several decades, it draws into sharp focus the parlous state of our criminal courts in 2025. Many of the proposals in Sir Brian’s report are not new; they have been debated and, on the whole, rejected over several decades. The question really—for the Government, but also for all of us—is whether, given the lamentable failure of the Crown courts at present to deal with cases in a timely manner and to see justice delivered, those are sacrifices worth making now.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

If we are going to get everyone in, we will have to stick to about four minutes each. I am not going to put a hard time limit on at this stage, but please bear that in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for this debate. He will be aware that there have been a number of debates on this salient issue here and in the other place. Nationally, the court backlog across England and Wales now exceeds 78,000. It is a problem that has been inherited, but we need to acknowledge it and face up to the challenge.

In my local area, Maidstone Crown court has 2,500 cases outstanding, while Canterbury has 1,000. I have met victims as well as those working on the frontline of the criminal justice system, and I acknowledge some operational challenges that I intend to raise today. Every single case we have heard from colleagues represents real people—real victims and defendants who are not getting their time in court. Defendants are suffering the concurrent mental health conditions of waiting for a sentence and victims are not getting redress.

As my colleague from the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), rightly said, if we do not tackle this issue, it is predicted to get worse, with 100,000 cases by 2030 if no changes are made. I welcome the Government’s announcements of an extra £92 million for legal aid so far this year and an additional 4,000 court sitting days, taking us to 111,000. That is a necessary step, but it is also right that we have commissioned Sir Brian Leveson, one of our most distinguished judges, to conduct a wholesale review of our criminal courts, and it is in an independent spirit that he has come forward with these guidelines.

There are 45 recommendations. I think it is eminently sensible that we look at out-of-court resolutions to a number of cases where the sentencing is below a certain threshold. The two-year threshold is sensible; it could be higher, but the Government will need to take a balanced approach on that when they respond to part 1 of the report.

I also think that the reclassification to summary-only offences, so that magistrates get more responsibility, is eminently sensible, because at the moment the number of referrals going into Crown courts is simply too high. The creation of a dedicated Crown court bench commission is a sensible next step; I look forward to seeing how that will work in practice, given that we have logistical and staff constraints within this sector at present. I understand that the recruitment of 6,000 extra staff might be required, which will be a challenge. The incentivising of early resolution through sentence reductions is also sensible—it is a practice we are already employing, but it can be expanded. Of course, all these suggestions will only reduce cases by 9,000 court sittings per annum on average, so it is right that we are speaking to the public about these issues and I look forward to the Government response.

I have one minute left. I have spoken to the Minister in previous Westminster Hall debates about my local courts in Kent. There are some operational issues as well, and I acknowledge some of the concerns raised by colleagues, including the increasing use of digital technologies in courts and the improvement in capital finance to improve court premises, some of which are falling apart, and to fix leaking roofs. I have also raised independently the movement of cases across artificial geographical boundaries, so that we can spread caseloads across other parts of the county and other regions. There must also be greater support, including greater human resources support, for justice offices and casework officers working in our court systems, so that we can get the cases through.

I will continue partnership work with the Government, but I welcome part 1 of Leveson’s report and I encourage Members to support it.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

The Front Benchers have 10 minutes each and I intend to call the mover of the motion with a couple of minutes to sum up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Has the Minister’s Department done any analysis of how much time would be saved by adopting Sir Brian’s proposals on jury trials, and if so, what was the result?

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Before the Minister answers, please bear in mind that I will be looking to bring in Jeremy Wright at 5.58 pm.

[Sarah Sackman]

I certainly will, Mr Efford.

Sir Brian Leveson proposed the Crown court bench division idea based on consultation with experts, members of the profession and the judiciary. He makes the point that the deliberation of 12 members of a jury is less efficient than the deliberation of an individual judge who has heard the evidence, because it involves dealing with one person. As I understand it, the modelling analysis undertaken to support Sir Brian’s report suggests a time saving in the region of 20% to 30%. Before such a proposal could be adopted, we would need to test that and understand whether that finding is robust, but as the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam said, it stands to reason. In comparative criminal jurisdictions that have either one judge or a bench of three, cases are processed and progressed faster than under the current, jury trial system.

Ultimately, what we are looking to achieve is to ensure a fair trial for every person who comes into the criminal process. That is what we must guarantee, and we support Sir Brian’s overarching principles for reform. Plainly, we have to carefully consider each and every one of those proposals and all 388 pages before we provide our response in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

Further to Ministers’ earlier answers about waiting lists in Crown and magistrates courts, coroners courts also have a large backlog. I have a constituent who has been waiting nearly three years for an inquest to be completed. What can be done to relieve the pressure on grieving families who have been bereaved and to speed up the process?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

I have had several productive conversations with the chief coroner, looking at how we can make the inquest process as quick as possible to ensure that the bereaved are supported and not left traumatised waiting for their inquest. The Bill we are laying before Parliament today, the Hillsborough law, has many parts looking at how to improve the inquest process and it gives more powers to coroners. We are looking at what more we can do on the reform of inquests. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and others on how to improve the coronial process.

Independent Sentencing Review

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. I pay tribute to the work that is going on in her constituency. As I have said before, 80% of offenders in this country are reoffenders. That tells us how broken our system is, and how imperative it is that we sort it out.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Reoffending is costing us £22 billion a year, and 80% of offenders are reoffenders. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to bring that figure down? What is she intending to do to prevent people from reoffending at such high rates?

[Shabana Mahmood]

One of the problems of running a prison system at absolutely boiling hot—where it is permanently on the point of collapse, as has been the case in our prison system for far too long now—is that we are not able to make much progress in the prison estate on the programmes that offenders need to access to begin a rehabilitation journey. Part of our proposals, which are designed to relieve the stress in our prison system, will help with rehabilitation within the prison estate.

We are also absolutely determined to make more progress on rehabilitation outside the prison estate, which is why we are toughening up community punishment. We know that that works, and we know that the country can have confidence in such punishment. We will be working with our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to think about the availability of drug and alcohol treatment. We will expand the use of sobriety tags, which are already helping offenders to come off the drink that often fuels their offending. I have asked some tech companies to look at further technological innovation that can help us in this space. The holy grail would be a drugs tag, which could make a huge difference in reducing reoffending in our country. We will continue to press ahead and work as quickly as we can to find further technological solutions.

Victims and Courts Bill

Clive Efford Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

When the Government took office just 10 months ago, we inherited a justice system in crisis—our prisons were on the point of collapse, and the backlog in our courts was at record levels and rising fast—and victims were all too often paying the price. The Government are beginning the long and hard work of rebuilding our justice system so that it serves victims once more. In my eyes, that means meeting three principles.

The first is that justice must be swift. It is all too easily said that justice delayed means justice denied, but few have had the bravery to wrestle with the implications of that. This Government are investing more in court sitting days than any before them, but we know that that is not enough, so we will pursue reform—even if it courts opposition—in the pursuit of swifter justice for victims. That is why I have asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose once-in-a-generation reform of our courts. Jury trials will always be a cornerstone of our legal system for the most serious cases, but it is clear that we must consider whether there are cases heard before a jury today that could be heard in a different way, such as in front of a magistrate or a new intermediate court, in order to deliver the swifter justice that victims deserve.

The second principle of a justice system that serves victims is that punishment must be certain. This Government inherited the grotesque position of having more prisoners than prison cells. If prisons run out of space, victims pay the price. If courts hold trials and the police are forced to stop making arrests, crime goes unpunished and victims see no justice done. This Government will ensure that criminals face punishment. We are building 14,000 prison places in the largest expansion since the Victorian era, after 14 years in which the Conservatives added just 500 cells to our prison estate. We are also reforming sentencing so that our prisons never run out of space again and there is always space inside for dangerous offenders.

The third and final principle of a justice system that serves victims is that they are not retraumatised by their engagement with it. That third principle is what unites the specific measures set out in the Bill, and I will start by speaking about those which will force criminals to attend their sentencing in court.

In recent years, too many offenders have been allowed to cower in their cells rather than face the consequences of their actions. That is a final insult to victims and their families because it robs them of the chance to tell offenders, through victim impact statements, the pain they have caused. It robs victims and their families of the opportunity to look the offender in the eye and see them face the consequences of their crime and the full reality of their punishment. The Bill will change that.

The Bill gives judges the power to order criminals to attend sentencing hearings, it makes it clear that reasonable force can be used to ensure that happens and it hands out punishments to those who still defy that order. Adult offenders could face up to an additional two years in prison and an unlimited fine. I know, however, that that is little punishment for those who are serving long sentences or perhaps whole life orders, because they did not expect to see the light of day at all. For that reason, we will also give judges the power to impose prison sanctions on offenders, including confining criminals to their cells, the loss of privileges and, going further, limits on social visits.

If offenders appear in the dock but behave in a disruptive or disrespectful way, as has all too often been the case in recent months, judges must have the ability to remove them from the courtroom so that the hearing can continue and justice can be served. The Bill will give a judge the ability to impose the same penalties both on those who refuse to attend their sentencing and on those who attend but attempt to disrupt proceedings. While the previous Government brought forward similar measures, we are going further by expanding the range of punishment available through amending prison rules, which will expand the sanctions available to judges, and by extending the length of time for which such sanctions can be applied.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I welcome this section of the Bill. My constituent, Sabina Nessa, was brutally murdered when she was on her way out to meet a friend. Her murderer refused to attend court and participate in his sentencing, and that caused a great deal of distress to her family. I therefore welcome the move not just to force these characters to turn up in court, but to apply sanctions when they do not comply; my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on that.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend speaks of one of the tragic cases that has led to these changes in the law and on which, in fairness, the previous Government were also seeking to act before the election was called. We are pleased to go further on sanctions. I know that some of the families we are talking about are here and I will pay tribute to them in a few moments’ time.

We will take a delegated power to allow the Secretary of State to specify sanctions in regulations. Those regulations will provide discretion to prison governors, who hold a legal responsibility and accountability for what happens inside prisons. Judges will retain discretion over when to order offenders to attend. This means that, in cases where a victim’s family does not want to see the offender forced to attend, judges can decide differently. As this is a delegated power, the list of sanctions is not presented on the face of the Bill, but it will be rooted in the Prison Rules 1999, which will be amended and extended. The Secretary of State will have the ability to add more sanctions quickly and easily, should that be necessary. This approach offers much more flexibility than a rigid list, which would require the lengthy process of primary legislation to amend it.

I know that, for many, this day has been a long time coming. I am sure the House will therefore join me in paying tribute to the families of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Jan Mustafa, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa, and I would like to welcome to this place Cheryl Korbel, Antonia Elverson, Jebina Islam, and Ayse Hussein and her daughter Angel, who are in the Public Gallery today. They have suffered unimaginable pain and then faced the indescribable trauma of an offender who would not face them. They have fought tirelessly to bring about this law, and we owe them a debt of thanks for their courage and fortitude. Today is their day, and it will have a lasting impact for others yet to come, who should never have to face what they have endured. While nothing will ever lessen the pain of such immense loss suffered by these families, this measure in the Bill is brought forward in the name and memories of Olivia, Zara, Sabina and Jan.

The Bill will also address the trauma that reverberates years after a parent has sexually abused their child. Today, a parent convicted of sexually abusing their child can continue to exercise parental responsibility for them. From behind bars, these vile abusers have been able to continue interfering in the lives of their children. Today a mother has to request that parental responsibility is restricted in a case where a father has committed a sexual offence against their child; now, we will automatically restrict the exercise of parental responsibility by anyone sentenced to four years or more for serious child sexual abuse against their children. This will restrict those rights from the moment of sentencing, so that children are immediately protected. It sends a clear message that abusers no longer have the power to exercise control. Making this step automatic will spare families the trauma of having to go through proceedings in the family courts, giving them the space they need to begin healing and move on with their lives.

The previous Government brought forward proposals in their Criminal Justice Bill to apply this measure to offences committed against all children, but that measure was restricted to child rape. Under their proposals, a parent could commit a wide range of heinous sexual offences against their child, including sexual assault and sexual exploitation, and not be covered. We believe that was too narrowly drawn; it overlooked the devastating impact of a parent committing other serious sexual offences against their own child—so although we supported the measures in opposition, we are now strengthening them in government.

Our measure will cover all serious sexual offences committed by a parent against a child they have parental responsibility for, such as sexual assault and sexual exploitation, causing a child to watch a sexual act and sexual activity without consent. There is no denying that we are in novel territory with this measure and, as such, we have a duty to take a balanced approach. This automatic restriction can, and likely will, be challenged. We do not yet know how many challenges the courts will receive. We have a responsibility to ensure that the courts are not overwhelmed, and that vulnerable children going through the family court do not suffer. For that reason, we have chosen to expand the offences beyond child rape, but to begin by restricting our measures to serious sexual offences where a perpetrator holds parental responsibility for their victim.

I have heard the strength of feeling from survivors and campaigners who want to see our measure extended to all offences against any child, not just where a perpetrator has parental responsibility. I understand the calls on us to be as ambitious as possible, and to expand this to a wider cohort of offenders, but we believe that our measure is stronger than what came before and is the right starting point for this novel change. We will work collaboratively and constructively with Members from across the House, and with those in the sector. I say to them that this is the beginning of legal change in this area, not the end.

The Bill will also strengthen the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner, so that victims are not forced to fight every fight themselves, but have the commissioner—both the individual and the office—to fight for them. That will ensure that there is proper accountability when victims are let down by the justice system, and that victims are not retraumatised by having to fight for every improvement to the system.

Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Gentleman is right: the remand population is growing, and currently stands at 17,000. That has a big impact on prison capacity, which is why I increased magistrates court sentencing powers a few months ago, why I have increased the number of Crown court sitting days, and why we have a record allocation next year. The demand coming into the system is one of the reasons why bearing down on remand has been particularly challenging, but we continue to work on it with the judiciary; listings are, of course, a matter for the independent judiciary.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I expected a little more humility from Conservative Members, who left a legacy of chaos in our prisons and a huge court backlog. What we are dealing with, fundamentally, is the backlog that they left behind. My right hon. Friend has set out a process for dealing with this growing backlog, but ultimately the blame lies at the door of the Conservative party, which left the place in chaos. Should we not be hearing an apology from Conservative Members?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Sorry does seem to be the hardest word for Opposition Members, and I have long since stopped waiting for that apology. All I would observe—I say this with experience of 14 years of opposition under my belt—is that parties that do not acknowledge their mistakes and sort themselves out rarely get elected.

Hillsborough: Bishop James Jones Report

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

Well, it is. There are two aspects to this. Under the code, it is right that chief officers should have to be responsible for the culture and practice within their organisation. But there is also a further duty that exists on police officers, through the 2020 regulations I referred to earlier, and those can of course sound in disciplinary sanctions, including dismissal. So it is available for both.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Contaminated blood, Grenfell, Hillsborough—the one thing they all have in common is that ordinary people suffered an incredible tragedy, and then the authorities and the establishment circled the wagons to deny them justice. What this report has exposed is a failure at the centre of the establishment to serve the public. This report is calling for candour from the people who represent such public bodies, so why is it that the Government, after all this time, have come back and said no to that one request?

[Alex Chalk]

Respectfully, that is not quite a fair representation. Bishop James Jones, in his point of learning 1, talked about the Hillsborough charter, and in paragraph 3 of that recommendation, he talked about candour. We have accepted that entirely. Bishop James Jones’s report was not about the law, although he adverted to it. As I have said, we are going to have further discussions, but it is important to notice what steps have been taken thus far.

Prison Capacity

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I thank my right hon. Friend for getting absolutely to the heart of it. Those who are sentenced to short custodial sentences—under 12 months—statistically go on to reoffend 55% of the time. Yet for those who have suspended sentence orders with conditions—such as unpaid work or to address mental health issues or whatever—22% commit further offences. There is a massive reduction. We want to ensure that once people have served their sentences and atoned for the crime they have committed, they can go on to become law-abiding, contributing members of society.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Last man standing, Mr Deputy Speaker. No early release for me. The Secretary of State’s statement would be all the more impressive had it not come after 13 years of continuous Conservative Governments. They promised to create 20,000 extra places by the mid-2020s, but we have seen a net increase of 300. We have lost some places to dilapidation, and those that have replaced them amount to a net increase of only 300. Only a few weeks ago, we were told that the Government were implacably opposed to early release. I take it that he has dropped his idea of buying places in foreign prisons. The truth is that the management of the system has been completely chaotic for 13 years. When will we see the increase in prison places that the Government have been talking about?

[Alex Chalk]

The first thing to say is that our prison programme is the largest since the Victorian era—20,000 places. If I may say so, that stands in stark contrast to Labour. Jack Straw stood at this Dispatch Box and said, “We will build three titan prisons, each one of them 2,500”. Did it happen? No, it did not. This is the party that has put the money behind it. In fact, it was this Prime Minister, as Chancellor, who did that. We are rolling them out. By the way, I will make no apology for taking offline old and inadequate accommodation and replacing it with modern, secure, decent prisons. That is something the hon. Gentleman should welcome.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I will give it a go, Mr Speaker. The question was ingenious, and I commend the hon. Member for it. Capacity is critically important—absolutely—and I want to stress, because people will be listening to this, that in 90% of the cases that take place in magistrates courts there are not those difficulties. However, it is true that we are expanding capacity, which is why there are more judges and there are 24 Nightingale courts. List officers are ensuring that we are getting through some of these most sensitive cases as quickly as possible, and the backlog in the Crown court—the case load in the Crown court—is coming down. We are seeing progress, and it is going to accelerate.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Getting back to SLAPPs, they are, as the Secretary of State has accepted, closing down public debate and public exposure of corruption. They are also being used against people who work for the enforcement agencies, such as the Serious Fraud Office, where individuals have been targeted. The Secretary of State has said that he intends to legislate, but can he tell us when he is likely to do that, because the Government have been making these noises for a very long time and what we need is action?

[Alex Chalk]

Absolutely. The position is that we will do so at the earliest opportunity. As I said before, we are even considering this in legislation before the House at the moment, so I hope that that gives the hon. Member an indication of the urgency. However, the point to note is that it is very easy to say “anti-SLAPPs legislation”, but if we look at other jurisdictions, we see that that can be in the form of costs orders that can have unintended consequences in respect of the law of defamation. I am not suggesting that is any reason not to move quickly—we are going to move quickly—but we have to move quickly and with care. If we do not, we risk undermining the very policy objective we want to deliver.

IOPC Report on Metropolitan Police Officers' Conduct: Charing Cross Police Station

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

Having wrestled with these issues in the past, I completely agree with the hon. Lady that it is totally critical that there is a strong bond of trust with communities who have perhaps had a fractious relationship with the police. I think that the best thing that they can do is decide to be the change themselves, and I urge all communities in London and elsewhere to put forward their brightest and best to be police officers.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Cutting 21,000 police officers since 2010 has led to the rush to recruit officers to backfill those gaps, and the vetting of those officers is crucial. Does the Minister think that recruiting people purely through interviews online and doing that vetting purely online is suitable, given that the police are such a customer-facing, hands-on—sometimes literally— service with the public?

[Kit Malthouse]

It is worth pointing out that, while the assessment process was online, once those police officers enter training, it is not accepted that they will necessarily be attested at the end. They are constantly assessed throughout their training on whether or not they are suitable. We continue to monitor their performance not just through training and in the immediate months after their acquisition, but thereafter. Having said that, we have to be slightly careful to bear in mind that, of the 11,000-odd who have stepped forward to be police officers, the vast majority of them are bright, smart, well-meaning and well-motivated people with the right kind of values to be police officers, and we have high hopes for them in the future.

Metropolitan Police: Stephen Port Murders Inquest

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

As I hope the hon. Lady knows, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is currently in the other place and is due to return to us in the new year, will place in law the provision of a police covenant, one of the key themes of which is family support and welfare. As part of our engagement to build that picture, I was very pleased to participate with a number of groups on different aspects of policing. As I say, there is a great tapestry these days; there is not just a monoculture in British policing. I spoke to those who are in an LGBT+ relationship, a key group, to understand the particular relationship they have with policing and the particular support they may need for the future. I hope that, as the covenant lands, we will be able to flesh out more widely what that support looks like, and that she will be able to support us in doing so.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The response from the Government smacks of the same old, same old response of shutting down shop when the police are criticised in this way. The IOPC investigated 17 officers involved in the investigation and only two were disciplined, despite the scale of the failures in the investigation. Now we hear that the IOPC has been invited back to have another go. That really is not good enough. What is needed is a fully independent inquiry. It is time the Government recognised that that is the only response that is acceptable.

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration, but I am sure he will understand that it is extremely important that the IOPC relies on the “I” and that it is the Independent Office for Police Conduct. It therefore cannot be ordered by Ministers or anyone else to investigate or not investigate. I am given to understand that in this case, in the light of the evidence that has come through, it is considering whether to reopen the investigation. It would not be proper for me to influence its decision either way, in the same way that it is not for me to order the police to investigate any individual or otherwise. We should wait and see what the IOPC has to say and wait for the other inquiries commissioned by City Hall and by the Met, and see what the picture looks like after that.