Controlling or Coercive Behaviour: Sentencing

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for setting out the petition so clearly on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

I congratulate Paris Shears especially, and all those who signed the petition. It is very clear that there was a desire across the country to have this debate. It takes immense bravery to bring deeply personal and traumatic experiences into the public eye in order to try to effect change. I am profoundly impressed by those who use their trauma to try to make the world a better place for those who come after them so that they never have to see somebody suffer in the way that they have. I am very grateful to Paris for all that she has done, as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for her support for Paris. Paris’s story and her tireless efforts have inspired many to sign the petition and share their own experiences.

The topic of today’s debate is vital. Controlling and coercive behaviour is an utterly abhorrent and evil crime. As has been said by many Members across the House, it is the sort of crime that stays with the victims forever. It leaves them traumatised and scared, not only while the behaviour is occurring but often for many years afterwards. Victims are often desperate for help but unable to reach out without putting themselves in further danger because of the very nature of the coercion and control, which cuts these people off from their lives, from accessing health services and from even being able to leave their homes. In these instances, warning signs are missed, opportunities for intervention are bypassed and the abuse and trauma continues.

It is everybody’s responsibility to ensure these victims receive the support, early intervention and justice that they deserve, but too often the justice system has failed to do that. In cases where the abuse is identified—when criminal charges are brought forward or it ends up in the family courts—victims are faced with systems riddled with issues, including delays to trial and a culture that allows perpetrators to manipulate the system and continue their cycle of abuse. That culture continually undermines faith in our justice system and discourages participation when victims simply want to move on with their lives. It is an agreed principle that many defendants will put in a not guilty plea in the hope that their victim just gets tired and cannot bear the thought of going through a trial.

The situation outlined today perfectly demonstrates some of those flaws. As we can attest from the numerous testimonies, victims are seeing their abusers benefit from the system. They see their abuser’s sentence being reduced while simultaneously having to go through re-traumatisation. For a victim who has escaped their abuser, having to go through a trial, provide evidence and face questioning can open old wounds and take them back to the time of their abuse and often undermine their recovery.

Sentence reductions for guilty pleas are a long-standing practice, and their importance within our criminal justice system cannot be overstated. They help to avoid costly and lengthy trials that add further pressure to the system and prevent some victims from ending up with a trial that they do not want or have to have. However, we must recognise that there are instances where defendants are exploiting that incentive to harm their victims again.

In their response to the petition, the Government stated that they are “committed to updating” the statutory guidance on controlling and coercive behaviour before the end of 2026, so I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government remain committed to that timeline and to provide a timeline for their publication of the review. As part of that review, will the Minister commit to considering a mechanism that has come to mind during this debate, which is one that could look at a rehearing 30 days in advance of a trial to see whether a defendant will change their plea before we get to a trial? A reduction could be included at that point, but not on the morning of a trial. It should be made very clear that a defendant would not have the option of putting in a guilty plea that would result in a reduction if they chose not to make it 30 days in advance.

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

I thank those in Taunton and Wellington who signed the petition. In addition to the review of sentencing guidelines for which my hon. Friend has advocated, and which I very much support, does she agree that, in respect of Paris’s law, which I also support, prevention needs to be tackled through greater perpetrator programmes, so that individuals are targeted and coercive and controlling behaviour can be stopped at its root as much as possible?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to reflect that, as part of the Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls, we need a multi-agency approach to tackling the root causes of coercive control. The Liberal Democrats also believe that the Government should review, as part of the update, how sentence reductions apply specifically in cases of controlling and coercive behaviour, so that perpetrators cannot use legal proceedings maliciously to continue their abuse.

Beyond that, the Government must go further to support victims of coercive control and domestic abuse across the entire court system. The Liberal Democrats tabled multiple amendments to the Courts and Tribunals Bill that aimed to improve the experience of victims in the criminal courts. We often hear from legal experts and victims about a lack of understanding of these issues in the courts in general. One of our amendments would have required judicial staff to receive mandatory training on domestic abuse and violence against women and girls, and all court staff to receive trauma-informed training to ensure that victims receive the best possible support from the moment they arrive at court. On multiple occasions, the Government have argued that such mandatory training would not be possible, especially when it comes to the judiciary. However, similar provisions are included in the Government’s plans for rape and serious sexual offence courts. I struggle to understand how they can commit to having trauma-informed members of the judiciary for RASSO courts but not across the entire court estate.

At the heart of this issue are the delays. The Crown court backlog now exceeds 80,000 cases, and victims are waiting longer than ever to see justice. The Government must take real action to address the inefficiencies at the heart of the failing system, rather than pursuing the unevidenced structural changes we have seen in recent months. Real change can be achieved through targeted listing, the better use of court time by holding more sittings in a day and reforming prisoner escort contracts.

We believe that failings in the family courts allow abusers to continue abusing victims, and that they too often fail to recognise domestic abuse, despite its presence in over 70% of hearings. Once again, training must be extended to cover these issues and protect individuals who are victims of domestic abuse and coercive control. We must provide sustainable funding for support services for survivors of violence against women and girls and domestic abuse, and expand the provision of high-quality perpetrator programmes in domestic abuse cases, with the aim of preventing further abuse. We want to establish specialist VAWG taskforces in every police force, bringing together officers and specialists with the training, resources and capacity to effectively support survivors, including by working in partnership with frontline women’s services.

As my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) said in his excellent speech, we believe that special measures should be the standard, with victims having the opportunity to opt out of special measures, because so often, and especially for those who do not have access to legal aid, they have no idea what is available to them when it comes to special measures. If they were a standard principle across all courtrooms and a victim could then say, “No, actually, I don’t want the special measures. I want to be able to face the accused in court,” that would be very different from their getting to court and finding out that nothing is in place for them.

If we can take one thing from this debate, it is that victims continue to go unheard in our criminal justice system. We must listen to those who have spoken up in support of the petition and ensure that they have their concerns addressed, so that other victims of these horrendous crimes do not suffer in the same way.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

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

[Sarah Sackman]

It is an honour to open the debate on the Report stage of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, and to bring this important piece of legislation back before the House. This is a Bill with victims at its heart. Its purpose is urgent and long overdue: to ensure that justice in this country is delivered fairly for both victims and defendants. Currently, thousands of victims, witnesses and defendants are trapped in the long, slow wait for justice. That is simply unfair. For some, justice may never come. The old maxim rings true in our country today: far too often, justice delayed is justice denied.

Occasionally, there are stories that stop one in one’s tracks. I appeared on “Newsnight” to explain the situation in our courts—backlogs reaching 80,000 and far too many people waiting for justice—and on that programme, I was confronted with the story of Morwenna Loughman. She spoke of the devastating impact that those court delays had had on her life. Morwenna was violently raped in February 2023. She was forced to wait over two years for her attacker to be convicted after her trial was cancelled not once, but twice at short notice. During that time, she lost her job, her home and her sense of self. Her story has stayed with me ever since—it is people exactly like Morwenna whom I have in my mind’s eye as I return to the House with this legislation. For far too many survivors, delays themselves have become another source of trauma. We cannot sit idly by; we have to act now to resolve this situation.

The Bill seeks to turn a crisis into an opportunity—an opportunity to rebuild a justice system that is swifter and stronger, and has victims’ voices at its core. We have the opportunity to rebuild a system that gives courts, rather than defendants, the ability to triage cases, and that transforms our approach to the culture around rape and serious sexual violence. That is the ambition of this Bill—not just to repair what is broken, but to build something better in its place.

This Government inherited a criminal justice system that was on its knees, with trials taking longer, hearings constantly cancelled and victims facing unacceptable delays. Years of inaction and under-investment had led to a courts system that, as Lord Leveson’s report concluded, was and remains simply unfit for purpose. Today, the Crown court backlog stands at almost 81,000 cases, and the pressure is growing. Cases themselves are increasingly complex, not least because of the growth of digital and forensic evidence. A single smartphone can hold the equivalent of 50 million printed pages, and this adds to disclosure, complexity, and the time it takes to reach a verdict. The police are arresting more criminals. We make absolutely no apologies for that, but a system that is already under strain cannot continue to absorb ever-rising demand without reform. Old structures are creaking under new volumes and new types of crime, and if we do not act, the situation will continue to spiral.

Not only are we failing victims, this situation and these unacceptable delays are corrosive of public trust in the justice system itself. We can and must do better. To do so, we need a sensible, principled and pragmatic approach. As we will no doubt hear, the Opposition have offered plenty of objections, but precious few answers to the reality facing our courts. We will not take lectures from the party that left the criminal justice system in this state. This Government have a plan: a serious package of measures designed to drive down the backlog and ensure that victims get the fast, timely and fair justice that they deserve. Lord Leveson’s conclusion in the independent review of criminal courts was clear that there is no silver bullet for addressing this problem. We need to pull every lever—investment, modernisation and structural reform—and this Government are doing precisely that.

Let me begin with investment. For a start, we have removed the financial limit on court sitting days. We have recruited more judges and magistrates. By uncapping Crown court sitting days—meaning that there is no financial limit on the number of cases that courts can hear—we have unleashed the potential of our Crown courts, which are hearing more cases than ever before. We are investing an additional £287 million in court repairs and digital upgrades, alongside record investment in criminal legal aid to support the solicitors and barristers who run our criminal cases, alongside a package of more than half a billion pounds for victim services over the next three years.

In addition, I am proud that we have announced a £23 million package to introduce specialist rape courts—a manifesto commitment—in every single Crown court centre. That will improve the experience of victims of rape and other sexual offences at court, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), whose bravery and determination has driven forward those changes.

Modernisation and efficiency matter, too. I abhor inefficiency. When I speak not just to victims, but to defendants and to people who work within the system, the wastefulness of ineffective trials is so frustrating. We hear stories of trials being put off because a prisoner was not produced on time or because counsel was unavailable. Working with the judiciary, we are modernising our system and we are throwing the kitchen sink at it.

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

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for throwing the kitchen sink at the problem, including court repairs. We wish to see those repairs make progress at Taunton Crown court. The Minister was good enough to write to me at the beginning of the summer to explain that the court, which has been closed since 2023, will be closed for longer. Will she contact me to give us an update on when Taunton Crown court will finally be reopened?

[Sarah Sackman]

I was glad to meet the hon. Member to discuss the situation at Taunton, which I know has been a deep source of frustration. Nothing could more exemplify the years of neglect of our justice system than our crumbling court estate that was presided over by the Conservatives. This Government are investing in the fabric of our court estate. That is not just in the bricks and mortar, but in the digital upgrades that are so important, and I will speak to those now.

We have the technology for remote hearings; we need to be deploying it. This Government will develop a pilot of virtual remand hearings, so that we do not need as many prisoner transfers as before. We will work with our judiciary to develop a new pioneering national video model. The model will allow suitable cases to be allocated to available judges across different locations. It might be that a judge in Cardiff is hearing a matter based down in London, helping to alleviate the pressures there, to make much more effective use of capacity and to target those areas facing the greatest backlogs.

We are also adopting a new national listing tool, harnessing the capacity of AI to schedule cases more efficiently. We will have case progression officers in every single Crown court, making the more complex cases progress further and faster. We are working with the judiciary to set up short trial courts, which hear similar cases together over concentrated periods so that they can be dealt with more quickly. We are also expanding a scheme already used in Manchester, Bristol and Nottingham to allow prison vans to use bus lanes. I agree entirely with those who say we need to make the system more efficient, and we are stretching and straining every sinew to do exactly that, with the investment to go with it. We welcome in particular the judiciary’s reforms to prioritise rape and serious sexual offences and to end the unacceptable practice of floating trials for such cases, giving victims greater certainty about when their case will be heard.

Lord Leveson’s review was clear that investment and modernisation can only take us so far. No single lever can fix a crisis that has been years in the making. We have had decades of under-investment in a system that has simply not kept pace with the 21st century, where cases now take twice as long as they did 25 years ago. So our third lever is pragmatic, principled structural reform to ease the pressure on the Crown court and ensure that its time is concentrated on the most serious cases, and that is precisely what the Bill delivers.

The case for reform remains as strong as ever, but good government requires us to listen, and this place exists to scrutinise and improve legislation. When concerns are raised, it is right that the Government reflect and react. When the Prime Minister took office he committed himself to looking at these proposals again, and that is why over recent months the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and I have listened carefully to stakeholders, to Members on both sides of the House, and to people who work within the system. We have heard that strength of feeling, and we have acted. I can confirm today that the Government have tabled an amendment to remove clause 3, relating to the bench division. The effect will be that all defendants facing a trial in the Crown court will be heard with a jury. That decision does not change the destination or the ambition of the Bill, which has always remained the same: swifter justice for victims.

Simplifying our approach and avoiding some of the operational reforms that would have come with a new division in the Crown court gives us the opportunity to move faster in implementing the changes set out in the Bill. Implementing those changes more efficiently will free up court capacity and make better use of court time, helping us to bring about fast, fair justice for victims. We remain confident that the guts of the Bill—the package of reforms backed by the record financial investment that I have described, along with our ambitious programme of modernisation—will be sufficient to free up Crown court time to turn the tide on the backlog within the current Parliament. This is the right decision for victims, and it is the right decision for the justice system.

I know that the Opposition have tabled amendments to remove the remaining clauses relating to Lord Leveson’s review, but I am afraid that doing so would be to bury one’s head in the sand. We are proceeding with other structural reforms in the Bill, including the removal of defendants’ right to choose whether their cases are heard in the magistrates court or the Crown court when they involve an either-way offence. The reform that we have always proposed is that, as in Scotland, it should be the court rather than the defendant that triages cases. This has a double effect. Not only is it more efficient, ensuring that when the prosecution and the court decide that a case can be heard in the magistrates court, that is where it is heard; it is also fairer. It is about putting the power in the hands of the court rather than those of the defendant and giving a far greater say to victims whose voice can be heard through the prosecution, which puts its case as to what venue the case should be heard in, as well as hearing from the defence. It means that cases will be heard on the basis of their seriousness and not simply the preference of the defendant, as is the case in Scotland.

This is exactly the right thing to do. These measures will not only reduce the demand on the Crown court, but will prevent defendants from gaming the system, electing for a jury trial in the simple hope that delays will drag on and the case will fall apart when the victims or witnesses withdraw. Our reforms are not only pragmatic but principled. For instance, giving magistrates courts greater sentencing powers means that more cases can be dealt with more quickly. The magistrates court is an efficient jurisdiction. It currently deals with triable either way cases about four times faster than the Crown court.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is rightly interested in ensuring the plans are delivered. We are working flat out to deliver them on time—or, where we can, ahead of time. I will certainly look into the issues he raises. These are complex projects, but we are determined to get this right. I am happy that he has raised the issue, and we will look into it further.

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

The Ministry of Justice will be able to deliver its rapid deployment cells building programme more quickly if it completes other programmes. Taunton Crown court has been closed since 2023, and the closure has just been extended. In March, I received a letter saying that the long-promised opening date in July was now cancelled, and that in due course I would receive an update. I have not received any update. Victims and jurors are having to travel extra tens of miles—30 or 40 miles—without public transport, which is a real burden on them. An exacerbating issue is the fact that jury recompense has not been updated since 2010. Will the Minister look into this issue, and also address jury recompense?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is a question about cells. [Interruption.] Well, you kind of threw something in, and I do not think it was quite relevant, to be honest. Just because you think so, does not mean that I accept it. We really have to stick to the question. Personally, I would have thought this would have been better in topicals.

I call the shadow Minister.

Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 29th April 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) on bringing this important and overdue consideration of CIL to Westminster Hall.

We have heard some powerful contributions, and it is clear that there is a widespread and serious problem. Families are facing bills of £40,000 to £70,000—in some cases over £200,000—for what often amounts to a missing form. That is an awful and unacceptable situation, and it can be life-ruining for those involved. The lack of appeal, the mounting interest and the threat of people losing their homes are all real injustices. The system is broken and needs to be changed.

The Liberal Democrats agree with much of the substance of what has been said, but I must be direct with the right hon. Gentleman: Waverley borough council’s CIL charging schedule, which sets all the rules for the charging of CIL, all the forms and all the processes were put in place by the Conservative council administration a few years ago. The Liberal Democrat authority is doing its best to manage the system that was put in place by its predecessors. His party had ample time in government to fix the issue and, as we have heard, did not do so.

On the question of the discretion available to councils, the position is fairly clear. In December 2025, the High Court handed down a judgment in Luck v. Bracknell Forest borough council, and was unequivocal that once a valid CIL charge has fallen due, councils cannot lawfully cancel it. Councils find themselves with no alternative. Depending on what lies behind the original mistake or inaccurate charge, councils simply cannot wipe away the charge, as the Court has determined.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

The CIL rules manage to be too inflexible and too vague at the same time. My constituent Ruth has had to pay a £38,000 CIL charge because unfortunately her husband did not submit the correct forms, as a result of what turned out to be Alzheimer’s. As my hon. Friend said, any potential refund would be technically against the law, and the Government say they cannot intervene in the case because the correct rules have been followed. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while waiting for further legislation, the Minister needs as a matter of urgency to issue new national CIL guidelines and give councils clarity, consistency and the ability to correct injustices where appropriate?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He makes the excellent suggestion that not only should we have guidance, but the regulations themselves need to be changed, in many of the ways that other hon. Members have already mentioned.

[Richard Foord]

Does my hon. Friend recall that our hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) tabled a new clause on CIL guidance for the debate on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, but unfortunately the Government did not accept it? Does my hon. Friend agree that we ought to look at other legislative opportunities to correct the wrongs?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Government should do that. There have been opportunities to do something about this; there are opportunities to change the law. He seems to have read the later part of my speech, and is quite right to mention our hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), who not only made that point in respect of that Bill but brought it to the attention of the Select Committee last year. Liberal Democrats in Parliament have been trying to get resolution and a change in the rules.

In Waverley, the council has gone further than the law requires. It has set up a discretionary review process, opening a few weeks from now in June, for householders who believe they have been wrongly charged. That is the right thing to do, acting within the limits of what the law allows it to do. But the council can only act up to and within the bounds of the law, which is rigid.

[Gregory Stafford]

Before the hon. Member moves on, I should correct what he said: CIL was introduced in Waverley in 2019, and the Liberal Democrats took over the council one month later. The idea that the Conservatives brought it in is utter nonsense. The Liberal Democrats have now had seven years to try to fix it, and they have not. I ask the hon. Member to use his influence on his fellow Liberal Democrats to encourage them to operate a system far more like those in other parts of the country that we heard about from my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), which operate with more flexibility.

[Gideon Amos]

The amount of flexibility that can be exercised depends on the nature of the error in the process that is being discussed, so not every council can operate the same redress in the same situation. The hon. Gentleman confirms that it was a Conservative administration that drew up the CIL charging schedule, the forms and all the processes that underlie and guide—in fact, not just guide but narrowly dictate—how the council exercises control over CIL. Where the hon. Gentleman is right is that the rules need to change. The best way to change them would be to change the regulations in this place.

That brings me to the Minister and the Government. The Minister has said, including when my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury raised the issue, that CIL was never intended to be applied in this way, and I believe he is right. He has named the Liberal Democrat authority in West Berkshire as a good example of exercising discretion where the law allows that to be done, but naming good examples is not enough, and we need to do more.

We need three things from the Government on this issue, and we need them in this Parliament. We need a statutory definition of what constitutes a minor administrative error, so that homeowners are not penalised by tens of thousands of pounds for a missed form. We need a statutory right of appeal against CIL charges, with clear limits for resolution, and a clear lawful basis on which councils can waive or refund charges in cases of genuine homeowner error. Currently, that option can be exercised only in certain cases, depending on the nature of the error involved. I am grateful that the Minister has indicated in previous discussions that the Government will act, but we need to see action.

While on the subject of CIL, we should be honest about the wider problem. All the Members who have spoken—I think they have all been hon. Gentlemen—were right that it is necessary to fund infrastructure, so the rationale behind CIL is worth while. As the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) pointed out, the CIL funds do need to be spent on delivering infrastructure.

The levy is a flat rate per square metre and bears no relation to the level of the uplift in land value before and after planning permission is granted. I confess that back in the 2000s when the measure was being put forward, I was part of a lively debate with bodies such as the British Property Federation, arguing that the levy should relate to the level of land value uplift. In some parts of the country, where we have clear viability challenges, there is very little land value uplift. The same level is charged as on a site with a massive land level uplift, where there is no viability problem. The state is missing out on land value uplift in places and the CIL is affecting viability in other places. We would suggest that the Government move towards a levy that relates to the land value increase that the landowner is gaining. That is necessary to fund schools, surgeries, GPs, roads, and all the rest of it.

The Minister is reportedly looking at the levy again; I urge him to be ambitious and make the changes we are arguing for. Patching the exemption rules is necessary, but it is not sufficient. The injustice that constituents are facing is real—we agree on that—but the schedule put in place by previous parties is what has guided Waverley’s actions. The council is doing what it lawfully can to address the issue, but the Government need to do the rest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeremy Hunt]

That is quite an unusual thing to be told by the Chair, Mr Turner. I thank you for chairing this important debate and I thank all hon. Members present for some excellent contributions. I particularly want to thank my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for his tenacious campaigning on this issue on behalf of my former constituents in Farnham and Haslemere. He made an excellent contribution. I also want to thank the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who typically gave a very thoughtful and clear exposition of the issues we face. I also thank hon. Members from other parties who have spoken and intervened.

Before I come on to the Minister’s comments, I want to comment on what was said by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), because it was directly about my own local authority. He was right to say that a council cannot lawfully cancel a charge after it has become liable, but that does beg the question why there have been countless injustices in some councils, but not in others, and that is because there has been an element of choice in the way local authorities have decided to go about things.

To make the point that I am not being party political here, Lib Dem West Berkshire has chosen to be reasonable, do the right thing and make sure there is justice for people unfairly caught in the CIL trap, but Lib Dem Waverley has not. It has been in power for seven years and Waverley residents, a number of whom are watching this debate, have suffered badly.

[Gideon Amos]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that residents need redress. I will simply place on the record again that the nature of the errors or mistakes in charging can be different from one authority to another, which was very much the case with West Berkshire, where the nature of the charges being made wrongly was a different procedural error and therefore a different remedy could be applied. I hope that, in the spirit of being non-tribal with which he began this debate, he will accept that that is actually a fact.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt]

I absolutely accept that. Again, in that spirit of being non-tribal, the hon. Gentleman will know the number of times that his party and other parties have talked about the 14 years in which we had opportunities to fix things that we did not fix, so he will appreciate that the Liberal Democrats in Waverley have had seven years to fix the issue and have failed to do so. That is why so many people from Waverley are looking at this debate carefully. But he is correct to say that all councils have to operate within the law.

I want to move on to the Minister’s comments. First, I thank him for the interest that he has shown right from the start. I want to put on the record that the number of people affected is relatively small in the grander scheme of things, and it would have been easy for the Minister to decide there were other priorities. It is about 100 families—maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less—so the Minister could easily have decided to focus on other areas, but he has not. He has spent an enormous amount of time trying to address this. That is the right and proper thing for a Minister in a democracy to do; if there is an injustice that even affects one person, it is incredibly important that Ministers take note, and he has really done that.

The Minister also clarified the problems with the 2014 exemptions introduced by the coalition Government, which were designed to ensure that householders were not caught up in these regulations, but did so through such a bureaucratic and cumbersome process that many inadvertently have been. The issue of particular complexity relates to householders’ immediate liability from the moment that building starts, which seems entirely reasonable for a professional developer, but entirely unreasonable for a homeowner who may not be aware of that element of the law.

It is extremely welcome that the Government are going to consult on the CIL regulations. As a former Government Minister, I feel a tremendous amount of frustration and pain at the need for endless consultations. They can be of value, but they also slow things down. I recognise that the Minister wants to do this fast—I did groan when he said, “as soon as possible,” but then when he said, “before the summer break,” I took some encouragement. I think this is something that is moving forward.

In the options that the Minister consults on—he cannot respond to this, but it is something to take away—could we find a way of removing homeowners from CIL liability altogether? That way we move away from a system that is purely based on the square meterage of a development, to one based on the type of person doing the development. Could we change the regulations so that homeowners can at least always apply for an exemption retrospectively if an error has been made? Not being able to do so offends natural justice, and was an unintended consequence of the complexity of the original regulations.

I am grateful to the Minister for confronting head-on the fact that for many people, this is about getting justice for something that has happened, not ensuring that injustice does not continue to happen. He has been very open with me about the legal complexities involved, and I know from my time as Health Secretary how difficult it is to reopen retrospective cases. The Minister’s Department has enormous influence over local authorities, however, not least through setting their grants, so if the Department chose, it could find a way to put councils under pressure, where there are outstanding CIL cases and injustice, so that those cases get solved.

I recognise that what I ask is not easy, but it is absolutely the case that local councils are extremely dependent on the Minister’s Department for large chunks of their financing. I ask him to consider what levers he has at his disposal to make this happen, while at the same time thanking him for his ongoing interest and determination to address the issue. The final thing I will say is that I know someone in the Public Gallery got up at 4 am to attend this debate. I thank that person and all the CIL Injustice Group for their tenacious campaigning to try to right a truly awful wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Given the massive immigration tribunal backlog left by the previous Government, would it not make more sense to lift the cap on non-salaried tribunal judges who are already recruited, and invest in court venues such as Taunton, instead of abolishing their role and doing massive damage to morale?

[Sarah Sackman]

Plainly, we have to address the backlogs in our immigration and asylum chamber. It is why we are maximising capacity in terms of sitting days and traditional recruitment. I had the pleasure of visiting the immigration and asylum chamber on Rosebury Avenue recently, and I saw the commendable work being done by the resident judge. We are focusing on a new appeals body, working with the Home Office. We think that is the better plan, and we will make sure it is properly resourced.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on defending trial by jury, which is a long-standing right that people have enjoyed—albeit only in certain circumstances—and we should think very seriously before taking it away. One hundred senior barristers and KCs have written to the Secretary of State to say that taking away this right for those cases would be an “irremediable error”, and many others have criticised the move.

When I visited the magistrates court in my constituency, magistrates told me of their challenges in recruiting, which must place serious doubts on the assumptions that have been made about the time savings that would result from this Bill. I also have serious concerns about the removal of the right to appeal those cases in the Crown court.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Criminal Bar Association says it is “fundamentally opposed” to restricting jury trials, with around 90% of criminal barristers being against these proposals. This was not in Labour’s manifesto, and there has been an admission that the plans are ideological rather than practical. Does the hon. Member agree that weakening trial by jury will not solve the crisis in our courts and risks undermining a safeguard that has protected our justice system for over 800 years?

[Gideon Amos]

I do. The hon. Member is right: the problem with these reforms is that they are not going to speed up the criminal justice system or solve the backlog issues. We have rehearsed all the challenges that the system faces—we know what they are, and they need to be addressed, but abolishing trial by jury for those affected will not do that.

Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may, I would like to spend a few minutes on a missed opportunity in this Bill: dealing with the state of our immigration and asylum system, which we all know the Conservatives left in an appalling state. The asylum backlog more than doubled in just two years, from 70,000 to 166,000 people waiting in 2022. Instead of processing those claims, the Conservatives opened over 400 asylum hotels. As the Government began clearing up the—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might like to stay within the scope of this Bill rather than discussing asylum hotels.

[Gideon Amos]

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

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

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

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

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

“highly valued part of our unwritten constitution.”

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

“the foundation of our free constitution”.

In the 20th century, Lord Justice Devlin said that

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

[Catherine Atkinson]

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

[Gideon Amos]

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

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

We already have judges who make decisions on cases where children are taken away from parents, so does the hon. Gentleman not consider those to be serious cases? Some 90% of cases are dealt with by magistrates, so does he say that justice is not achieved in those cases?

[Gideon Amos]

Of course magistrates do a vital job, but when I visited magistrates in my constituency, they explained that they seriously doubt that it will be possible to recruit sufficient people to meet Ministry of Justice estimates about cost saving and time saving.

To conclude, for me cases that will result in imprisonment of up to three years—or up to two years if they come before a magistrate—are serious enough to warrant the right of defendants to request a trial by jury. Those are the protections currently in place in law. We should hold on to those protections and defend them as a guarantee of our liberty in this House and in the country.

Jury Trials

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

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

[Gideon Amos]

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

[Andy Slaughter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sentencing Bill

Gideon Amos Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

We need more prisons and prison places, but I find the Conservative case absolutely incoherent. They talk about being tough on crime, but they closed police stations, closed courts, cut the number of police officers and completely failed to deliver the number of prison places that they speak about—talking tough without delivering the goods. Frankly, that does not work and the country has had enough of it. We need to move on.

I recognise, however, that courts need to make greater use of community sentences. Courts need to be agile, and they need tools that deal harshly with persistent offending. Community sentences can do that. Defaulting to prison every time, almost fetishising prison, cares nothing about the victims of petty criminals who are sent to prison for short stays, where they learn more about crime than they had ever learnt in their whole lives, and then come out and reoffend. We heard no concern from Conservative Members about the victims of reoffending. Why not? It is not convenient for their argument that prison is always the answer. Community sentences, demonstrating that people are paying back to their community and society, can be a tough sentence and the right sentence.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that requiring an offender to look at the root causes of their offending is far from the easy option? Facing up to those life difficulties is very hard, but it is a really effective way of stopping the cycle of offending.

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Lady makes a compelling point about the depths to which that kind of sentencing can go. The lack of concern from Conservative Members about reoffending after short-term prison stays is surprising, to say the least.

Coming down hard on crime means we need to bring back proper community policing, quicker justice that halves the time between the offence and the sentence, and better and tougher supervision of community sentences, as set out in our Lib Dem manifesto. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) referred to our position on the Bill, which I wholeheartedly support, and he does a tremendous job.

In my Taunton and Wellington constituency, I am working with local businesses and the police to try to stamp out shops that are trading illegally. Time and again, police and trading standards raid premises and find counterfeit cigarettes or unlicensed alcohol, with evidence of sales to under-age youngsters. However, I have spoken to the police about this, and they find that the only person they can put before the courts is the individual behind the counter—a fall guy for the shadowy layers of owners who lie behind the business. Conniving and cowardly fraudsters are basically employing and putting behind the counter vulnerable people who often have little grasp of the law and the regulations that apply.

All criminal behaviour deserves to be punished, but sentencing the fall guy for up to 10 years in prison, as provided for in the Trade Marks Act 1994, does not effectively deal with the menace of dangerous goods being sold to our children. The convicted man or woman often deserves less blame than their employers, while those employers—the shadowy bosses—simply open a new business under a new name in the same shop and carry on trading illegally, with a different fall guy behind the counter.

Back in 2008, research in the British Medical Journal found that

“Smuggled tobacco kills four times more people than all illicit drugs combined”.

In 2018, the Mesothelioma Center reported on a study of counterfeit cigarettes imported into Australia from China which showed alarming results:

“Each cigarette is packed with up to 80 percent more nicotine and emits 130 percent more carbon monoxide. Worse still, many contain other impurities such as rat poison, traces of lead, dead flies, human and animal feces and asbestos.”

It is a menace that we have to deal with.

Why should those who are trading honestly—like my constituents who run shops, pubs and businesses, sustaining town centres and communities across Taunton and Wellington—and paying their taxes be forced to compete with criminal enterprises, for which it takes months and months to obtain a closure order under the current legal process? Is it not time to change the law to “one strike and you’re out” when it comes to shops trading in illegal substances? Why must it take months for such orders to be granted? Why can we not empower the police officers in my constituency, who are as frustrated as I am, to close down premises overnight? I hope that the Secretary of State will meet me to discuss that aspect of the legislation—I will explain that to him afterwards, if I have the chance, because I am not quite sure that he caught it. Being tough on this kind of crime should mean being swift with the punishment. That would put a stop to the behaviour immediately, and rightly send a shiver down the spine of any shop owner contemplating illegal sales.

In conclusion, although better supervision is needed, tough new community sentences including tagging are welcome to deter repeat offending. That will not increase the reoffending in the way that prison often does. There is, though, a wider lesson: sentencing reform alone is not enough when the real culprits are able to hide in the shadows. We need to strengthen the powers of the police and councils not only to prosecute the individuals at the counter, but to close down the premises that police know are repeatedly flouting the law. If we do not, we risk punishing the least powerful while allowing the real fraudsters to keep raking in their gains, to keep harming our children, and to keep evading their taxes.

Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right to make that point about digitisation and efficiency. Following the first phase of the spending review, I have funded ongoing work to improve digitisation of all our court processes, because, as my hon. Friend has said, we need to move away from our current paper-based and paper-heavy systems. Part 2 of Sir Brian Leveson’s work, which will produce a report in the autumn, will involve looking at cross-system efficiency as well. My hon. Friend is right about the need to increase productivity and efficiency, because that will be the final part of the puzzle if we are to sort out the backlog.

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

I welcome the announcement of the extra sitting days, and also the announcements about reform. I hope that the ancient right to trial by jury will remain.

Somerset Crown court in Taunton was closed in 2023, after work began in 2022 because items were falling on people’s heads from the ceiling. We have just been told that it will be closed for another year, during which victims of crime will have to travel tens of miles further. Some court users are even sleeping under a bush because they cannot travel back and forth. We need to get our Crown court open again, so will the Lord Chancellor please consider expediting these works?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman has a meeting with the courts Minister, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), to discuss the situation in Taunton.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gideon Amos Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to describe the situation as Conservative court chaos. Indeed, the full picture of the last Government’s terrible inheritance will become clear when we publish Crown court data later this week. Demand on the criminal courts is increasing at a faster rate than the actions we are able to take, and we must therefore go further. This Government understand the scale of the problem and are ready to confront it with the fundamental reforms that will be necessary.

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

The Minister referred to court chaos. A tribunal judge and a court worker from my Taunton and Wellington constituency wrote to me. The tribunal judge said:

“tribunals are being cancelled every day as they say there are not enough judges to cover the cases. This is absolutely not the case,”

and

“People are waiting months for their benefit appeals in appalling poverty and again we cannot deal with the cases because of this limit”

on sitting days. What will the Minister do to increase sitting days in Taunton and Somerset courts?

[Sarah Sackman]

We are investing in increased court capacity and in the recruitment of 1,000 judges and tribunal members. As the Lord Chancellor said, we have increased the number of Crown court sitting days by 500, but it is not simply enough to increase court sitting days. We have to look at fundamental reform to address the serious backlogs we have inherited from the Conservative Government.