Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
The whole House will have sympathy for Olivia. The family courts must never be a place for perpetrators to continue their abuse. Repealing the presumption of parental involvement will ensure that children’s wellbeing continues to be the court’s primary focus when considering contact. Under the child-focused model, independent domestic violence advisers can provide victims with specialist family support.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
One of the successes of the family justice system is the family mediation voucher scheme. Two thirds of families who use the scheme avoid going to court, which takes a lot of pressure off the family courts. It started in 2021 and gets renewed every year, often at the end of the year or even when the next year has started, which creates huge uncertainty. Will the Secretary of State just say that he will make the scheme permanent from now on?
Jake Richards
The hon. Gentleman is right that there is an important role for restorative justice in our criminal justice system. Just yesterday we made an announcement on the use of restorative justice in our youth courts, as well as the appointment of Jacob Dunne as an expert adviser. Jacob Dunne, who will be known to many Members of the House, is a great champion of restorative justice, and someone who has experienced it. There is more to do in the adult estate, and the Government will announce measures on re:hub, which is an essential cog of the restorative justice system, in due course.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Government are talking a good game on reducing the cycle of reoffending, but meaningful prison education plays a key role in that objective. Recent analysis has found a significant decrease in the core education hours in public sector prisons. That has been seen most acutely in female prisons, where there has been a fall of 30%. What is the Minister doing to reverse that decline in education hours across all prisons, end the postcode lottery that we see currently, and ensure that obligations to equality are met?
Catherine Atkinson
Baroness Harman’s record speaks for itself. She has spent decades turning words into action, whether by passing landmark legislation, strengthening protections or relentlessly pushing this issue, which should never be used for party political point scoring, up the political agenda. It is this Prime Minister and this Government who are determined to halve violence against women and girls. Our VAWG strategy sets out the plan to do so, and we are getting on with the job of delivering it.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I welcome the new Minister to her post. For all the policies she might be glad to inherit, she is also inheriting a plan later this year to let out potentially thousands of the worst offenders against women and girls, including rapists and those responsible for sexual assault. The Government are refusing to be transparent about this and are not answering freedom of information requests and written questions about how many rapists and sexual assault offenders will be allowed out of prison earlier. Will this new Minister turn over a new leaf and at least be transparent about how many rapists the Government will be letting out of prison early later this year?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman makes his point with real force. However, he never talks about victims, and has not explained how we should bring down the backlog. The truth is that we are determined to bring down the backlog, and that is why—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Turner, I took the question; I expect you to hear the answer as well.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I come with good news: with increased funding from the Government, uncapped sitting days and improved disposal rates, backlogs in the Crown courts are falling. At the Old Bailey in 2025, the backlog fell by a quarter, in Chelmsford it fell by 10%, and Maidstone saw a 5% reduction. The truth is that proper funding for our courts and uncapped sitting days are bringing down the backlogs, but the Government are choosing to ignore that data and are persisting in taking a sledgehammer to jury trials, although that will not deliver shorter wait times for victims. Why will the Minister not trust those in the justice system who want to deliver for victims using the increased funding and resource that he has delivered for them?
Jake Richards
As I said, each case is considered on its own circumstances, and the risk is assessed by the professionals. I am very happy to look into that case and make sure that the appropriate officials look into it too.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
As an MP whose constituency has a category C prison for male sex offenders that is almost at capacity—HMP Littlehey—I welcome the clarity from the Minister regarding paedophiles in the prison estate.
We know that the Minister is on the hook to deliver thousands of new category C and D prison places. I want to ask him about the prison places he has made almost no progress on since the election because the contractor ISG went into administration in September 2024. I first highlighted the failure of that project last year. Can he confirm whether, since then, all those 12 prisons have had new contractors appointed? When will those prison places be delivered?
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Last year, 6,397 knife criminals were sent to prison, and the average sentence was just over eight months. As the Government scrapped almost all sentences of less than a year, will the Justice Secretary say very clearly whether he expects as many knife criminals to go to jail next year as did last year?
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Timothy, you get two questions. Can you at least wait half a minute before you jump in?
Mr Lammy
It is a serious subject, and I am pleased that after 22 months in office, we have seen falls in knife crime in the last year. We will continue with our knife crime strategy.
Alistair Strathern
The Anti-Slavery Commissioner recently called out the targeted online grooming of young men by county lines gangs. That is far from being an isolated case of such targeting. Young men growing up in Britain today are all too often targeted by those in the worst corners of the internet—from those in the manosphere to predatory gambling companies to get-rich-quick schemes. However, while Ofcom rightly has guidance for platforms about how to better protect women and girls from the specific harms that they can be exposed to, no such parallel guidance exists for young men and boys growing up in Britain. We are all worse off as a result. We recently convened over 60 MPs to write to Ofcom to urge it to put that right. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join us today in calling on Ofcom to step up? It is in its gift to do so. Let us get this done.
Mr Lammy
It is an excellent question. My hon. Friend is quite right; there are many concerns about the online space and what it means for men and boys in a modern society, and there is an important role for Ofcom. I encourage him to write to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, and I will take a close interest. I hope that he gets a meeting with a Minister.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Let me be absolutely clear: prisoners are not permitted to have access to social media in any circumstances and face punishment if they do so. All cases are investigated by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service if they are discovered. A few weeks ago I visited our state-of-the-art digital forensics lab, which interrogates any phones found and provides evidence to bring successful prosecutions in court. I hope that reassures his constituent.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
This weekend, two marches came to London: one was condemned by the Justice Secretary; about the other—yet another anti-Israel march—there was not a word. Once again we heard crowds of people demanding intifada revolution and other coded calls for attacks on British Jews. If the Crown Prosecution Service refuses to prosecute the thugs who chant “Globalise the intifada” and other calls for violence, why will the Justice Secretary not change the law so that these people get what they deserve?
Youth Justice
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the youth justice system in England and Wales. I am today publishing a White Paper, with a once-in-a-generation set of reforms to build a youth justice system that intervenes early, responds more effectively and does more to turn young lives around, so that we can better protect the public. I am very grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), and, before him, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), for all their hard work in getting us to this point.
Over the past two decades, the number of children entering the youth justice system and being detained in custody has fallen dramatically. This progress is the result of real cross-party consensus, with a modern youth justice system that began under Tony Blair’s Government and was continued, during his time as Prime Minister, by Lord Cameron—he famously said he would “hug a hoodie”—who, with Lord Gove, asked me to carry out the Lammy review.
But this success has brought a new challenge. Our youth justice system is now working with significantly fewer young people, but they are significantly more vulnerable and at significantly higher risk. Most begin their journey into crime long before they come to the attention of the police, their lives shaped by instability, by trauma and often by neglect—the kind of childhood that most of us in this House could barely imagine. Some grow up surrounded by violence, addiction and abuse, while others are moved endlessly around children’s homes or foster care placements, never staying in one place long enough to have the stability needed to feel safe, let alone the love and care that would enable them to really thrive. All those factors make them more likely to end up in the justice system. When we fail to intervene early enough, the consequences can be devastating—for those children, of course, but also for victims and entire communities, because around 80% of prolific adult offenders first enter the justice system as children.
The risks that children face have also changed. Today’s children are navigating online harms, criminal grooming through social media and exposure to extremist content. Too often the system has struggled to keep pace: opportunities to intervene are missed, warning signs go unnoticed and agencies do not consistently share information. This means that children can slip through the cracks between services, which risks escalation, and responsibility between agencies becomes blurred. The lessons emerging from the Southport inquiry, following the tragic murders of three young children by Axel Rudakubana, a violent 17-year-old who was known to authorities, are a terrible reminder of what can happen when systems are not sufficiently co-ordinated and not sufficiently decisive in the face of escalating concerns.
We must learn those lessons but also strike the right balance. The system must recognise that they are still developing and that most have huge capacity to change. We should not over-criminalise but, at the same time, avoiding criminalisation must never mean overlooking risk or failing to act. Benign neglect, however well intentioned, is still neglect. Where behaviour causes harm, timely, proportionate and effective intervention is essential to protect the public and to support children to change course.
That principle is reflected throughout this White Paper. First, we will intervene earlier, investing an additional £46 million over the next three years in our turnaround programme, which is already showing promising results in diverting children from crime, and by strengthening the join-up with other programmes that support children on the cusp of offending. We will also strengthen and expand the use of parenting orders, which can compel parents to address their child’s behaviour, including attending counselling or guidance sessions. If they do not act, they will face penalties. We will deliver on our manifesto commitment to introduce an offence of child criminal exploitation, building on the work carried out by others, including Baroness May, and placing the focus where it belongs: on the adults who groom, the adults who coerce and the adults who profit from exploiting children. Through new youth diversion orders, we will tackle the increasing number of young people who commit terrorism offences, allowing agencies to intervene before that risk escalates.
Where offending does happen, we will ensure that children get the right response at the right time. Diversion must be firm, fair and effective. We will fundamentally reform the youth out-of-court resolution framework, to improve consistency and public confidence so that children receive interventions that genuinely address their behaviour and cut crime. We will also pilot problem-solving youth intervention courts, laser-focused on rehabilitation and prevention. They bring together judges, youth workers and specialist support to tackle the root causes of offending, whether mental ill health, school absence, addiction or exploitation, while still demanding accountability from young offenders.
Custody will always be necessary for the most dangerous offences, but for many children even a short spell inside can deepen their problems, exposing them to more violence and criminal influence. So we are setting an ambition to cut the number of children remanded in custody by 25% over this Parliament, alongside an intention to reduce the use of short custodial sentences, which so often are ineffective, with more than two thirds of children going on to reoffend. Instead, we will invest £5 million in intensive community placements and stronger bail support, protecting the public while giving children a genuine chance to change course.
We will also reform the childhood criminal records regime, because mistakes made at 13 should not become a life sentence of closed doors and lost chances, not least where this prevents young people from getting a job, which is a crucial factor in helping offenders turn their lives around. We will carefully consider the age of criminal responsibility in this country, which currently sits at just 10 years old, to ensure that it still reflects a modern understanding of childhood, vulnerability and development. We will also strengthen local youth justice services so that they are better equipped to meet the needs of today’s children.
We will soon set out detailed proposals for a new approach to youth justice service oversight, and funding arrangements so that children receive consistently high-quality support wherever they live. That includes reforming the Youth Justice Board, sharpening its focus on continuous improvement of local services and transferring some of its key functions to the Ministry of Justice, so that Ministers are fully accountable for how the system performs.
I have been clear that custody will, where appropriate, be necessary for public safety. However, we will take further action to improve safety and education across the youth estate, while setting a clear long-term direction of travel away from large, outdated institutions and towards smaller settings that can better rehabilitate children.
The White Paper is also about fairness. Not all children in our justice system are equal. Those in care are still far more likely to be drawn into the system. Black children remain vastly over-represented—22% of the youth custodial population, compared with 6% of 10 to 17-year-olds overall. Black children are also over-represented among victims, being around six times more likely to be victims of homicide. I warned about this disproportionality when David Cameron asked me to do the Lammy review, nearly a decade ago, and the fact it persists today should shame us all. These reforms will begin to address that, building a system that is fairer and more consistent.
It is not a choice between punishment and rehabilitation; it is about what works: protecting the public, cutting reoffending, and stopping vulnerable children—so often victims themselves—becoming tomorrow’s dangerous adult offenders. This Government will do whatever it takes to give more children the chance of a better future, and to keep the British public safe. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Lammy
Exactly—we used to have them, and the Tories abolished them. We want to bring them back and grow their numbers so that we can support these young people.
There are a range of things we can do through this White Paper, and I encourage the hon. Member for West Suffolk to read it in detail. A lot of his predecessors would agree with it. It is good work, and we need to get on with it.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I welcome the White Paper, which shines a welcome light on an often-neglected part of the criminal justice system. The remarkable drop in the number of young people in custody, from a high of 3,400 a day, is sometimes box-ticked as “job done”, but when half those young people are on remand and a majority do not go on to receive a custodial sentence, there is clearly more to be done.
The Justice Committee is conducting an inquiry into children and young adults in the secure estate. While the Government are right to look at early intervention and alternatives to custody, will the Lord Chancellor also look at the successes and failures of the current custodial system for young people and how it can better rehabilitate young people and reduce the risk of reoffending?
Mr Lammy
We will look at this and do the necessary inquiry, and I know that my hon. Friend’s Committee is doing that work at the moment. He is concerned, quite rightly, about the huge rates of both prolific crime and recidivism. Clearly, the system is not working. We have this group of young people present in the system, and sometimes over two thirds of them go on to reoffend. We can do better, and we must do better. We have put rehabilitation at the heart of this youth justice White Paper.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Government’s White Paper represents a truly critical opportunity to transform the youth justice system and, importantly, reduce lifetime offending. We know that most offenders in our prisons today are repeat offenders and that persistent offending often begins early in life, with eight in 10 prolific offenders in England and Wales committing their first crime as a child. We must stop this chain of escalation, and the earlier we intervene, the better.
Nowhere is that more applicable than for children in care, those from ethnic minorities and those with special educational needs, who are disproportionately represented in the justice system. Will the Secretary of State set out how this overhaul will ensure that these children, given their specific vulnerabilities, will receive the targeted support that they desperately need?
May I take this opportunity to highlight the great work of the organisation SHiFT and encourage the Justice Secretary to engage with it? I believe that SHiFT’s model could be rolled out across the country, helping young people before they even commit their first crime?
Education for young offenders can be a crucial step in diverting them from a path to reoffending. We are pleased that the Children’s Commissioner will undertake a review of education in young offender institutions, but can the Justice Secretary ensure that it will take into account the fact that 80% of young people who are sentenced have special educational needs and make sure that the support they are getting in those institutes is fit for purpose?
The Youth Justice Board provides vital independent oversight of the youth justice system, yet the Government have chosen not to act on the report they commissioned from Steve Crocker, instead bringing a number of the board’s functions more directly within the remit of the Ministry of Justice. What is the purpose of those reforms? What benefit will the Government gain from bringing those functions in-house, and will the Justice Secretary address the concerns from across the sector that these reforms risk reducing specialist experience and weakening independent accountability?
Finally, will the Secretary of State set out how the use of parenting orders will affect the recruitment of foster parents, those being asked to take on special guardianship orders or kinship arrangements, and those considering adoption? If parenting orders will not apply to those families, how will they be supported effectively to ensure that this measure does not lead to further family breakdowns and more children ending up in the care system?
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
In my 20 years’ experience in the courts, I have watched young people’s attitude change: there is no respect for the courts when they walk into the courtroom, and no fear of the police. Prison—or young offenders institution—sentences are no longer a deterrent, because they are simply not given out. We rarely see parents in court in support, for lots of different reasons: these children are neglected because their parents are battling alcohol or drugs, have financial issues or are out of work; or they are in a care system that is letting them down. I have visited care homes that I know let under-age youngsters go out at night and prostitute themselves, because nobody can keep an eye on them or control them. The care system fails those kids too. In places such as my constituency, I witness kids going out in gangs, subject to organised crime gangs. They need opportunities, they need apprenticeships—
Mr Speaker
Order. One of us is going to give way and it is not going to be me. [Interruption.] Please, sit down immediately. I need to get everyone’s questions in. If you want to make a statement, you can apply for an Adjournment debate. I am sure there are many other ways to do that, but you cannot just hog the whole of this debate.
Mr Lammy
This is one of the few occasions—the first ever, I think—when I have agreed with the hon. Lady, specifically about the context for these young people. She brings tremendous experience to the Chamber as a magistrate working in this area, and we can agree about children in care, the adult grooming that we are seeing and parents often not being present in the criminal justice system—we have to do more to support them. She will find a lot in the White Paper that perhaps Reform can adopt as its policy for the next election.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Davies-Jones
The funding of £6 million over two years will enable us to introduce independent legal advisers for all adult rape victims, and that is alongside the support package we are introducing in our courts system. We are expanding on Operation Soteria to ensure that rape victims get the support they need. The investment in support services is only one part of a much bigger package to ensure that victims are put back at the heart of the justice system.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I know that Members from all parts of the House support the Government’s aim to halve violence against women and girls. The metric on which that is based, the crime survey for England, deals with those aged 16 and over, but girls under 16 are also substantially at risk. How will they be included in the recording and monitoring process to ensure that their needs are also addressed?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane), for all their work in shining a light on this horrific issue. I was proud to meet the chief executive of Travelodge yesterday to discuss it in detail, and the Government are looking into what more we can do. We are convening a roundtable with the relevant Ministers in the Departments for Business and Trade and for Culture, Media and Sport to discuss the tourism aspect, and what better regulation and support we can provide to keep people safe wherever they are—in hotels, in the street or online. We will ensure that women and girls are kept safe.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Right now there are potentially thousands of rapists, paedophiles and perverts, who are responsible for some of the worst offences against women and girls, who this Government are going to let out of prison earlier. That is a disgrace, and at the very least the Government should be transparent about it. When I asked them to tell us what their estimates and modelling were on the number of people who were due to be let out, at first they denied they had any of that information; then they admitted that they did, but refused to publish it. Does the Minister not think that they should be transparent about the consequences of their own policies?
Jake Richards
The hon. Member raises an important point. This Government are committed to ensuring that, where possible, foreign national offenders serve their sentence outside this country. To do so, we have to engage in bilateral negotiations with countries to achieve proper and rigorous prisoner transfer arrangements. That is why I have had discussions with colleagues in Ghana, Nigeria, Albania and Poland in the last few weeks; indeed, last month we signed a new arrangement with Italy. We are working at pace to ensure that those agreements are as rigorous as possible. On the individual case that she mentions, I am very happy to meet her, and indeed her constituents, to discuss the details.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I want to look at the flip side of this issue—specifically, what happens to those detained overseas who return to the UK? The Government are preparing to resume deportations of Syrian foreign national offenders, while the Syrian Democratic Forces have called on countries to repatriate their own citizens. In recent months, several ISIS-linked individuals have been returned to this country from the al-Roj camp. Will the Minister confirm whether these ISIS-linked individuals will return to custody in the UK, given their direct links to a proscribed terrorist organisation, or are those individuals now free in the UK, having faced no consequences for their terrorist affiliations?
Mr Lammy
One hundred per cent. That is why the shadow Justice Secretary, when he stands up, should apologise. He was sat in the Home Office while that was happening.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The Opposition Benches were disorderly yesterday; I do not want the Government Benches to be disorderly today. Have the courtesy to hear the question, please. I am inundated with constituents complaining about the behaviour of MPs in this Chamber. I expect Ministers to set the best example, not the worst.
Nick Timothy
The Prime Minister, we learned this weekend, once said that trials without juries mean evidence is not properly tested and can lead to wrongful convictions. Was he wrong?
Mr Lammy
I have to say, the hon. Gentleman has not apologised for the state that the Conservatives left the criminal justice system in, closing 40% of court buildings in England—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I will say this to both sides: there has been quite enough chipping in. The public do not like it, and I am not going to tolerate it.
Mr Lammy
There was also a reduction in funding of 23%. The hon. Gentleman knows that 90% of criminal justice cases are dealt with by the magistrates courts and 10% go to the Crown court, with 7% of those people pleading guilty—that leaves 3%. Our Bill is to deal with a small proportion of cases in a new division so that we can do that swiftly. I have previously explained the reasons—demand in the system and length of trial—why it is my judgment that these have to be sustained changes, as were made by the Thatcher Government at the end of the ’80s and the Labour Government at the end of the ’70s. That is what I proposed. The Bill will now go to Committee and then on to Report, and will be debated and discussed in the usual way.
Alex Davies-Jones
I want all victims to have as much information as possible in a timely and appropriate fashion. That is exactly the type of information that we need to include in a new victims code. This is why we are consulting. I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady and her constituents to hear about their experiences and how we can best shape this new code. All victims are entitled to information about their offender. We are expanding the victim contact scheme to include that and to ensure that victims know their rights. As I have said, I would be happy to work with the hon. Lady and any other hon. Member to ensure that victims know their rights and that they are up to date.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The family courts urgently need reforming so that victims, especially those of domestic violence, are not experiencing a system that is being used by perpetrators to continue to control and abuse. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner reported that 73% of hearings in the family courts involved evidence of domestic abuse, but it is frequently not recognised in determinations. In the Courts and Tribunals Bill, the Government have included a clause to remove the presumption of parental responsibility, so will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to increase the scope of the Bill by including the family courts as a whole within it, and restore some faith for victims in our family court system?
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister will have heard, as I did, the very moving speech of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) last week. She really moved the House with her testimony of the terrible experience that she had had as a rape victim, and her experience of delays. She will also have heard her say that, according to the Government, abolishing jury trials will save perhaps only a week. So my positive question to the Government is this: why do we not proceed on the basis of the Labour manifesto? It has its merits and it promised specialist rape trials. Why do we not set up courtrooms in every single courthouse with specialist lawyers and really deal with the backlog now?
Mr Speaker
I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Member’s supplementary is relevant to the main question. [Interruption.] No, I think it is not.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend has been a great champion of Grimsby over many years and takes these issues very seriously. In my Department, our early intervention programme, Turnaround, has funded more than 15 million ASB referrals, which is up 14%. I am happy to look closely at what is happening in Grimsby particularly.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I join the Justice Secretary in sending condolences to the family of Jeff Blair. I also pay tribute to the shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), for her successful campaign for a child cruelty register, and I look forward to meeting the Hudgell family this afternoon.
The Government have published their Islamophobia definition, rebranded as a definition of anti-Muslim hostility. We are told that the definition is non-statutory, but it is designed to influence official decision making, so will the Justice Secretary make it clear right now that the definition will not be adopted by the police, prosecutors or the judiciary?
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
The Renters Rights Act 2025 represents the biggest expansion of renters’ rights in a generation, but of course, rights are not worth the paper they are written on unless they are enforceable. That is why the role of appeals, including to our property tribunal, is so important. My hon. Friend will know that court fees are a feature right across our system, but we will ensure that fees do not represent a barrier to access to justice.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I associate the Liberal Democrats with the Secretary of State’s condolences to the family of Jeff Blair. Strategic lawsuits against public participation, known as SLAPPs, have been used by the rich and powerful to silence victims and undermine the free press in this country. Anyone engaging in public-interest activities can be a target of SLAPPs. Powerful individuals who are exploiting the justice system in this country should not be shielded from scrutiny, so when can we expect legislation from this Government to address this?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his service as a magistrate. He is right: we want people from all walks of life, all backgrounds and all ages to feel able to serve in their local community and be a magistrate. He will be pleased to hear that 41% of newly appointed magistrates last year were under 50, as opposed to getting towards the pension age. There is more we can do. Some of that is around simplifying the procedures, and people understanding how to become magistrates, because the complexity of the system was unbelievable, and actually put people off applying.
Mr Speaker
And if you had local magistrates courts—for example, in Chorley—it would help as well.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I visited my local court just a few days ago. In Horsham, we are lucky enough to have a sufficient number of magistrates, but we still cannot maximise throughput because of a lack of support staff. In July last year, the Justice Committee reported that shortages of support staff were having significant impacts on delays and court capacity. What are the Government doing to attract younger people into the justice system, so that we can finally get to grips with this horrible court backlog?
Steve Darling
There is clear evidence up and down the country of Serco failing to serve the Courts Service appropriately, including for my constituents in Torbay. Does the Secretary of State accept that if we can make sure that Serco can get people to the courts more rapidly, it will give them better access to justice and allow them to access jury trials?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, but may I refer him to Sir Brian’s report, and to his article in The Sunday Times this weekend? He talks about trials being longer, DNA evidence, the fact that we are passing more legislation in this place, and the police arresting more people. For all those reasons, and if we are serious about tackling the backlog and getting to a properly established system in which people do not wait much longer than six months to a year for their trial, the changes that we are making have to be permanent.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
There is a lot of focus on replacing juries with a single judge in some criminal trials, but the Government also intend to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers, so that they can give sentences of up to 18 or 24 months, which is beyond what Sir Brian Leveson suggests. Is it the Government’s intention that district judges sitting alone will be able to sentence offenders to up to 24 months?
Mr Lammy
He still is my hon. Friend. I know that he has a principled objection. It is important to recognise that Sir Brian has emphasised that we need to do all of it to deal with the inefficiencies. We will have more to say tomorrow, when Sir Brian publishes part two of his report, which looks at courtrooms, prisoners and how the justice system works as a whole. We are increasing sitting days and investing more than ever before. I am negotiating with the Lady Chief Justice; there will be more sitting days to come. However, we also need reform to ensure that we continue to support the jury system, which is what we are doing.
Mr Speaker
I call Nick Timothy, and welcome him to his role as shadow Justice Secretary.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I have been reading the Labour party manifesto, but without much luck. Can the Justice Secretary tell the House on which page the promise to restrict jury trials appears? Was it on the same page as digital IDs and all the tax rises?
Mr Lammy
It is a bit rich raising what my colleagues are up to on the Back Benches when the hon. Member’s colleagues are going to other Benches in this House. He knows that article 40 of Magna Carta makes it clear that justice delayed is justice denied. That is why it is our judgment and the judgment of Sir Brian Leveson that, for example, if someone has shoplifted an iPhone, they should not be entitled to elect for a jury trial. That should be something that can be dealt with by a magistrate or a single judge.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Justice Secretary is right to say that justice delayed is justice denied, but the Institute for Government’s report into jury trials showed that his plans to erode jury trials will make very little difference to the courts backlog, so it is no surprise that there is wide-ranging opposition to the proposals from within the legal profession and across these Benches. If the Deputy Prime Minister does decide to press ahead with these unpopular reforms, he stated that it would not be retrospective, but the Courts Minister said it would be retrospective in the Justice Committee. Who is telling the truth?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that very important case. I think the thoughts and sympathies of the whole House will be with all the victims of these most heinous crimes. Child abuse is one of the most heinous crimes, and it is right that we have the correct support services available for child victims. The Sentencing Minister is meeting colleagues in the Home Office today to discuss this case, and I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets a full update as requested on the specifics.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Prime Minister said that passing the Hillsborough law would be one of his first acts in office, but last month the Government arranged to bring the Bill to the House for its remaining stages twice, only to pull it at the last moment on both occasions. The Prime Minister has made a promise to the Hillsborough law campaigners that he cannot keep without breaking the assurances that he gave to the intelligence agencies. It is another fine mess from Mr Forensic. Can the Minister guarantee that the Bill will complete its passage through both Houses of Parliament before the end of this Session—yes or no?
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
The reason I use this powerful Chamber to speak about crimes like rape is that I am desperate to encourage women across the country watching us to use their voice to speak out and report. I am so determined to support the Government in their changes because I am desperate, when these brave women come forward, for them to have a system where they are supported every step of the way to get the swift justice they deserve. I am determined to do everything I can to play my part. When we make these changes and make it easier for victims to get justice, how will the Government ensure that there is capacity in our prisons to take these criminals?
Mr Speaker
Order. That was not relevant to the main question, but I am sure that the Justice Secretary would like to respond to it.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right: we must have capacity in our prisons to deal with the crisis that we inherited, which is why we introduced the Victims and Courts Bill and the Bill which, I am glad to say, has become law and is now the Sentencing Act 2026. That legislation will also enable us to bear down on the waiting list that is ticking upwards for victims of crime—especially women, who are often at the end of crime that makes them most vulnerable—by the next general election.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The use of drones to bring contraband into prisons has become a significant issue. Last year there was an intra-year increase of 43% in the use of drones for illegal activity on the prison estate, and, as an MP with a prison in my constituency, HMP Littlehey, I find this surge in their use alarming.
Last month the Justice Secretary announced that he had
“tasked British prisons with learning from Ukraine’s drone expertise”
with a £6.5 million funding stream, but no tenders are currently out to develop that capability. The only specific competition from the Ministry of Justice has been November’s £60,000 counter-drone challenge. Can the Justice Secretary tell us what is the current counter-drone strategy for HM Prison and Probation Service, given the current delays in the installation of physical unmanned aircraft systems countermeasures, what specific projects are actually in flight to develop the counter-UAS capability across our prison estate, and by when that capability will be available?
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I thank my hon. Friend, who has spoken on a number of occasions about his horrific experience, and I think I speak for all in this House when I say that that takes a lot of courage. What he says about the impacts on people of delays in our courts and how knowledge of that is putting off people reporting or continuing with their cases—and we know witnesses and victims pull out of their own cases—means not only that that is a torment for them, but that justice is not even being served and people are walking away. That is why we must pull every lever, and why we are bringing forward these reforms.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
In a world where so many people walk on by or look the other way, I believe it is vital to the rule of law that our whole society gets behind people who are willing to stand up and be counted. We are joined in the Gallery today by one such person—Mark Hehir, a bus driver. Mark leapt to the aid of a passenger who was robbed, and the police said everything he did was entirely lawful, but his employer, Metroline, sacked him. More than 120,000 people have signed my petition giving their full support to Mark. Does the Justice Secretary agree that Mark is a hero who deserves our support?
Jake Richards
If the right hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will get back to him on those details.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will shortly make a statement on violence in separation centres. I apologise that I will not be here for it as the Select Committee has a long-planned court visit, but I will read Sir Jonathan Hall KC’s report carefully. Will the Secretary of State also look at violence on the youth estate and the 44% year-on-year increase in assaults on staff by children? What are the Government doing about that?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend raises the great work going on in that local system. The work to renew the women’s health strategy is partly about finding those good examples. We rightly talk about how the experiences of women are often poor examples of healthcare—we know that—but we also want good examples of where local systems are leading that work. We certainly want to learn from what they are doing to inform the wider strategy, and part of renewing that strategy is making sure that it is effective.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Seventy-five-year-old Valerie Kneale died four days after a stroke due to manslaughter, a coroner ruled. Her death prompted a murder investigation, as the post-mortem showed that a forcible sexual assault directly caused her death. Surviving in Scrubs campaigns to tackle sexual harassment and, crucially, sexual assault across the healthcare system. Hospitals and care homes should be the safest places to recover from childbirth, accident or illness. What is the Minister doing to deal with predators lurking in our NHS who target women at work or, sickeningly, those who are at their most vulnerable?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Lady raises a shocking example. I think I have said this at the Dispatch Box before, but it is one of the most shocking experiences, on coming in as a new Minister, to see the scale and depth of sexual harassment of staff and other women. We have worked hard with staff groups to make sure that that is given primacy in our strategy. I am working with the Minister with responsibility for violence against women and girls—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips)—and this is part of our attack more generally on misogyny and violence against women. We absolutely recognise that it needs to be resolved.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
In September, I raised the case of my constituent Mary in the House. Mary is among the parents of at least 7,000 children who have suffered birth defects because of the anti-epilepsy drug sodium valproate after it was prescribed to pregnant mothers in the 1970s. Next week marks the second anniversary of the Hughes report into the sodium valproate and pelvic mesh scandals. Mary and other mothers like her needed redress and support for their children years ago, and the Government response to the Hughes report is long overdue. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on the women and their children who are left in limbo by this Government’s failure to respond to the Patient Safety Commissioner’s report of February 2024?
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right: we must narrow that gap. We are ensuring that large employers, including in the Scottish private sector, publish plans on how they will address the gender pay gap. Of course, I am proud that, alongside my hon. Friend, this Labour Government are delivering the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Nurses up and down the country, including the Darlington nurses and Jennifer Melle, are being hounded and harassed by the NHS simply for recognising that biological sex is real. I am grateful that the Minister has previously agreed to meet Jennifer and hope that she still will. The Minister takes up the cause of working-class women—these are working-class women, and they are being abused by people in positions of power—so will she go further by holding accountable those in the NHS, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the unions who have harassed and victimised those hard-working nurses?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The Government will work with my hon. Friend. The situation she describes is unacceptable and people are right to be furious. The Environment Agency is taking action to prevent further dumping, and we are giving it more powers and resources to crack down on fly-tipping. I will ensure that Ministers keep her updated with their efforts.
Speaking of garbage, I note that Reform UK’s spring-cleaning of the Conservative party is continuing this week. The Leader of the Opposition says that the Conservative party is full of unwanted rubbish, but the public worked that out long ago and got rid of them.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
May I start by echoing the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments about Holocaust Memorial Day? We must never forget. May I also associate the Opposition with the condolences expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister to the family of Captain Philip Gilbert Muldowney. I also offer the condolences of the House to the family of Lord Flight, one of my predecessors in Arundel and South Downs, who served in Parliament with distinction for more than two decades.
After the Chancellor’s U-turn yesterday, can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that over 90% of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will get nothing?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We are focused on fixing the SEN system so that every child, wherever they live, has the support they need to thrive. We will continue our national conversation on reforms. We are also boosting investment into SEN. That includes £200 million to roll out more training for teachers and over £100 million for Durham county council. I am sure that a Minister would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and visit the site at the earliest opportunity.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
On behalf of my party, may I join the Deputy Prime Minister in marking Holocaust Memorial Day? We will not forget. We also honour the service of Captain Philip Gilbert Muldowney, who died on Sunday.
While the Chinese regime still holds British citizen Jimmy Lai captive in prison, and while the Chinese regime continues to hunt down pro-democracy protesters on the streets of Britain with bounties on their heads, the British Prime Minister has gone cap in hand to China to ask for a trade deal, on the promise of a super-embassy from which the Chinese regime will continue to spy on us. The Chinese regime remains undeterred in its illegal actions against the UK and our citizens, so can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to name one single consequence that the Chinese regime will face if they do not stop their campaign of espionage and repression?
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Mr Speaker
Order. I did not want to have to get up. Mr Anderson, one of us will have to sit down, and it is not going to be me. [Interruption.] Order. Who was speaking out then? If they have not got the guts to admit to shouting somebody down, they should leave the Chamber.
Lee Anderson
Unlike the Prime Minister of our country, I have never been thrown out of or barred from a pub, and after yesterday’s disastrous announcement to save our pubs, it is no wonder he has cleared off to China, but I have one question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Will he come with me to Ashfield to visit some pubs, speak to some landlords and explain to them why over 500 pubs have closed since this Labour Government came into power and why another 500 pubs will close in the next year? Come on, be a man!
Jury Trials
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why if the Government have a case, they should publish the evidence—
Mr Speaker
Order. It is easier if you look at me because I cannot pick up what you are saying when you are turned the other way.
Robert Jenrick
Of course, Mr Speaker—apologies.
If the Government have a case, they should publish the evidence and the modelling. This is not a minor policy; it will change something that we have enjoyed as a country for hundreds of years. Something as significant as this should be done on the basis of evidence, so I say to the Minister that whether the Government accept our motion or not today is by the bye, but they should accept the spirit of it and publish the evidence now so that everyone can see it; so that the lawyers, judges and practitioners who care and are worried about this can engage in a proper debate; and above all, so that we in the House of Commons, who are the guardians of our constitution and our ancient liberties, can have a debate on the basis of facts.
Robert Jenrick
Both parties must share the blame for the present situation. The former permanent secretary of the Ministry of Justice came before the Justice Committee last year and was asked broadly the same question that the hon. Lady just asked me: what is the root cause of the current backlog? She responded that although the system had been poorly funded for some time, which had created a number of challenges, the primary cause was the pandemic. Covid created immense strain on our justice system. As a result of that, a backlog that had, broadly speaking, been falling in the years prior to the pandemic—it had begun to rise slightly in the period immediately before—shot up. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I will not have all sides cross-examining each other. I am listening to just one person at the moment.
Robert Jenrick
I am just restating, I think fairly, what the former permanent secretary said. The Ministry of Justice did not do enough to get the backlog under control. There has been a serious failure to fix the productivity problems in our court system, as I think the Institute for Fiscal Studies set out independently in a report last year. Could the last Government have done more? Well, perhaps they could have. They did try to do things: they increased the number of sitting days and brought in special courts, such as Nightingale courts, in parts of the country, which began to make some difference. None the less, the backlog kept rising.
The backlog has risen very substantially under this Labour Government as well. In fact, to the extent that we have accurate figures, it is rising by about 500 cases every month, so the problem has continued to get worse and worse. I therefore do not see today’s debate as a partisan debate between the two main parties. The key thing is how we solve the problem. How do we look to the future? Is slashing jury trials the answer? No. Are there better ways to do this? Yes.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I ask the hon. Gentleman to write to me first, as it sounds like there is some technical detail in that case. If necessary, I will then ask the relevant Minister to meet him.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Select Committee has just begun an inquiry into access to justice. The evidence we are getting suggests that civil and family legal aid in particular are in a dire position, with fees now approximately half what they were 28 years ago. There have been welcome increases in housing and immigration fees, but what wider plans does the Secretary of State have to review legal aid fees, particularly in the area of civil and family law?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will recognise that the uplift of £20 million in housing and immigration is significant; it is actually the first major uplift in his and my time here in Parliament. He is right that we should look across the piece at civil legal aid, combined with what is happening in our courts, and I will continue to do that over this next period.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. First, we need investment and more sitting days. We did not get that under the last Government—we are getting that now. Secondly, we need reform. We asked Sir Brian Leveson to look at this in great detail. He did that, and we must now respond and not shirk from the reform that is necessary. Thirdly, we need modernisation. That is why, for example, being able to get a transcript and a recording at magistrates is so important.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Under the Justice Secretary’s plans to slash jury trials, he is giving magistrates more serious cases. However, he also plans to scrap the automatic right to appeal—a vital safety valve in courtrooms where justice is delivered at pace by volunteers. Last year, 5,000 cases from magistrates courts were appealed, of which more than 40% were upheld. Given that very high rate of successful appeals, will the Secretary of State be honest with the public and concede that curtailing appeals will unquestionably lead to miscarriages of justice?
Sarah Sackman
We keep our court estate and the assessment of need under constant review. I would be very happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me so that we can look into the provision in his area.
Mr Speaker
What is good for the Minister might be good for Chorley as well, with the reopening of the court.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Jake Richards
I had the great pleasure of hearing the right hon. Member’s contributions on Report and in Committee on the Sentencing Bill. I remind him, as I did then, that we inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. The worst way to fail victims would be to have no prison places, and to be unable to keep the worst offenders behind bars, and we will not allow that to happen. I remind him again that the Sentencing Bill is informed by the independent sentencing review, led by a former Conservative Lord Chancellor, who offered sensible reforms to ensure that our prison system can cope with demands and is fit for the future. Finally, I remind him that this is not a case of being soft on crime; by the end of this Parliament, under this Labour Government, there will be more criminals behind bars than ever before.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
This week, the Government pledged action on violence against women and girls—an issue that I know many Members across this House care deeply about, including many Labour Members—but this so-called earned progression model will see thousands of rapists, child groomers and paedophiles let out of prison earlier. Shockingly, last week a Government Minister said that the reason why they could not be excluded from the model was that it would increase the risk of inaccuracies in release calculations. Does the Minister think that a single victim of rape should expect the offender to be let out of prison earlier because the Government cannot calculate the release date properly?
Mr Lammy
I am truly grateful to my hon. Friend for once again raising the voice of victims in this House. I hope that over the coming months, as we debate our courts Bill, hon. Members will keep in mind those victims, and the voices that we often hear, via female Members of Parliament. The £550 million of multi-year funding that I have found for victims to give them certainty was essential, and we will continue to keep victims front of mind.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I commend the Justice Secretary on the Government’s decision to extend whole-life orders to those who kill prison officers. Two weeks ago, I had the privilege of meeting the parents of Lenny Scott when they came to Parliament. It is absolutely right that we extend whole-life orders to cases in which brave prison officers are killed, either in the course of their duties, or in the exceptional circumstances that faced Lenny Scott after he had left the service. The Justice Secretary can be assured of the support of Conservative Members.
Two weeks ago, the Justice Secretary appeared on Sky News and revealed that 12 more prisoners had been mistakenly released, and that two remained on the run. I have two very simple questions: since then, how many prisoners have been mistakenly released, and how many more remain on the run?
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Workers must receive the awards to which they are entitled. The case that my hon. Friend raises demonstrates the need to strengthen enforcement. The Government will take that up by transferring responsibilities to the new fair work agency. Working with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Insolvency Service, it will drive compliance and crack down on non-payments. That will help constituents like hers.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Andrew Turner has been fighting on behalf of parents of disabled children across the country who cannot access their children’s trust fund when their child turns 18, even though that money could provide support for the additional cost of living that comes from being a profoundly disabled young adult. Andrew has seen 10 Justice Ministers come and go since he started his campaign. Will the Minister assure me that the current Minister will be the last one Andrew has to meet before the situation is remedied?
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a crisis in family mediation, with no confirmation of mediation vouchers going beyond next April and over half of legal aid providers having been forced to give up in the last eight years? Does he agree that this is short-sighted, as mediation saves time, money and families, and will the Government work with the Family Mediation Council to rescue the sector?
Restriction of Jury Trials
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Sackman
As I said a moment ago, not a single person who has encountered the system—not the barristers, the prosecutors, the judiciary, the court staff, the victims or the jurors; no one whom I have met—thinks it is working as it should. The shadow Justice Secretary has made a startling defence of the status quo while victims—not just women and girls but of all backgrounds—continue to watch delays creep up and up. Some 80,000 cases are currently in our Crown court backlog, and behind each and every one of those cases is an individual human story—someone waiting to clear their name.
We inherited a broken system. We did not do what the previous Government did, which was stick their head in the sand and hope that the problem would go away, with no solutions, under-investing for years while undermining our justice system. We were not prepared to do the same, which was why it was important to ask an independent review made up of Sir Brian Leveson—one of our leading judges—academics and data scientists to look at the evidence from both this country and comparators from across the world, to consult and to produce a set of proposals for reform that will fix the system. In the meantime, the Government have been gripping the crisis. We have made record investment in sitting days, increased the sentencing powers of magistrates courts, and invested in legal aid and the capacity of our legal community.
No responsible Government worthy of the name would take receipt of an independent review that is carefully considered, evidence-based and informed by experts and say, “Do you know what? We’ll just ignore that.” Responsible government shows leadership, which is why last week, we announced our proposals to increase magistrates courts’ sentencing powers and remove the right of defendants to insist on a jury trial when their case can be reasonably, proportionately and swiftly dealt with in a magistrates court. We followed Sir Brian’s recommendation to establish a Crown court bench division to deal with cases more swiftly. His report says that in his view and that of his expert team, doing so will provide time savings of at least 20%. On that basis, through investment, modernisation and systemic reform taken together, we will begin to see the backlog come down. That is Government offering evidence-based, expert-led solutions while all we hear from the Opposition is what cannot be done, letting down victims, letting down the public and ultimately undermining faith in one of the most important institutions in this country—our justice system.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
There is no reason why the Government should not consider mode of trial as part of their reform of the criminal courts, but they would find more support if they could better evidence the effects of the proposed changes to jury trial. To what extent will they reduce the backlog? What proportion and types of cases will no longer be eligible for jury trial? If courts are to be swifter and have greater sentencing powers, what effect will that have on the prison population?
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats agree that under the current system victims and survivors of rape are being failed and far too few see justice served. However, for those victims who do decide to proceed through the justice system, fewer than 10% withdraw after a charge has been made, so the Deputy Prime Minister’s standing in the Chamber and using an assessment of the data to justify his reasoning for removing jury trials does not hold up to scrutiny.
It seems that a number of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Back Benchers, including the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), agree with the Liberal Democrats that the delays that plague our system will not be addressed by reducing jury trials, with the Government neither diagnosing the cause of the crisis nor providing the solutions to the record backlog. How do the Government justify restricting jury trials when backlog issues are caused by court mismanagement and broken private contracts rather than the jury system, as identified and confirmed by those working in the system from all sides? Will the Minister confirm which stakeholders, including victim support organisations and legal professionals, have been consulted on the reforms? What feedback has she received?
Sarah Sackman
At the moment, the Secretary of State is giving a very important speech launching the Government’s anti-corruption strategy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers. Rape victims must be paramount in all that happens. Rape and sexual assault trials are already lengthy and very emotional for victims. Juries signal a public perception of justice, and highlight the importance of the community and the average person. What assessment has been made of the impact that judge-only trials can have on the victims of rape, and what steps will be taken to ensure that judge-only trials do not feel less empowering, because this step could increase victim attrition with victims feeling that they do not have the support of the public?
Sarah Sackman
Let me make it very clear that for the offence of rape there will always be a jury trial. That was made clear in our proposals last week.
Mr Speaker
It is very helpful to get through the questions and the Minister has done very well. Justice does matter and I think all of us represent victims of crime. The more quickly we can get through, the happier we will be. As I say, Chorley magistrates court would love to be reopened in order to help.
Criminal Court Reform
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
With your permission, Mr Speaker I will make a statement on criminal court reform.
As the House is aware, the first part of the independent review of criminal courts was published in July. I am grateful to its chair, Sir Brian Leveson—one of the foremost judges of his generation—and to his expert advisers, Professor David Ormerod, Chris Mayer and Shaun McNally. In this review, Sir Brian has produced a blueprint for once-in-a-generation court reform. That is desperately needed, because the Government inherited an emergency in our courts: a record and rising backlog currently at 78,000 cases, and victims face agonising delays, with some trials not listed for years. All the while, defendants bide their time. The guilty plea rate has decreased every year since the year 2000. In the year to June, 11,000 cases were dropped after a charge because victims no longer supported or felt they could support the case.
Behind the statistics are real people. Katie was repeatedly abused by her partner. She reported him to the police in 2017, but then had an unbearable six-year wait for justice. During that time, she lost a job because her mental health deteriorated. She became increasingly isolated, lived in fear and lost faith in the court system. That is not isolated; it is systemic.
We are all proud of our justice system, rooted in Magna Carta, but we must never forget that it implores us not to
“deny or delay right or justice.”
When victims are left waiting for years, justice is effectively denied to them. That is a betrayal of our legal heritage and of victims themselves. Some will ask why we do not simply increase funding. This Government have already invested heavily in the courts, including nearly £150 million to make them fit for purpose, a commitment of £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitors, and funding for a record number of sitting days in our Crown courts—5,000 more than those funded last year by the previous Government.
Today, I can announce up to £34 million per year in additional funding for criminal legal aid advocates, to recognise the vital support that they give to those navigating the system. I will also accept Sir Brian’s recommendation to match-fund a number of pupillages in criminal law, to open a career at the Criminal Bar to more young people from across society. I will also negotiate sitting days with the senior judiciary through the usual concordat process, aiming to give an unprecedented three-year certainty to the system. I am clear that sitting days in the Crown and magistrates courts must continue to rise, and my ambition is to continue breaking records by the end of this Parliament.
However, as Sir Brian has made clear, investment is not enough. The case load is projected to reach 100,000 cases by 2028, and without fundamental change it could keep rising, meaning that justice will be denied to more victims and trust in the system will collapse. To avoid that disaster, I will follow Sir Brian’s bold blueprint for change. First, I will create new “swift courts” within the Crown court, with a judge alone deciding verdicts in triable either-way cases with a likely sentence of three years or less, as Sir Brian recommends. Sir Brian estimates that they will deliver justice at least 20% faster than jury trials. While juries’ deliberations remain confidential, judges provide reasoning for their verdicts in open court, so this will hardwire transparency into our new approach.
Sir Brian also proposes restricting defendants’ right to elect for jury trials—a practice not found widely in other common law jurisdictions, and let us be honest: it is a peculiar way to run a public service. Our world-leading judges should hear the most serious cases, and I agree that they and the magistracy should decide where a case is heard. That will prevent defendants from gaming the system, choosing whichever court they think gives the best chance of success and drawing out the process, hoping victims give up. I will limit appeals from the magistrates courts, so that they are only allowed on points of law, to prevent justice from being delayed further.
Alongside those changes, we will increase magistrates court sentencing powers to 18 months, so that they can take on a greater proportion of lower-level offending and relieve pressure on the Crown court. I will also take a power to extend that to two years, should it become necessary to relieve further pressure. When it comes to exceptionally technical and lengthy fraud and financial trials, judges will be able to sit without a jury where appropriate. While those cases are small in number, they place undue pressure on jurors to sit for months—a significant interference with their personal and professional lives.
These reforms are bold, but they are necessary. I am clear that jury trials will continue to be the cornerstone of the system for the most serious offences—those likely to receive a sentence of over three years and all indictable-only offences. Among others, that will include rape, murder, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, robbery and arson with intent to kill.
I would like to clear up some misconceptions that colleagues unfamiliar with this area might hold. In England and Wales, magistrates have long done the vast majority of criminal cases. That was true in the Victorian era, right through to Winston Churchill’s time, and today magistrates hear about 90% of criminal cases. In fact, only 3% of trial cases in England and Wales will ever go before a jury, and almost three quarters of all trials going to the Crown court will continue to be heard by one under our changes.
Conservative Members talk about the Crown court as if it were an ancient institution. I should remind them that it was established in 1971—the year before I was born—to replace a patchwork of part-time courts unable to cope with a rising caseload. Parliament acted because the country needed a more efficient system that could command public confidence. We now face an emergency in the courts, and we must act. As Lord Chancellor, my responsibility is to ground reform in the rule of law and the right to a fair trial. We will ensure cases are dealt with at the right level, proportionate to their severity, and deliver the swifter justice victims deserve.
I am also clear that we must future-proof our approach. Technology is changing almost every aspect of our lives, and the courts can be no exception. That means we must modernise. We have asked Sir Brian to write a second report, focused on efficiency and how we can make much better use of technology to deliver the modern and effective courts the public rightly expect.
We will also continue to support victims, to make sure they have the confidence to come forward and see justice through to its conclusion. I announced this week that I will provide multi-year funding for victim support services, including specialist emotional and practical support for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, and increase budgets to reflect rising costs. That will give providers the certainty to plan for the next three years. It amounts to a total record investment in victim support services of £550 million—more than half a billion. I want those victims to stay the course.
Finally, we must also be honest that this is a problem that has taken years to build up, so it will take years to fix. The changes I am proposing will require legislation, which will take time to implement. Our investment will also need time to have an effect, but we are pulling every possible lever to move in a positive direction, and my ambition for the backlog to start coming down by the end of this Parliament remains. I commend this statement to the House.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I am glad to see that the Justice Secretary has finally come into work today. When 12 prisoners were mistakenly released after the introduction of his brilliant new checks, he did not bother to come to Parliament to inform the country; then, when I asked his Department whether it is paying compensation to terrorists in prison, he did not show up; and when the news of his plans to scrap jury trials mysteriously emerged in the press last week, he was nowhere to be seen. Like the prisoners under his watch, he has been a man on the run—the “Lammy dodger” of this sorry charade of a Government—but today we are blessed with his presence.
His past is catching up with him, because the best opponent of the Justice Secretary’s plans to curb jury trials is the Justice Secretary himself. In 2020, he said:
“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea. You don’t fix the backlog with trials that are widely perceived as unfair.”
In 2017, in his report into prejudice in the criminal justice system, he found that juries
“act as a filter for prejudice”,
but now that he has become the Justice Secretary, he is scrapping the very institution he once lauded. Which is it? Will the real David Lammy please stand up?
It is not just the Justice Secretary. Who can guess which Labour MP said that taking away jury trials
“would be a wholly draconian act”?
It was his own junior Minister, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards). And what about this one? Who said there should be a
“right of trial by jury in all criminal cases”?
Any ideas, Mr Speaker? Who else? It is the Prime Minister this time. Do this Government have no shame?
Yesterday, the Justice Secretary boldly claimed that if the medieval barons were around today, they would support his changes. Then again, English history has never been his specialist subject, has it? Eight hundred years on from Magna Carta, we have another unpopular leader who does not listen to his subjects and who levies eye-watering taxes, and a state that locks people up for what they say. Well, I say that the link between British citizens and the administration of justice is as important as ever. It is a link that serves as a check on an occasionally overbearing state. Our ancestors did not stop bad King John, only to be undone 800 years later by this Prime Minister and his court jester.
And all of this because the Justice Secretary cannot manage his own Department. This morning, in England alone more than 50 Crown courtrooms sit empty. In fact—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I wanted, quite rightly, the Justice Secretary to be heard without comment from Opposition Front Benchers, and I certainly expect the same from Government Front Benchers in return.
Robert Jenrick
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
This morning, more than 50 Crown courtrooms sit empty in England alone. In fact, over 21,000 court days have gone unused this year. Why? Not because there are too many juries, but because the Justice Secretary will not fund the sitting days. Had he done so, the backlog would have shrunk by up to 10,000 cases, but the fact is that it has risen this year.
The truth is that scrapping juries is a choice. This Government could find the money to bear down on the backlog of asylum claims and to spend more on benefits, but not to fund the courts to sit round the clock. Last year, the entire budget for courts and legal aid was £5.5 billion, which is almost exactly the same amount of money—£5.4 billion—that we spent on illegal migrants. He defends their rights under the European convention on human rights, but not our rights under Magna Carta. And for what? He cannot even guarantee that in four years’ time these changes will have reduced the backlog. With this Justice Secretary, it is justice delayed and justice denied.
Much of the rest of the package announced today is sensible, but why has it taken 17 months? The Bar Council, the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association have all said that jury trials are not the problem.
Mr Speaker
Order. You are facing the wrong way. It is very hard to hear you when you are looking at the doors.
Robert Jenrick
Apologies, Mr Speaker.
Why did the Justice Secretary not start by reforming the Probation Service and court listings, and by tackling delays from late prison transfers? Why has he still not taken up the Lady Chief Justice on all the sitting days that she has offered him? Lastly, why on earth does this Justice Secretary think he has a mandate to rip up centuries of jury trials without even a mention of it in his party’s manifesto?
The Justice Secretary, in his twisted logic, says he is scrapping juries to save them, but be in no doubt: if he gets away with this, it is the beginning of the end of jury trials. He is already in retreat. Let us unite to send him packing for good.
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the shadow Justice Secretary, although I am a little surprised that in his tirade, he never once mentioned victims—not once. Not once in his clip did he talk about the people waiting in the backlog.
The right hon. Gentleman has boasted that he is an armchair historian. May I give him a history lesson? In 2019, Crown court sitting days were cut by almost 15%. The Conservatives oversaw a 12% reduction in Crown court trials, and many of us remember, over those 14 years of austerity, the magistrates courts and Crown courts that closed in local communities under his watch. The senior presiding judge in England and Wales said:
“It was a political decision.”
I wonder if the shadow Justice Secretary will try to blame the pandemic for that decision.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about what I tweeted in 2020. We are saving and protecting jury trials. Jury trials will continue. He talks about trial by jury as if we lived in the United States, but 90% of criminal trials—1.3 million—are done by our magistracy, which has existed for 650 years. We are going to grow our magistrates, who we believe could do more.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about Magna Carta. Yes, clause 39 establishes the jury trial and a fair trial—we are proud of that—but he knows, too, that clause 40 asks us not to delay justice. That is the substance of this debate, and that is why we need reform. He knows that the Conservatives took juries away from defamation cases in 2013. Back in 1933, we had juries sitting in civil cases. Of course we reform; we do so to meet the needs of the system. He also knows that because of DNA evidence, CCTV and a whole raft of reasons, including that the police now arrest 10% more people, we have a demand issue. We must meet that challenge, and we must ensure that we put victims at the centre of our criminal justice system. That is who it is there for, and it is why he should have mentioned them.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
May I recognise the commitment of the Lord Chancellor and the Minister of State in grasping the issue of the Crown court backlog, which, as Sir Brian Leveson says, is a threat to our whole system of criminal justice? The criticism of these proposals from those on the Opposition Benches comes with no solution whatsoever. I also acknowledge the Lord Chancellor’s decision to stay within the limits proposed by Sir Brian for cases that will be tried without a jury in the future.
None the less, these are profound changes to the criminal justice system that not only restrict the role of juries, but substantially extend the powers of magistrates and judges sitting alone. Will the Lord Chancellor therefore evaluate the effects of these changes to see whether they, along with other measures such as increased investment, bring down the backlog and whether they do so fairly, without bias and without increasing conviction rates or sentence length? If they do not deliver on all these points, will he think again?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his work in these areas. Yes, I can commit to that evaluation, which is very important indeed. In his report, Sir Brian estimated that the system would be 20% faster: it takes time for juries to deliberate, and without the conveyance of information between barristers, the judge and the jury being necessary, he expects that a judge-led or magistrate-led system will be speedier. As my hon. Friend will know, the magistrates courts do not currently have a backlog and with an increase in the number of magistrates, they can do a little more.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Government’s plan, announced today, to reduce the use of trial by jury would be an historic upheaval of our court system, with profound consequences. The Justice Secretary has not argued in favour of judge-only trials on their own terms; instead, he has argued that there is no alternative, which is simply not true. Many within the legal profession have argued that removing trial by jury is a misdirection from the multitude of problems that underlie the backlog.
Those problems, caused by years of Conservative mismanagement, have resulted in countless wasted hours of sitting time and in victims failed time and again. Perhaps the defendant does not arrive in court because of the broken private contract, there is no interpreter, the witness care unit forgets to tell witnesses to attend, key evidence is not served until the day of trial so the defence has no time to consider it, or there are not enough court staff to manage security on the door, so the trial runs late. Maybe our crumbling court infrastructure means there is no running water, a broken lift or even a flooded courtroom. We need a real solution to tackle these issues that plague our justice system, but instead the Justice Secretary intends to remove a huge number of jury trials, despite his previous opposition to that, all while the Ministry of Justice capital budget is being cut by 3% in real terms every year.
While I welcome the £500 million investment in victims and witness support over three years, the total courts maintenance backlog is estimated at £1.3 billion. Where is the investment to fix the collapsing infrastructure in the justice system? Will the Justice Secretary consider reopening many of the Crown courts closed under the Conservatives, including mine in Chichester? As he confirmed to the media today, an entire jury’s worth of prisoners have been released in error in recent weeks. Does the Secretary of State have confidence in his Department to oversee such an extreme and radical reform when it is not even getting the basics right?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Lady mentions a range of issues that are important in ensuring that our 80 or so courts and 500 courtrooms are working effectively. That is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to look at efficiency as part 2 of his review. We need not just our courts but the Crown Prosecution Service and our police to work together at a reasonable level to deliver that improvement.
When we think about either-way cases, I think that it is legitimate for the Government to take a view on whether, for example, a driving licence fraud, fly-tipping or the theft of a bike requires a jury trial that will last for about two days, or whether those cases can be dealt with by a magistrate or a judge. I know that the hon. Lady is committed, like us, to bearing down on violence against women and girls. It cannot be right that if someone is charged with an offence such as theft of a bicycle, theft from a vehicle or employee theft, they can opt for a trial that, by necessity, goes into the system and will delay a rape trial, a murder trial or something like that. That is the balance of the decision that I have sought to make. I think that the Government have made the right decision in implementing Sir Brian’s review.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)
The entire House is concerned about victims, including the victims of attacks on women and girls. However, the entire House is also concerned about the men and women who will undoubtedly suffer miscarriages of justice if the right to trial by jury is curtailed. To quote from a lawyer:
“The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.”
That lawyer is our current Prime Minister. He wrote that in 1992—it was as true then as it is today. How can the Lord Chancellor propose a limitation of the right to trial by jury when he knows perfectly well the category of defendant who will suffer the ill effects?
Right to Trial by Jury
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Jenrick
While this Government lurch from one outrage to another, yesterday the Chancellor shredded her promises and dropped a £26 billion tax bomb on working Britain. Meanwhile, we learned that the Justice Secretary is plotting to discard centuries of jury trials without so much as a by-your-leave—and where is the Justice Secretary to answer for this? Do we need to send out a search party to Saville Row in case he has gone suit shopping again this morning? Or perhaps he could not face up to the embarrassment that he is now destroying the very principles he once championed.
Jury trials are
“fundamental to the justice system…fundamental to our democracy. We must protect them.”
Those are not my words, but those of the Justice Secretary himself. This time, he was right: there is wisdom in 12 ordinary citizens pooling their collective experiences of the world. Yet, now that he is in government, he is doing the complete opposite. He blames the court backlog, but if the courtrooms standing empty this year were used, the backlog would be down by 5,000 to 10,000 cases. He pleads poverty on law and order, but yesterday the Chancellor came here and found £16 billion more to spend on benefits.
The truth is that the Labour party just does not think that ordinary people are up to it. It does not trust them with these decisions. Give away the Chagos islands, shackle us to the European convention on human rights, scrap jury trials—all because lawyers know best. And when the Justice Secretary is summoned here to the people’s House, what does he do? He cowers away. Well, the people who make up juries—the British people—will not wear it any more.
I have one simple question for the Minister he sent in his stead. Will she protect what is fundamental to our democracy, or will she stand by as the Justice Secretary casually casts aside centuries of English liberty?
Sarah Sackman
How extraordinary, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman claims to care about the rule of law; he claims to care about ancient legal traditions. This is the same shadow Justice Secretary who denigrates our independent judges and our legal community standing up for rights. I have already said it, and I will say it again: the right to a jury trial for our most serious cases will remain a fundamental part of our British legal tradition.
Since he is so fond of quoting our ancient principles and quoting Magna Carta, let me remind him of what is our constitutional right. Magna Carta states:
“to no one will we…delay right or justice.”
The right to a swift and prompt trial is a fundamental ingredient of fairness. When we have the crisis we inherited from the Conservative party, with a backlog now of some 80,000 cases—and behind each and every one of those cases is an actual victim and somebody accused of a crime—in the current system, we are denying a fair trial. When victims and witnesses pull out of the process, as is increasingly happening, that denies fairness.
I say this while wearing this pin, which shows that we stand in 16 days of activism against violence against women and girls: a woman reporting a rape today in London will be told that her trial may not come on until 2029-30. That is not justice at all, and it is a consequence of allowing the Crown court backlog to spiral out of control while doing nothing and offering not a single answer. That is not upholding the fundamental British constitutional right to a fair trial; it is exactly the opposite.
I for one, certainly, and as part of this Government, am not prepared to sit idly by. That is why we have gripped the crisis, making record investment in sitting days, extending magistrates court sentencing powers, investing in legal aid and asking one of our finest jurists, Brian Leveson, to conduct an independent review to provide us with a blueprint for how we get out of this mess. The Conservative party likes to call itself the party of tradition and the party of law and order, yet it presided over a justice system in which the British public can no longer have confidence.
I am afraid that I am not prepared to let victims down. This Labour Government are finally putting victims first. That is why we will carefully consider Sir Brian’s recommendations. It is why we will undertake to implement his blueprint, which takes as its fundamental premise this: the system is broken. There is no one in this House, no one in the community that represents victims and no one in the legal community—no judge, no one operating and working hard in the system to keep it going—who thinks that the system is not broken. We have to fix it.
Sir Brian Leveson tells us that investment alone will not fix it. We need investment coupled with structural reform and modernisation. That is exactly the blueprint that this Government will bring forward, because, as I said, we believe in the right to a fair trial, we believe in British justice and, unlike the Conservative party, we will deliver swifter justice for victims.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Minister is right that we cannot go on as we are with 80,000-plus cases in the backlog and growing, and four-year delays in serious cases. She is also right that there is nothing sacred about jury trial for any particular level of offence. But if the Lord Chancellor is thinking of going beyond Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals, he will need to produce some clear evidence as to why that is necessary and why that does not offend our system of justice, of which we are all still very proud. That is not only about more serious offences; if the leak is to be believed, it is also about extending magistrate courts’ powers beyond the 12 months, which they have only just gone up to, and a massive extension of judge-only trials. I appreciate that the Minister might not be able to answer all those questions today, but when will we hear those answers and get the response to Sir Brian’s report?
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The leaked memo from the Ministry of Justice, which reveals plans to rip up our criminal justice system, is particularly surprising, given that the Deputy Prime Minister himself has stated that “Jury trials are fundamental”. In a report that he wrote, he called jury trials
“a success story of our justice system”.
Juries are not the cause of the court backlog; that was complacency from the former Government and a failure to grip the issue by this Government, totally failing the victims who are currently waiting. Will the Minister clarify whether this MOJ proposal is a suggested temporary emergency measure or a permanent erosion of our criminal justice system? Does she share my concern that the Office for Budget Responsibility is showing a real-terms cut of 3% a year to the MOJ’s capital budget after the Budget yesterday? Does she agree with the Deputy Prime Minister’s diagnosis from opposition that the Government should
“pull their finger out and acquire empty public buildings across the country”
in order to clear the backlog?
Sarah Sackman
As the hon. Member heard me say a moment ago, the constitutional right that we guarantee every citizen in this country who comes before our criminal courts is the right to a fair trial. When victims are waiting for years for their day in court, right now justice is not being served. When the Secretary of State made those comments, it was obviously in a very different context, not one where the Conservatives had allowed the backlogs to run out of control. As I said clearly earlier, the right to a jury trial and the jury trial will always be a cornerstone of the British justice system. That will not change. It does not change in Sir Brian’s report, in which he recommends the restriction of jury trials in certain cases, and it will not change in the plans that the Government are bringing out. She is right that we need a combination of structural reform and investment and, indeed, we are making that investment. We have increased capital investment in court maintenance and buildings to £148.5 million. We are opening new criminal courts, for example in central London, in Blackpool and in other parts of the country. We have to build system capacity, with more judges, more lawyers and more staff to man those cases, but ultimately we must be laser-focused on the need to deliver swifter justice for victims. In order to do that, we will, in due course, in response to Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations, bring forward very careful plans that protect people’s rights, including that right to a fair trial.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
After 14 years of the previous Government, many in Oldham feel that justice has left town. Our county court closed, our magistrates court closed, and police station after police station closed as well. Today, in a town of a quarter of a million people, not a single custody cell is in operation. We are looking to address that with the Mayor of Greater Manchester, bringing forward plans for a new police station with custody cells. But ideally we want a justice centre with courts brought back to Oldham so that magistrates can take the bench in the town and justice can be served and be seen to be served.
Sarah Sackman
What my hon. Friend described, in graphic detail—the way in which justice has visibly eroded in his town—is the result of 14 years of Conservative failure, austerity and fundamental neglect of our justice system. What we are doing in so many areas is rebuilding and restoring the confidence that the British public can have in our justice system.
We inherited two crises. First, we inherited a prison system running red hot. How irresponsible of the so-called party of law and order to allow prisons to be full so that dangerous criminals would not have a prison place. Secondly—perhaps this is less visible, but it is no less serious—we inherited a crisis in our criminal justice system and in our courts, where victims are waiting longer and longer for justice. As my hon. Friend said, our constituents deserve to see visible justice. They deserve to see that when they report a crime, it does not take years for it to come to trial, but that it happens swiftly—within months—so that people can see the consequences of their actions. That, by the way, also reduces recidivism. That is why will do whatever it takes to bring down the backlog.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I served as a young barrister in criminal courts, and I have served on a jury, and I can say that I was deeply impressed by the care that people on the jury, from all walks of life, took to consider the evidence—actually, they were better than the barristers in many ways.
I can understand where the Minister is coming from, but covid was a one-off event. I say to hon. Members that if someone of previous good character is accused of what might seem to be a minor crime such as shop- lifting, having wandered out of a shop—years ago, one of our colleagues was accused of shoplifting—their whole career and whole reputation could be destroyed. Surely the Minister must accept that a person of previous good character must have a right to jury trial. This is 1,000 years of history and the greatest defence against totalitarianism. We must never throw it away. We should consider that carefully before we proceed.
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is spot on. I met with a victim of child sexual abuse just the other day. He described to me the long wait for his very serious matter—[Interruption.] They laugh. I struggle, when I am talking about—
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her answers. However, it is confusing just why this proposed decision is being considered. She talked about solutions, and I refer to Northern Ireland. More than 99% of Crown court cases in Northern Ireland are heard by a jury, and only in exceptional cases is a jury not used or heard. That continues to take place in Northern Ireland. A jury represents normal citizens and gives them a say in the democratic process. What assessment has been made of how this decision could impact on public perception and undermine the civic duty of the normal person? It will ultimately concentrate power in the state and reduce the societal values that we all represent and wish to retain.
Mr Speaker
The Minister is quite right to be angry and frustrated at this leak. I gently say to her that, to put confidence back into the system, the answer might be a leak inquiry.