Courts and Tribunals Bill (Third sitting)

Linsey Farnsworth Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Mullan]

The hon. Gentleman’s question articulates the gap between what the Opposition and the Government think about these issues. Actually, for a case like the first example, the sentence passed will be almost irrelevant to the person. If they are found guilty and convicted of an offence, they will suffer all the consequences that I have talked about whatever sentence they are given. Such consequences do not exist for the individual in the second example; they do not have employment or a reputation to lose.

The Government also often portray the assumption that people are guilty—if they are accused, they are guilty. The whole point of the jury trial system is to allow what we have all agreed, at some point and in some ways, is the fairest and most balanced way to determine guilt. The Justice Secretary himself has talked in detail about how it is the fairest way to determine guilt. When someone’s decision is going to have huge consequences for the accused’s life, it is perfectly reasonable for people to want the fairest mode of determining that guilt.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying two different things? At the start, I heard him say that we have fairness across the whole criminal justice system, but he seems now to be suggesting that magistrates court trials are inferior and less fair. Is that the position of the Opposition?

[Dr Mullan]

As I said, it is actually the position of the Justice Secretary, in his own report, where he said that the fairest and most balanced element of the justice system is jury trials. If the hon. Member thinks it is odd for me to hold that view, perhaps she should have a conversation with the Justice Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Linsey Farnsworth]

It is right that we should talk about language. I refer the hon. Member to guidance on the CPS website in relation to the use of the term “victim”. In its guidance, the CPS says that it often uses the word “victim” when talking about general crime. When someone is making a speech in Parliament to say that there are victims waiting for justice, it is perfectly right and proper to do so, because they are not talking about an individual case. That is set out in the CPS guidance.

[Rebecca Paul]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but we need to always be aware of the technical definition of the words that we are using. When the Government talk constantly about victims needing justice, and it all being about victims, I am not sure it is in the right spirit.

What all of us in this Committee Room agree on, however, is that the Crown court backlog is a critical problem that needs to be addressed. But limiting trial by jury is not the way to do it. We have heard that repeatedly from knowledgeable and experienced people working in the justice system—we have even heard it from one of the Government’s own Members, the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden. The Bar Council does not support it, the Criminal Bar Association is opposed, and the Law Society says the Government’s proposals go too far.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

We have heard a lot about the Bar Council and the Law Society. What we have not heard a lot about is the position of the Crown Prosecution Service on this point. If the Crown Prosecution Service was a legal firm, it would be the biggest in the country. It has thousands of lawyers working for it. Tom Guest, a member of the policy team at the Crown Prosecution Service gave evidence to the Justice Committee, in which he set out that the CPS is supportive of this legislation to look at structural reform. He said that it is not the only answer, but that it is necessary. The CPS considers us to be at a critical juncture, and that the backlog needs dealing with. Does the hon. Member agree that it is not universally the case that people working within the criminal justice system are against the legislation? Actually, the biggest law firm in the country is in favour of these structural reforms.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, and I of course agree. Clearly, there is not a consensus, which is why we are here today, but we can categorically state that most knowledgeable and experienced people working in the justice system are against what this Labour Government are trying to do.

[Rebecca Paul]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. If I recall correctly, the hon. Member for Amber Valley has previously worked in the CPS—she might want to disclose her interest.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

Yes, that is correct; I was a Crown prosecutor for 21 years, and I worked all the way through the terrible, terrible years when the Conservative Government were absolutely ripping apart our criminal justice system, so I speak with experience on this matter. I speak with a lot of former colleagues who still work on the frontline, and every single one of them supports this proposal. The difficulty is that, as civil servants, they cannot speak out. That is why we do not hear from them as much as we do from barristers. I worked at the CPS until just before the general election, so my experience is very recent.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, and I hope that she is comfortable having put that on the record. It is good to hear her view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Linsey Farnsworth]

May I refer the hon. Member to the fact that the youth courts often deal with cases of this nature? They have sentencing powers of up to two years. Would the hon. Member suggest that youths are not getting a fair trial in those circumstances?

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I will not comment on that specifically. I am talking about the magistrates courts, which generally deal with low-level motoring offences.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

But they are magistrates.

[Rebecca Paul]

I will look into the hon. Lady’s point, and I have no doubt that we will talk about that later on.

Can a Government who pride themselves on putting victims first truly be comfortable with what I have just laid out? Those are just two examples, but we see the same pattern for numerous other serious offences such as actual bodily harm, fraud and affray. In what world can those offences ever be considered minor enough to qualify only for summary justice? I do not believe that this is what victims want, either. For justice to be done, they need to have complete confidence that people will respect and accept the verdict given. That is a key part of the justice process.

Limiting jury trials for some of the most serious offences will mean that a verdict, whether innocent or guilty, will lose its current gospel status in the eyes of the populus. Clause 1 sows doubt into our justice system, and that doubt will eat away at it. At the opposite end of the spectrum less serious offences are impacted, but that will still have huge ramifications for the individual in the dock. We must always remember the human being at the centre of this. The offence with which someone is charged may be minor, but that does not stop it being the worst thing that has ever happened to them.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting)

Linsey Farnsworth Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Mullan]

It absolutely does—but the Minister is not doing what Sir Brian recommended. She is rejecting his approach, but when we want to reject his approach, she asks how we can possibly question what Sir Brian has to say on such matters. That is the reality of what is happening. It is a consistent flaw that the Government cannot undo.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate did a good job of illustrating the nature and seriousness of so many of the offences we are considering. She also sought a firm answer on, for example, the modelling of the increases in guilty pleas that we might expect owing to the increase in the length of suspended sentences.

We had a debate about, “Well, it’s in the explanatory notes, not in the impact assessment,” as if that was just immaterial. The Minister and her officials will know very well that there is a big difference between what goes into an impact assessment, given the statutory nature of that document and everything that the Government have to do before they put things into it, and what a Government can put out in what is effectively a non-statutory document. They could really put anything in there that they wanted to.

Of course we would expect the Government to be fair, frank and honest, but the reason why we have impact assessments—and the reason why, when Labour Members were in opposition, they hammered the Conservatives repeatedly about what did or did not go into an impact assessment in particular, as opposed to broader documents—is that it has a statutory footing and is important in its own way. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate did a good job of illustrating what was absent from that impact assessment.

We talked about the Crown Prosecution Service, and there was an attempt to say that what a senior member of the management said, one would assume—

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

On that point, will the hon. Member give way?

[Dr Mullan]

I will finish the sentence, and then I will.

Of course, we would assume that they had done that in consultation with other leadership figures, so we might reasonably say that they speak on behalf of the senior leadership team of the CPS, but there was an attempt to say that their views can somehow be taken to represent the views of the many people who work across the CPS—

[Linsey Farnsworth]

On that point, will the hon. Member give way?

[Dr Mullan]

I will finish the sentence, and then I will.

As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford pointed out, the CPS is a very big organisation, with a lot of people.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

Mr Guest was giving evidence to the Justice Committee in his capacity on behalf of the CPS. He was talking with authority from the CPS, on the organisation’s behalf, on its official policy position. It is fair to say that the CPS, as Tom Guest said, is in favour of the structural reform we are making, is it not?

[Dr Mullan]

Nothing that I have said is in disagreement with that. The point we are making is about whether that reflects the wider, individual views of all the people who work for the CPS. I am not aware that the CPS, for example, undertook an internal staff survey. Does the hon. Lady want to intervene and tell me whether the CPS asked people about that? I am not aware that the CPS undertook an internal consultation exercise. Did the CPS consult all the many people who work for it and say, “This is our position. This is what we think”? How did it come to its view about these decisions?

The hon. Lady is very welcome to intervene and talk about how the CPS formulated its position in the way that she sought to talk about it, covering all the different people who work for the CPS. As I explained to her, I know there are people who work for the CPS who do not agree. She may well know people who do agree, but some do not agree. I took the liberty of re-contacting one of the people who works for the CPS over the Committee’s lunch break. Their—quite rightly—anonymous and private view, which they are entitled to hold and express to me is that, as a prosecutor, we should all be very worried when a state prosecutor wants to do something that further curtails the rights of defendants. I might not express it in those terms, but that is how someone from the CPS expressed it.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that the formal policy position of the organisation of the CPS is as she described, but she was not right to refer to it as being meaningful because it covers lots and lots of people who have had no formal engagement whatsoever in helping the CPS to come to that conclusion. It is a bit like the Minister getting up and saying, “The Ministry of Justice is a big organisation and we all think this is what should happen.” The Minister knows that her civil servants are asked to produce policy; what they actually think about it and whether they agree with it is totally irrelevant, and she would never use the size of the organisation to add weight to the strength of her argument, because it is nonsense. As I pointed out when His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service gave evidence, people are not allowed to give their individual views; it is a policy position that the organisation has to hold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

I thank the shadow Minister. I am probably not in a position to arbitrate between the two arguments; the hon. Member for Rugby will have to forgive me, as I come from the starting position that I back the shadow Minister, not least because he was wielding a particularly substantial file when he just spoke.

I want to address a provision that is not the immediate subject of this grouping, but which fundamentally determines the significance of clause 2—the reform of appeal rights from the magistrates court contained in clause 7. Currently, a defendant convicted in the magistrates court has an automatic right of appeal to the Crown court. That right is exercised in approximately—

[Linsey Farnsworth]

On a point of order, Ms Butler. I seek guidance on how we get back to clause 2, because we have veered off significantly from it. Clause 2 relates to provisions that have not yet come into force but could well come into force in the future, specifically in relation to how cases could proceed from the magistrates court to the Crown court by way of written submissions. The idea behind that provision was to avoid the need for a court hearing if everybody agreed. How can we get back on to clause 2, because I fear we are veering significantly away from what it is trying to do?

[The Chair]

I will give a little leeway, but I ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East to please go back to clause 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

My final point in opposition to clauses 1 and 2 is that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who is not here today, would have had a lot to say during our proceedings. He is a Labour MP who has quite literally never rebelled against the Labour Whip. Ms Butler, you have probably been here longer than all the rest of us, so you know that in our parties we have the usual suspects, who rebel when they get the opportunity and take any chance to disagree with the governing party—we all have a sense of what that means. The hon. Gentleman is not one of the usual suspects. He is a passionate practitioner. He will have dealt with clause 2 cases. He will have sat in court and dealt with the sorts of things that clause 2 covers.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

Clause 2 relates to measures that have not come into force yet, so my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East cannot possibly have any experience of that.

[Dr Mullan]

I am not clear that that is the case.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

It is the case.

[Dr Mullan]

Sorry—I am not clear that there will not be real-world consequences in the kind of ways that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East will understand. The Minister nodded her head when I suggested that fewer people will get a Crown court trial as a result of clause 2. The Minister indicated from a sedentary position that it is correct to say that fewer people will get a Crown court hearing specifically as a result of clause 2. If the Minister can clarify that, I am very open to hearing her. I ask Labour Members to think very carefully about the fact that one of their own, who is not one of the usual suspects, is so vehemently opposed to the change.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)

Linsey Farnsworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I want to get three more people in, so pithy questions and pithy answers, please.

Sir Brian Leveson: I am sorry.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

Q I serve on the Justice Committee and am a former Crown prosecutor, so I have an interest in the Crown prosecutions aspect of this.

On 17 March, we heard evidence on the Justice Committee from Tom Guest, the director of policy at the Crown Prosecution Service. He talked about the CPS being supportive of the structural reform that is proposed in the Bill. He said that we were “at a critical juncture” and that this is

“a generational opportunity for end-to-end reform. Our view is that we have gone far beyond the point where piecemeal or non-legislative solutions will suffice. They are definitely part of the solution, but they will not solve the problem. The status quo is failing victims, witnesses and defendants.”

Do you recognise that sentiment, and do you have any comments in relation to the view of the Crown Prosecution Service and its role to play in this structural reform?

Sir Brian Leveson: I do recognise the sentiment: it is exactly my own. I think the CPS has an enormous role to play. You will know from the report that I wrote that there are lots of areas in which improvement and co-ordination of activity is critical. IT changes have to made: there are 43 forces with 43 different IT systems, each of which the CPS have to negotiate with. Redaction is an enormous problem, as is file build. The relationship between the police and the CPS, and the inability of police defence lawyers to speak to CPS lawyers—all that needs to change, and that is why I suggested the adviser.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

Q My point is that bar is already there. The Children Act starts with it—it is in section 1(1). I do not need to say this, but absolutely every death, particularly where the state has been involved and a court decision has been made, is a tragedy, but presumably you will agree that those tragedies will continue even with this change in the law if other things are not done within the family courts to deal with what are primarily safeguarding issues, rather than broad presumptions over children’s interests.

Farah Nazeer: Absolutely. The presumption is a really important first step because without the presumption, we will automatically default to the status quo. That is where the training and an understanding of domestic abuse and coercive control come in. As you can hear, we are not in a situation where safeguarding is applied consistently or domestic abuse or sexual violence are understood consistently. That is where the mandatory training piece has to come in to accompany the change to the law.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

Q Thank you so much for being here today. I am really interested in the victim’s perspective on fairness, the treatment of victims within the current criminal justice system and the changes being made.

As a former Crown prosecutor, one aspect of the criminal justice system that concerned me was the appeals process from the magistrates court to the Crown court. As you all know, if somebody is convicted in the magistrates court, they have an automatic right to a retrial at the Crown court without having to give any reasons, regardless of whether there was a fair trial in the magistrates court or otherwise. If the victims and witnesses want to continue the process, they have to give evidence all over again through that appeal, otherwise the appeal is successful.

The Bill seeks to get rid of that automatic right and put the process more in line with the Crown court appeals process. There will have to be grounds to suggest that the original trial was unfair. As victims and survivors who have had access to the criminal justice system, what is your view on the current system of retrials and appeals from the magistrates court in terms of fairness to victims and the likelihood of victims attending to give evidence and being re-traumatised? I am also interested in whether the automatic right to appeal and have a retrial is used as coercive control in the current justice system. There is a lot to unpack there, I grant you.

Charlotte Meijer: There are a lot of questions there. From my experience, we will never know whether my perpetrator picked a magistrates court because he knew that, if he was found guilty, he could have then dragged me on to a Crown court case—we do not know.

It is absolutely terrifying because, as we all know, going through a trial for the first time is horrific—it is something that I never want to do in my life again. I had the ability to go to court again for rape, and I declined it; if there had been an appeal and I had to go again to a Crown court, I probably would have dropped out. It is not something that I would want to experience twice.

There is also a really interesting thing there. What does that say about our magistrates courts? Are we basically saying that they cannot do what they should be doing? I think that changing the system strengthens the trials and credibility of magistrates courts—they should be credible, given that 90% of cases go there. It also shows that it is the final choice; the decision will be made there, unless more evidence comes forward.

On what you said about fairness to the victim, there is obviously no right to appeal for a victim if there is a not guilty verdict. I know there is a tiny bit of legislation to say that, if there is a huge amount of new evidence, they could reopen a case. However, that barely happens. You are basically told no, so how come a perpetrator can just appeal without any reason? From victims’ perspectives, and from my perspective, it is an absolute no-brainer.

[Paulette Hamilton]

Q Thank you all, and can I add to everybody’s remarks about the powerful testimonies that are coming across today? Following on from Joe’s question, my question is for you, Farah. The Bill’s impact assessment states that repeal alone is unlikely to materially change the outcomes. As the chief exec of Women’s Aid, what further steps does Women’s Aid feel need to be taken to protect children from a parent?

Farah Nazeer: I think the repeal of the presumption is the cornerstone, because that gives the foundation on which the other measures rest. I think the first thing is mandatory training so that there is real understanding of coercive control and domestic abuse. I still speak to survivors daily who tell us that judges are saying, “Well, why didn’t you leave earlier? If it was that bad, why are you still there?” There is a real lack of understanding of coercive control, economic abuse and how coercive control can manifest in multiple different ways—the isolation, the withdrawal of technology and all the many things that make it impossible to leave. I think that mandatory training is really important.

The training also has to include a real understanding of the barriers that survivors face, particularly those with minoritised backgrounds, such as black women, women from minority backgrounds, deaf and disabled women and LGBTQ+ constituents. They face additional barriers and challenges in accessing justice, as well as in accessing empathy and understanding of their particular situations, which might have cultural implications, or mean different things in the domestic abuse context. We need really comprehensive training and understanding.

We also need unevidenced concepts like parental alienation to be banned from family courts, and we need actual regulated professionals—if they need to be brought in—to advise courts and judges in a way that the system and survivors can have confidence in. Right now, this is inconsistent and, in some cases, outright dangerous, as we can see from the many reports we have produced at Women’s Aid. I would say that those are the three most important things to ensure that we have a safe system.

The other piece that perhaps sits outside the provisions of the Bill is the specialist domestic abuse and sexual violence services that need to be there to support survivors through either the family court processes or the criminal court processes. Unless you have someone supporting survivors through those processes, they can be brutal. It is very hard to sustain the energy and commitment to return to those settings, time after time.

You build yourself up, as my fellow panellists have said, and then you are let down again. The experiences themselves are also deeply distressing. Without those specialist services there to support survivors, justice will not happen either way. It is really important that there is a recognition that specialist services are pivotal to ensuring that justice happens.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Linsey Farnsworth Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy]

I will not give way.

Of course, when the Justice Secretary’s predecessor, the Home Secretary, commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to conduct a review of the criminal courts, she knew what she was doing, because in an earlier review Sir Brian had already said that jury trials should be restricted, with magistrates deciding the mode of trial and appeals made to a circuit judge. Perhaps the Justice Secretary sees this, like the early release scheme, as another hospital pass from his predecessor, who like the hardened criminals she let out of prison early, got out of the MOJ before facing the consequences of her actions. If he does think that, he should not feel that he has to go ahead with it.

Yet here the Justice Secretary is today proposing not only what Sir Brian Leveson recommended, but an even more radical change. He is telling the House that he has no choice but to rush this very serious legislation through Parliament at breakneck speed. The Bill was published less than two weeks ago, after no consultation at all, and today he is already asking hon. Members to approve its Second Reading. He is allowing only five days for Members to scrutinise the Bill line by line in Committee. That is less than the Government allowed for the Railways Bill, the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill and the Pension Schemes Bill. It is about the same time the House once spent scrutinising the Salmon Act 1986, which introduced the offence of handling salmon in suspicious circumstances. It is less time than the 44 debates, statements and urgent questions this House has heard on Israel, Palestine and Lebanon since the election.

We are not talking about legislating to recognise the sentience of crustacea or regulate travelling circuses; we are talking about a fundamental change to our constitution, the operation of our courts and the rights of our people. In the words of His Honour Geoffrey Rivlin KC, this Bill is

“one of the most radical and revolutionary events in English legal history. Yet it has not appeared in any manifesto; it has not been put out for consultation; it has not been recommended by Leveson”.

He says that it

“has been ‘published’ with virtually no notice to anyone”.

What arrogance, Madam Deputy Speaker—what a disgrace!

If this Bill had been the subject of consultation and this Justice Secretary had spent any time listening to judges, lawyers and the public, he would know that it will fail on its own terms. He says that it will deliver justice for more victims, but in Canada and Australia—jurisdictions he cites as an inspiration—judge-only trials have seen more acquittals than jury trials. Indeed, the impact assessment predicts that fewer people will go to prison as a result of these changes. That should be no surprise: asking judges sitting alone to take responsibility for depriving somebody of their liberty is far more onerous than asking 12 fellow citizens who can discuss the evidence, argue the case and share the burden between them.

A corresponding danger to justice is posed by the proposals to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers to two years and to limit the right to appeal their rulings. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) said earlier, no fewer than 40% of appeals against verdicts and 47% of appeals against sentences issued by magistrates are successful. Incredibly, the Justice Secretary seemed to suggest just now that these figures are not a cause for concern, but a cause for celebration.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

On appeals against magistrates’ rulings, is the shadow Minister aware—as I am, through my experience—that appeals are essentially a retrial in the magistrates court, and that many appeals are successful simply because the victim cannot face giving evidence for a second time and being retraumatised? Defendants will use that to retraumatise the victim all over again, particularly in circumstances where there is domestic abuse.

[Nick Timothy]

I do not accept that characterisation of magistrates courts. If that were a true cause for concern for the hon. Lady, this Bill would perhaps try to address what she says, yet it does not.

The Government’s claims about what the Bill will achieve are hopelessly confused. The Justice Secretary leans heavily on Sir Brian Leveson, who says that limiting jury trials will save 20% of court time, but there has been no modelling to justify this number, and Sir Brian has admitted that it is little more than a guess. When challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), the Justice Secretary said,

“We will…publish our modelling alongside the…Bill”.—[Official Report, 3 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 109.]

Yet no modelling worthy of the name has been published. The impact assessment takes Sir Brian’s guess and uses it as the median estimate. This is fiction masquerading as science.

The Criminal Bar Association calls the impact assessment “meaningless verbiage”, “total gibberish” and something that

“would make the script writer of ‘In the Thick of it’ wince with embarrassment”.

It concludes:

“If anyone can make any sense of this, please get in touch.”

If the Justice Secretary wanted to accept that invitation right now, I would be willing to give way to him—but he does not.

The Government have overstated the length of trials for cases in scope of the proposed change by more than 100%. The better estimate has been made by the Institute for Government, where researchers have listened to judges and lawyers and understood that only 20% of Crown court time is spent trying either-way offences. Of course, half of those cases will remain jury trials because the likely sentence is above three years. The cases in scope therefore take up only 5% to 10% of Crown court time, so even if they could be tried 20% faster, it would save only 1% or 2% of court time.

[Nick Timothy]

My right hon. and learned Friend is exactly right. I was planning to turn to that point, because the Bill creates a problem not only in the burden of time it creates, but in the politicisation of our judiciary.

The Bill does create new time burdens. When juries deliberate, judges do other work in court, including on other trials. If judges deliberate instead, the court time used to hear other cases is lost. Because a defendant’s right to a jury trial will depend on the likely custodial sentence if he is found guilty, if the Bill becomes law, a judge will, for the first time, be needed to first conduct a hearing to determine the likely sentence. The Bill says that the parties involved should make representations; in cases with several defendants, the judge would need to hear from all their representatives and the prosecutor, taking up hours of time. There is more: defendants often plead guilty after the plea and trial preparation hearing, but before trial. In these cases, the sentencing judge—possibly not the same as the allocating judge—will have to hear the submissions all over again.

Then there are the reasons for conviction or acquittal, as my right hon. and learned Friend has just said. Juries do not have to provide reasons, but the Bill says that judges must. That will inevitably take many hours per case—time that right now is used to try cases.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nick Timothy]

I will make some progress.

This opens up new risks. The publication of judges’ reasons is likely to lead to more appeals and more court time being taken up. As questions are posed about judges’ reasons, we are likely to see the politicisation of judges and judicial appointments—something that will be made worse by the blurring of our adversarial model and the European inquisitorial role of judges. Under our model, judges are entitled to intervene and seek further information to help the jury with their assessment; in a judge-only trial, where the judge inevitably takes on a more inquisitorial role, those interventions and requests will inevitably be portrayed as the display of bias.

This will be made worse when it comes to the role of the judge in deciding on the admissibility of evidence. A judge usually sees all manner of material that is prejudicial to the defendant but deemed inadmissible, which does not matter when it is a jury who decides innocence or guilt. When a judge sees prejudicial material and deems it inadmissible, however, it will be difficult for anybody to believe that the information was simply erased from their mind. Judges may be professional and fully committed to their impartiality, but they are not superhuman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)]

When I was working for a living as a building worker, rather than being here, if there was a backlog of work, we were told to work through the night and at weekends, and on not very much additional pay. I wonder how it is that, today in our country, one tenth of all the courts are not even sitting, despite the backlog that the Deputy Prime Minister has told us about and many others have spoken about. Why is it that, when there is a backlog, manual workers, as I was, are made to work hard, and rightly so, to catch up, but the barristers, judges, solicitors and all the other accoutrements of a court are simply told, “Well, we’ll make it easier for you by reducing the amount of jury trials that are going to be held.” It is rather odd.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

[Jon Trickett]

No. I have only five minutes, and I will have to move fast.

The Deputy Prime Minister did convince me, and I am sure all of us, that there is a backlog, and it is not reasonable or fair, in terms of justice, that people should wait so long. Obviously, today we have heard some very powerful speeches from victims that reinforce the case. However, he has not shown to my satisfaction that the cause of the backlog is the juries. In fact, there is much evidence to show that they have a marginal impact at the most. The cause of the backlog is all sorts of things, including the failure of the courts to meet for long enough hours, as other working people have to do all over the country.

Let me reflect for a moment—in a sense, going back to the basics—on why juries are in place, and I think it is to do with the fact that the Crown has the power, uniquely, to imprison people and deprive them of their liberty. No other organisation has that massively powerful capacity. The point is that, in a case where the Crown—or the Government, acting on behalf of the Crown—is operating in an unreasonable, unfair or even oppressive way, what the person facing imprisonment has is the jury system. Twelve people drawn from the citizenry of our country at random are able to speak together and make a final decision about whether the Crown has made out the case that that person should be imprisoned. That is a fundamental part of our constitutional system, and the idea that we should begin to abandon it is mistaken. Some hon. Members have said today that we have done similarly in the past, but making mistakes in the past does not at all justify continuing to make mistakes in the present. I have not heard the case made that juries are a bad thing in principle, although we are reducing them.

One further point I want to raise is the question of how the backlog occurred. Again, no one has made the case that the backlog occurred because of some sort of permanent, strategic problem with the way our judicial system works. It is the product of a series of cuts by Governments of both parties, to be honest, and of a number of failures—there was privatisation, and all sorts of other issues. If those changes are contingent, rather than permanent, and a temporary problem that can be resolved, why are we destroying an element of the jury system? If the Deputy Prime Minister had said that the world and the country had changed, and that our way of looking at the judicial system had to be reformed, he might have had a case, although I would not necessarily agree with it. However, he has not said that. He has said that this is a contingent problem.

When I was working for a living, I regularly used a ratchet—I do not know if the DPM has ever used one. A ratchet is a device that moves in only one direction. In the jury system, citizens have had, over centuries, a ratchet that gives protection from an oppressive Government. If the Deputy Prime Minister had come to the House and said that he was going to do some things that were extraordinary but temporary, to deal with the problems facing all victims, I might well have been prepared to listen to him. However, he has not said that; instead, he says that this will be a permanent change to the way that we do things. I am not convinced. This is oppressive, authoritarian and, quite honestly, much as I admire the Deputy Prime Minister, reactionary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

Anyone who has worked on the frontline of the criminal justice system knows that the Crown court crisis has been years in the making. Underfunding, austerity, covid and the changing nature of crime, with cases becoming increasingly complex and evidential volumes growing exponentially, have compounded the issue.

The changes in the Bill offer a pragmatic solution, and it is important that we are all clear about what is being proposed. The Bill does not abolish jury trials; it simply adjusts the threshold at which a case warrants a jury’s involvement. Magistrates are absolutely capable of hearing cases commanding a sentence of up two years; they already do in the youth court and there has been no outcry that young people do not get justice because of it.

As the Crown court backlog has increased, so has the percentage of cases committed to that court, because defendants have overruled the magistrates’ decision, and that is despite the sentence, in the most serious version of the Crown’s case, not exceeding the magistrates’ maximum powers. One may wonder why a defendant would seek to take his case to a court with greater sentencing powers, but the calculation is clear. The longer the wait for a trial, the harder it will be for witnesses to have a clear recollection of events and the more likely it is for victims to withdraw. Indeed, in one of my cases, a defendant hoped that the 96-year-old victim of burglary would die before the trial took place.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

This is the crux of the issue that we are discussing today: how do make sure that justice is given to victims as quickly as possible? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill enables us to do that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that this is about getting justice to victims, which defendants game the system to prevent.

Arguments against the Crown court bench division seem to presuppose some measure of unfairness of having a single judge deciding guilt or innocence, but district judges have sat alone in the magistrates court for decades, and there have been no campaigns suggesting that they should be abolished on the grounds of unfairness or otherwise. The Crown court bench division is predicted to save 5,000 sitting days in 2028-29. As well as reducing the time spent in the courtroom, fewer jury trials will also free up administrative staff, who are feeling under immense pressure.

For those who suggest that greater investment and efficiencies alone will be sufficient, I remind them that Sir Brian Leveson has said that this alone cannot solve this crisis. That accords with my experience of working as a Crown prosecutor from 2003 right up until just before the general election, during which time countless efficiency initiatives were introduced but were ultimately unable to prevent the crisis from developing. Efficiencies alone cannot turn this around.

[Lloyd Hatton]

I thank my hon. Friend for making such an eloquent speech. Does she share my concern that if we were, heaven forfend, to walk away from the crucial reforms in this Bill, the police officers, prison officers, CPS staff and those who work in our Crown courts would not thank us for the mess that we would be leaving them, with the Crown court system grinding to a halt and backlogs ballooning?

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank all those people working in the criminal justice system who, frankly, have been propping up the system with the generosity of their time, working extra hours over and above, and giving everything. They have propped up the criminal justice system in that way for years.

If we do not act now, the wait time for cases to reach trial is projected to increase, and the consequences will be stark. First, justice will be delayed. That means victims waiting years for closure and a chance to heal, it means the wrongly accused waiting years for their name to be cleared, and it means those who have offended waiting years until they can be rehabilitated. Secondly, if we do not act, we will not fix the vicious cycle of interconnected crises: the staffing crisis, the prison crises, the recidivism crisis and the VAWG crisis.

We finally have a Government brave enough to grip these problems through record levels of investment, through the emergency early release scheme, through sentencing reform and through the measures in this Bill. The Bill rebalances the criminal justice system to ensure that jury trials are always available for the most serious cases, that cases are heard sooner, that victims are treated more fairly, that our criminal justice system continues to provide justice now, and that it is future-proofed for years to come. I wholeheartedly support the Government and this Bill.

Jury Trials

Linsey Farnsworth Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is right that if a case is determined by a judge, reasons will need to be given. Indeed, reasons are a good thing—those convicted of a crime will have transparency, knowing why the result has been reached. I am sure Sir Brian Leveson will have been well aware of the need for a judge to give reasons, and will have factored that into his conclusion, in the same way that we have the data from Canada and from New South Wales. I met judges at the Supreme Court in Toronto, where equivalent cases are tried by judges alone and tried by a jury. It is not about the relative merits of those two things; simply as a practical matter of timing, those judges told me that it takes about half the time. Given the evidence that we have, it is undeniable that trying cases by judges alone is going to take less time. When I have to focus on creating an efficient system that deploys resources in a proportionate way and delivers swifter justice for victims, it would be madness to ignore the conclusions of the independent review.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

On the point of saving time through fewer jury trials, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that this is not just about the amount of time a jury is in the courtroom? It is about all the other factors within the criminal justice system that contribute to the time taken—the time it takes for back office staff to organise jury selection and summonsing, the time it takes for the Crown Prosecution Service to prepare reams and reams of paper for jury bundles, the time it takes to deal with the expenses, and so on. This is about the criminal justice system as a whole, not just the time spent in the courtroom.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before the Minister responds, and to save another Member from any embarrassment, coming in halfway through a speech and trying to intervene is not acceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The right hon. Gentleman pre-empts what I will go on to say in my speech. We are yet to see an impact assessment. That was spoken about by the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). It is also mentioned in the amendment tabled by the Government. We need to see the modelling and the impact assessment, and understand where these savings are coming from. Even if the figures are accurate, they avoid the glaringly obvious fact that they are measured against a completely inefficient system. The system is fundamentally not undermined by jury trials, but instead plagued by years of under-investment, creating an ever-growing list of unaddressed issues across the system. The Government seem willing to ignore that fact, despite it being present in every piece of discourse surrounding their proposals. They have bought a car that will not run, and they have decided to spend all their time and money on a new paint job before opening the bonnet.

This proposal is utterly shameful, fundamentally because there are alternatives, despite the narrative that the Government are advancing. They do not have to attack jury trials, especially when their own Ministers and their own Prime Minister have been fierce advocates of jury trials in the past. Instead, they should be looking at the real issues within the system that have led us to this point. Chief among them is the productivity decline that our criminal courts have experienced since 2016. Wasted time in and around courts is caused by a wide range of issues, all of which are being ignored by the Ministry of Justice. It means that the Government’s increased investment is being used inefficiently. It also means that many of these issues will persist, even if their attack on jury trials leads to reductions in trial length.

The solutions are out there, and the majority of legal professionals opposing the Government’s reforms are overflowing with practical suggestions, but the Government are not listening, so today I will lay some of them out. First, there must be investment in the courts estate, not only to reopen the hundreds of courts closed under the Conservatives—including my court in Chichester—but to properly maintain those that remain open. Evidence of leaking roofs, foul smells and flooded rooms across the estate is hardly indicative of a properly functioning justice system, and that must be addressed. Trials being abandoned because the heating is not working or there is no running water is unacceptable for those victims.

Even at the roughest of estimates, the restriction of jury trials will at best save 9,000 sitting days in court a year. That is based on not being able to see an impact assessment. The Government could increase the number of sitting days up to the possible 130,000, which would far exceed the apparent savings they would gain from the removal of trials. The concept of a restriction on sitting days is artificial. If there is a case, a courtroom, a defendant on remand and court staff ready to go, the case should be heard.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I gently point out to the hon. Lady that it is not just about a courtroom being available, but the resources that have to go into that. It is about not just whether we have the space, but whether we have the barristers and the solicitors, and whether we have enough CPS lawyers, court clerks and ushers. There is a bigger picture, and that is why the whole package that the Government are putting forward is incredibly important. Just tinkering around the edges has been done for years, and we are in this crisis now.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I do not disagree with the hon. Lady when she points out that it has to be a full package of support, but that is not what we are debating today. I am laying out all the things that she rightly points out, such as the total inefficiencies within our court system, but until we see those situations addressed and those things fixed, how do we know that that would not save the court sitting days that we would apparently see by eroding the right to jury trial?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Davis]

I am losing the House, piece by piece, but that is okay. The Minister should pay some attention to the detail of the speech by the hon. Member for Chichester, because she made some extremely important points.

As for the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), he and I have fought together on some spectacular cases of miscarriage of justice—successfully, I think, in the biggest ones—but I do not agree with him that the Government’s policy does not address matters that are morally fundamental to the justice system, because the jury system is absolutely fundamental, for a few reasons that I will touch on in a minute.

The Minister has a difficult job. Bluntly, her Department—not just the Ministers, but the Department itself—has not done a very good job of managing the system over decades. The system failures have been serially spectacular, and I recommend that she look back at some of the National Audit Office reports. I commissioned one when I was Chair of the Public Accounts Committee; it is the longest NAO report that I can remember and the most complex, because these matters are systemically complex and do not lend themselves to off-the-cuff answers. She talks about modernisation, which is often important, but it should not be at the price of taking out the most important building block in our justice system—one that the rest of the world, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark said, has been copying for centuries.

Of course, the majority of the judiciary does not agree with restricting jury trials. When I raised this matter with the Justice Secretary—I think I did so in oral questions on one occasion—I asked him whether he had read the report by Mr Rivlin KC, which does a formidable job of forensically taking apart the Leveson recommendations. One of the points he makes is that Leveson is making judgments—quite properly, as a very distinguished judge of very long standing—but he is not making them on the basis of empirical data. There was very little empirical data behind what Lord Justice Leveson argued, and it is really important that we look at that. I recommend to the Minister that she read Mr Rivlin’s note. He was the head of Southwark Crown court, which has one of the highest throughputs in the country, and he put this point to all his judges. Not one of those working, active judges agreed with Leveson.

Implicit in Leveson’s comments, and certainly in what the Minister said, is an underlying idea that juries are not quite up to it in certain cases. It is suggested that they cannot quite cope, particularly in technical and financial cases. Well, I have handled about a dozen miscarriage of justice cases over the course of the last decade or two, and in not one of them was the jury the source of the error. More often than not, it was a misdirection by a judge or an error of the system, or the court case was allowed to get out of control in some way or another—I will come back to an example or two in a minute. It was pretty much always down to the judge, and sometimes to the lawyers in court, but not to the jury.

The risks involved in restricting jury trials are significant. When the Minister is modelling the numbers—she talks about the speed of the magistrate system—she should look at the appeal rates for magistrates’ decisions and the number of appeals in which the magistrates’ decisions are overturned.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I gently say to the right hon. Member that the current system for appeals from the magistrates court requires a full retrial. When somebody comes to give evidence, we ask a lot of them, particularly the victims. To do that all over again, after a wait of a considerable number of months or even years, is very onerous. Quite simply, the victim does not want to go through it all over again. That is the problem, which this policy fixes.

[David Davis]

Frankly, the hon. Lady highlights yet another problem with the magistrates court. The point is that if we are going to implement a big, systemic change, we should not change the fundamentals. That should be done as a separate testable exercise later, after we have tried everything else.

Let me come back to the expertise of juries. It is illegal in Britain to talk to jurors about what happened in the jury room—it is not allowed—but there is a spectacular lacuna in that. One of the most complicated financial cases was the Jubilee line fraud trial, which collapsed. As a result, it was possible to interview the jurors. This case was in an area where it is said that jurors cannot cope: complex financial law. They were asked, “Couldn’t you cope? Was there a problem?” When they were asked if they could not understand the case, they answered unequivocally, “Oh yes, we could understand the case. It was the lawyers who couldn’t understand the case.” That is precisely what the outcome of that analysis was.

The Minister resisted publishing the model, which is understandable. I can see why she is doing that. She wants it to be presented properly and transparently, I hope, but she has made the decision already, so at the very least, she should tell us the size of the saving and the size of the change. In my judgment, it is less than half of 1%—a point that I made in an intervention earlier. She may disagree. Well, let us see what she thinks the size of the saving really is, because we are expected to take this on trust, and we should never change something that is so fundamental to our constitution and justice system on trust. I do not think the Government’s policy will move the dial at all.

There is one other systemic issue that I want to raise. Again, my hon. Friends might not like it—

Criminal Court Reform

Linsey Farnsworth Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I refer the right hon. Lady to paragraph 9 of Sir Brian’s review, which says:

“it is important to underline that greater financial investment on its own, without systemic reform, cannot solve this crisis.”

We are investing, but it will take time. It is not fair to ask victims to wait.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

I spent two decades working on the frontline in the criminal justice system, and I can tell hon. Members that this crisis has been building for years and years and years. I spoke to one of my former colleagues today to ask him how things are. He said:

“Something has to be done. The backlog and delay is distorting the justice system as people need to wait so long for justice that defendants are pleading not guilty in the hope that the case ends up being considered not in the public interest. Meanwhile the public, victims and witnesses pay the price. Justice delayed is justice denied.”

Right now, my former colleague is working on the frontline in the criminal justice system, so let us support the people working in that system, and let us support our victims of crime so that they get justice quickly and fairly. My request to the Secretary of State is please to be bold.

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who puts her remarks so well. Let us be clear that there are defendants playing the system, and if we continue to allow them to do so, vulnerable victims of the most serious offences in our country will pay the price. That is why this is not just about financial investment; it has to be about reform, and I am determined to see this through.

Sentencing Bill

Linsey Farnsworth Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Mullan]

I note that the Minister is nodding.

We can ensure that criminals know that the fullest possible consequences of the law will follow if they murder a police or prison officer simply because they were doing their job.

New clause 20 seeks to establish notification and offender management requirements for those convicted of child cruelty offences, in effect creating a system similar to the sex offenders register for individuals who have abused and neglected children. I want to be clear why this matters. Every one of us in this House knows that behind the legal language of child cruelty or abuse lie some of the most distressing and life-altering crimes imaginable—crimes in which a child, utterly dependent and vulnerable, gets the worst instead of the best, often from those who are supposed to love and care for them.

This measure will not fix everything—sadly, that is not the world we live in—but before us there is a clear and proven step we can take towards improving how we protect our children. At present, if somebody is convicted of a sexual offence against a child, they are rightly placed on the sex offenders register. They are required to keep the police informed of their whereabouts, their identity and any change to their circumstances, including whether they live with children.

The requirement sits separately from probation requirements. If a person is convicted of an offence to which the requirements apply and receives a prison sentence of 13 months or more, the notification requirements are indefinite. That allows the police service, along with other agencies, better to assess and manage risk and ultimately to protect children and others from harm. If a person is convicted of horrific physical abuse, of neglect, or of causing a child’s death through sustained cruelty, there is no equivalent requirement. Once their sentence and probation is over, they can disappear into the community with no requirement to report where they live, no oversight by those who might need to protect other children, and no legal mechanism for ongoing management. That is a clear gap in our child protection system, and new clause 20 would correct it.

A person convicted of any of the listed child cruelty or violence offences, including causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, child cruelty or neglect, infanticide, exposing children whereby life is endangered, and female genital mutilation, would be required to notify the police of their details within three days of conviction or release. They would have to confirm where they live, any other addresses they use and any names that they go by. They would have to keep that information up to date and confirm it annually, just as child sex offenders already do.

Importantly, that information could be shared between the police and other agencies that work to safeguard children. That would give local law enforcement the information it needs to identify the risk that individuals could pose to the local community and to intervene with any precautionary measures early to protect children before harm could come. It would offer greater protection to the public by ensuring that those who have committed abuse and cruelty to children are treated in the same manner as those who have committed sexual abuse.

Let me say a few words about the reason why we are considering this measure and about an extraordinary lady called Paula Hudgell. Paula Hudgell’s name has been spoken before in this House. She is the adoptive mother of 11-year-old Tony Hudgell, who had both legs amputated after abuse by his birth parents. She has previously campaigned successfully for tougher sentences to be available for child abuse offences, for which she was awarded an OBE. When Paula adopted Tony, the criminals responsible for what happened to him—his birth parents—were not even going to be prosecuted. Paula told me that if anyone had done to her birth children what they had done to Tony, she would have done everything that she could to pursue justice, and that Tony was no different, even though he was adopted. That is exactly what she did for him, and in the end his birth parents were convicted. The maximum sentence they received appalled Paula, and her first campaign began, to change that maximum to a life sentence.

However, during the course of her campaigning and from getting to see the parole system and what it can do to monitor people after they have served their sentence, Paula got an incredible insight into the system’s flaws and what needed to change. Discussing it with a police officer, Becki Taft—I also pay tribute to her—who Paula got to know during the course of the prosecution, they both recognised the glaring omission that we are seeking to remedy today, so Paula acted. She is continuing to act despite facing enormous challenges in her personal circumstances, as she is undergoing treatment for cancer that can no longer be cured. Paula said:

“I’ve been battling cancer, but as long as I have fire in my belly, I’ll keep fighting to protect children by pushing for this register. That’s what keeps me going—knowing that Tony’s legacy can help save other young lives.”

She is an incredible woman who I am honoured to have gotten to know, and her MP, the shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), has done so much to help Paula turn her campaign into words on a page—into legislation we can pass. She is someone I am pleased to be able to call a friend.

I sincerely thank the Justice Secretary for taking a direct interest in this issue, and I am sure that the Minister will also want to closely consider it. I want to ensure that the strength of feeling among Conservative Members and others is reflected in the Lobby tonight. It may be that the Government are not ready to support this measure this evening. Labour MPs may feel that that is reasonable at this stage, but I would welcome a commitment from the Dispatch Box that will enable me to conclude that we can agree to work cross-party in the other place to get this done.

I look forward to the rest of the debate, and to considering amendments tabled by other Members. I hope I have been able to clearly explain our proposals, which relate to prison and police officer whole life orders and the child cruelty register. However, whatever else this Bill achieves and whatever else we might reasonably disagree on, at the heart of the Bill is the biggest step backwards in securing justice for the victims of serious crime in a generation. For it to pass unamended would represent a betrayal of victims. I do not believe that Labour Members want that, and it is not too late. I am confident that the Lords will not let this Bill pass unamended, so at some point, Labour MPs will again be able to decide to say no to the Prime Minister and his plan.

MPs always have choices, and this Government spend £1 trillion a year on various services. Whatever the positive and honourable intentions Labour Members have when it comes to securing justice for victims, and whatever positive measures they suggest, they will be disastrously undone if they do not work collaboratively to make clear that they will not support measures that will let thousands of serious violent and sexual offenders out of prison earlier.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

My new clause 36 seeks to implement a key recommendation of David Gauke’s independent sentencing review, on which the measures in this Bill are based. The new clause proposes that release at one third of a sentence should be conditional on positive actions and purposeful activity, such as attending education classes, engaging in voluntary work and participating in drug rehabilitation.

My amendment seeks to address the prison capacity crisis by embedding an emphasis on rehabilitation into the earned progression model from its very first stage. Incentivising purposeful activity will do two things. First, it will actively reward better behaviour within prison, leading to fewer instances of additional adjudication days being added.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that offering clear incentives for earned release is a key way of offering certain offenders clear chances to change, thereby reducing the risk of reoffending and enhancing public protection?

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I absolutely agree. As my hon. Friend will have seen—she sits alongside me on the Justice Committee—there is clear evidence to back that up. Secondly, starting the process of rehabilitation through positive requirements earlier will reduce reoffending rates on release, thereby cutting crime and consequently easing pressure on prison capacity in the longer term.

To develop my first point, inquiries by the Justice Select Committee have found worryingly high rates of drug and alcohol abuse, self-harm, and violence against inmates and staff. Evidence submitted by Collective Voice shows that prisoners are more likely to develop substance misuse issues while in custody if they lack meaningful activity. The Prisoners’ Education Trust has described how participating in education has rehabilitative benefits, helping people in prison to occupy their time positively and learn new skills.

His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons found that the prisons best able to tackle substance abuse combined clear boundaries, high expectations and, importantly, meaningful incentives. Prisons such as HMP Oakwood and HMP Rye Hill, which offer rich, purposeful activity, see significantly lower rates of drug use and better behaviour. By incentivising engagement in well-resourced, purposeful activity, new clause 36 would reduce the likelihood of prisoners turning to substances or violence. In turn, fewer prisoners would incur additional days on their sentence, which would ease overcrowding and the strain on prison staff.

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. As she said, the chief inspector of prisons has found that rehabilitation in prisons is not working. This Bill presents an opportunity for a sea change in how that works, as well as in reoffending when people leave prison. As a member of the Select Committee, she will know that we will soon produce a major report on rehabilitation. It is essential that purposeful activity becomes the norm in prisons, and not the exception.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee. I greatly trust and rely on his opinion. It is essential that rehabilitative work is available to all in prisons, as I will go on to talk about in a little more detail.

On my second point, structured rehabilitation during custody prepares individuals for life after release. As the earned progression model stands, the emphasis on rehabilitation begins largely during the intensive supervision stage. While I welcome the focus and measures in the Bill to tackle the root causes of crime, we should not wait until release from custody to begin that important work. Too often, individuals return upon release to the same environments, the same pressures and the same risks that contributed to their offending in the first place. Why wait, when we can intervene when they are most reachable? We literally have a captive audience. If people leave custody having already engaged in structured rehabilitation, they are more likely to respond positively to supervision and less likely to reoffend. That in turn reduces pressure on the Probation Service, which is also already under immense strain.

To summarise, the model proposed by new clause 36 is fair and proportionate, actively rewarding good behaviour while existing provisions in the Bill punish bad behaviour. Those who engage constructively while in custody through an earned progression scheme may be released as early as a third in. Those who break the rules will serve more days. Meanwhile, those who neither engage positively nor breach rules will see no change in their release date. That ensures that rehabilitation, positive behaviour, purposeful activity and steps towards reintegration are actively incentivised and baked in to the earned progression model from the start.

Having said that, I understand that practicalities have to be considered in implementing this positive requirements scheme, if it is to be successful. Years of neglect by the previous Government have left our prison system overstretched and under-resourced. On 4 February, the Justice Committee heard evidence from Clinks, the Prison Reform Trust, Women in Prison, and Nacro. We were told during that session that only 50% of prisoners are engaged in education or work, which is often part-time and not rehabilitative. That is due to staffing shortages, overcrowding and limited resources and facilities. In essence, we have inherited prisons that cannot offer the programmes people need and access to purposeful activity is highly inconsistent.

I recognise the immense scale of the challenge in getting the prison system to a place where the proposals in my new clause can be implemented fairly, effectively and with the necessary resources across the country. While I do not expect the Government to accept my new clause today, I strongly urge the Minister to commit to incorporating positive requirements on purposeful activity in the earned progression model as soon as conditions allow. This incremental approach is in line with the position that David Gauke outlined in his review.

He said:

“This Review holds the view that, as prison capacity eases and fuller regimes become possible, compliance requirements for earned release should become more demanding.”

Only by doing this will we truly future-proof our prisons, help people to turn their backs on crime, and ensure, unlike the last Government, that we always have places in our prisons for the most dangerous offenders.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

We hear a lot about tolerance, but we hear far too little about convictions. That old order is out of tune with popular sentiment and out of time, yet the Sentencing Council perpetuates those prejudices. That is why it must go. It represents that old bankrupt order.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

Does the right hon. Member realise that the Sentencing Council does not just pluck out of the air its sentencing recommendations? It consults widely with a variety of organisations, people working in the criminal justice system and the public before coming to its conclusions about the right sentences for offences. I would submit that there should be recognition of the work that it does.

[Sir John Hayes]

I simply say to the hon. Lady that when we delegate that kind of authority to those who are unelected and unaccountable, we are no longer doing our job. Her view, which has prevailed for a very long time, is not entirely the fault of Labour; it is a problem with the whole political class. We have created every kind of body imaginable in every aspect of government to do things that should be done by this House and by Ministers of the Crown.

The Sentencing Council is just another of those bodies. Who knows who is on the Sentencing Council? Certainly most of the hon. Lady’s constituents and most of mine would not have a clue, and they certainly would not know how to influence them in any way. Of course, it is working people who are most disadvantaged by that, not the privileged few who occupy the social circles that the Sentencing Council no doubt occupies. It is the hard-working, patriotic and law-abiding majority in my constituency and hers who are frustrated by a criminal justice system that persistently excuses the worst kinds of crimes rather than punishing them as they deserve to be punished.

There is a new future emerging in the post-liberal age as we build a new order. That order will be inspired by time-honoured truths, rooted in the will of the people and powered by a ceaseless determination to recapture our country for our people. Burke said:

“Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.”

The tyranny of the cruelty of crime and disorder will haunt places and people across our country as the vile and vicious are let loose. I urge the House to accept the variety of amendments that I have mentioned and the many others on the amendment paper that are attempts to rescue the Bill from that horror.

Sentencing Bill

Linsey Farnsworth Excerpts

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

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

I will speak to new clause 28, “Gambling treatment requirement” and new clause 29, “Gambling addiction: support for offenders”. I thank the Minister and the Ministry of Justice, the NHS, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Health and Social Care for their sustained engagement and understanding on this topic. These are probing amendments, and I will withdraw them. However, I wish to highlight the real urgency with which we must treat gambling disorder with parity of esteem to drug and alcohol addiction in the criminal justice system.

Gambling can be a fun hobby which many of us enjoy—even I like a flutter on the lottery and have a soft spot for bingo. But what begins as the odd bet or game can quickly escalate, and some sadly spiral into problem gambling. Once an addiction takes hold, disordered gambling can break down families, cause people to lose their jobs and may trigger criminal behaviour. Those affected may turn to acquisitive crime to fund their addiction or pay their debts, and affected others may turn to crime to recoup their partner’s debts. Problem gambling is associated with not only acquisitive crimes, but street violence, domestic abuse and neglect. That, of course, leads to many harms for the person themselves, their families and the victims of their crimes.

Although the link between problem gambling and crime remains relatively under-researched, the available evidence illuminates several concerning trends. Problem gamblers are over four times more likely to be in prison. While there are examples of good support specific to problem gambling, there is currently no statutory requirement to provide treatment to people convicted of gambling-related offences. I have received reports of people with problem gambling only being given treatment designed for drug or alcohol dependency, general mental health support or no treatment at all. None of those options treats the very specific and complex issues related to problem gambling and crime. Without this, people risk entering a cycle of reoffending, with harms escalating each time and more and more victims.

I was given a case recently in which a woman who developed a gambling addiction after a traumatic life event received no support during her custodial sentence. She was instead directed to a drugs and alcohol course, which she found incredibly unhelpful. In another case, a man imprisoned was not offered any treatment in custody at all and experienced a rife culture of gambling while in prison. He left prison with no treatment and no path to recovery.

It must be acknowledged that in many cases, gambling disorder is one part of a wider network of vulnerabilities contributing to offending and reoffending. Problem gamblers often struggle with alcohol or drug misuse, mental health issues or underlying trauma.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case that I wholeheartedly support. She is outlining not only the real problems that gambling addiction causes but the trauma that often leads to it, which shows how important rehabilitation is. We have heard much from Opposition Members today about how everybody should be punished and how this Bill is a soft option. Does my hon. Friend agree that requiring people to drill down into the causes of their offending is far from an easy option? It is a very difficult thing to ask people to do, and it is essential that we give them the support they need to look at their life and turn it around.

[Dr Gardner]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I wholeheartedly agree. Prison should be rehabilitative. Any offender should have that support, to prevent reoffending. It is right for our society, it is right for potential victims, and it is right for offenders, who often resort to criminality due to very severe personal circumstances and trauma.

Gambling disorder is recognised as a mental health condition. Leading mental health assessment tools such as the DSM-5—the fifth edition of the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”—and the World Health Organisation’s international classification of diseases classify gambling as an addiction with similar cognitive and psychological effects to those of substance use disorders. Research indicates that once an individual begins chasing their gambling losses with further gambling, their cognitive functioning becomes impaired. Changes can occur in brain chemistry and neurocognitive function, and the ability to make rational decisions—such as choosing whether to engage in criminal behaviour to manage debts or to continue gambling—becomes compromised. There is the link.

The criminal justice system recognises the psychological impact of drug and alcohol dependency. Drug and alcohol dependency are mitigating factors, with sentencing guidelines, treatment pathways and rehabilitation requirements, as set out in the Sentencing Act 2020.

Work for Serving Prisoners

Linsey Farnsworth Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine Atkinson]

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

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

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

[Catherine Atkinson]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

I completely agree, and it goes back to the central argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North made about the innate value of work. Labour Members, and I am sure hon. Members from across the House, believe that work is a good thing in and of itself. It is not just about earning a salary to pay the bills, though that is very important; it is also about building life skills and having confidence, so that when someone leaves prison, they can enter the world and be a better citizen, whereas too many leave as better criminals. That must be at the heart of what this Government do, and it will be.

In addition, release on temporary licence is an important rehabilitative tool that allows suitably risk-assessed prisoners to engage in work with employers in the community. That provides people with the opportunity to build relationships with employers and boosts their job prospects ahead of release. A good example of that is the work of Prisoners Building Homes at HMP North Sea Camp, where prisoners are trained and employed to build modular, low-carbon, affordable homes in partnership with housing providers, public sector bodies and third sector organisations.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

As part of the Justice Committee’s inquiry on rehabilitation and resettlement, we received evidence showing that ROTL use has declined, particularly since covid; it has not really recovered from that. It is great to hear the good work the Minister is outlining on this, but I urge him to continue to push for greater use of ROTL, because it could be a key aspect of rehabilitation of offenders going forward.

[Jake Richards]

Absolutely. We will look at the evidence that the Select Committee received, and we are having those conversations all the time. It is important to stress—I know my hon. Friend is very aware of this—that in the first year of this Government, we have been dealing with one of the most acute crises across the public estate, and that has clearly taken up the bandwidth of the Government and the Ministry of Justice. Because of the difficult decisions that the last Lord Chancellor made, we are now in a position where I hope we can do more on this.

The Government have also launched regional employment councils, which for the first time bring together businesses, prisons, probation and the Department for Work and Pensions. We have extended apprenticeships across the prison estate, from the open to the closed estate. At HMP Highpoint, five cohorts of prisoners are beginning rail apprenticeships this year. This is a model we want to expand further, and early results are encouraging. To help build on this expansion, we have announced new foundation apprenticeships, which are available to prisoners. They are shorter courses than traditional apprenticeships, and can be accessed by prisoners up to the age of 25. It was a fine point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) about the length of courses. Clearly, too often prisoners are in and out for short periods. We want to try to stop that fundamentally, or at least amend the framework in that regard, but we have to have training and services for those who are in prison for a short time.

To support prisoners in considering their longer-term goals, we are delivering better careers advice and guidance in prisons. From April this year, we are rolling out new national careers, information, advice and guidance contracts, so that, again, every prisoner has access to consistent, high-quality careers advice, tailored to their needs and, critically, linked to real job opportunities. Taken together, employment hubs, employer partnerships, vocational training, apprenticeships and the Working Week project represent initiatives that are moving in the right direction, but I want to be clear that we know that the situation is not good enough, and that there is a lot more work to be done.

I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North for raising this important subject, which, as I said, does not get enough attention. I hope to do my bit to change that. This Government are committed to rehabilitation to help cut reoffending. I hope that she will agree that the Government have built solid foundations to stabilise the prison system after the inheritance we received last summer, and have launched important initiatives in our first year in office, but there is much more to do, and I welcome her support in driving forward this vital work in the months ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Criminal Courts: Independent Review

Linsey Farnsworth Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Intervention to fix the Crown court backlog is needed now. Without radical reform, things will only get worse; but in my submission this situation presents an opportunity to present the positive case for modernising our system.

The changing nature of crime is recognised by all agencies in the criminal justice system. This is an opportunity to change the criminal justice system so that it is fit for the modern day. The system has been modernised many times over many years. That is why we have the Crown court system in operation and no longer the courts of assize or quarter sessions, which made way in 1972. Later, we got rid of old-style committals for trial, so that witnesses did not have to give evidence twice. Those are the sorts of modernisation efforts that can improve the criminal justice system for the modern world. At this time, we have a key opportunity to both deal with this crisis and modernise the system.

I am conscious of time, so I will make a few brief observations from Sir Brian Leveson’s very thorough report. First, I ask the Minister to be cautious about what sorts of cases can be expanded into the domain of out-of-court resolutions and, in particular, the deferred prosecution scheme. It would not, for example, be suitable for domestic abuse cases, particularly as there is no requirement for the defendant to have an admission of guilt. We have to think about faith in the criminal justice system and the manipulative nature of domestic abusers, who often promise time and again to change before going back to their old ways. Furthermore, the use of bad character evidence often underpins a prosecution for domestic violence, and we would need to consider how a deferred prosecution might impact that.

We have heard about the removal of the right to elect for offences with a maximum sentence of two years. It would be imperative that the magistrates retained their power of committal for sentencing if they felt, having heard all of the evidence, that a sentence in excess of 12 months would be required.

The reclassification of offences is less attractive and more troublesome, because dropping some offences to summary-only would mean a maximum sentence of 12 months. The Sentencing Council is careful to ensure public and statutory consultations, so that the wider public and criminal justice professionals are consulted when it looks at sentencing guidelines, but this would effectively reduce maximum sentences for a number of offences. Careful consideration must be given to that.

Again, it would not be suitable for domestic violence or abuse cases to fall within that reclassification. Breaching a non-molestation order, which is one of the offences listed as potentially forming part of the reclassification, has a maximum sentence of five years. We would be reducing that down to 12 months, which would lead to a lot of concern from practitioners.

I will leave it there, but there is a lot more to be said and I look forward to future debates.