Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that whether they are powering our prisons, our Probation Service or our Courts Service, our workforce are the backbone of delivering for citizens in this country. My colleagues and I routinely engage with our trade unions, who are vital stakeholders in this matter, but we are not waiting for a royal commission. The state of our justice system requires action now, which is why the Government are making record investment in sitting days in courts, in building new prisons, and in the workforce itself.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I speak as the chair of the new justice unions all-party parliamentary group, which hears from six trade unions representing workers across prisons, probation, policing and the courts. Our first action last week was to write to the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary to highlight a joint statement by six justice trade unions calling for a royal commission. Workers on the frontline see that the current piecemeal approach of narrow, stand-alone reviews can at best only tackle individual symptoms, while the disease and its causes remain untreated. Surely the Minister agrees that end-to-end reform is now essential, and that a royal commission is key to enabling this.

[Sarah Sackman]

As the right hon. Member has just heard me say, what we need is action and investment in our workforce now. That is about fair pay; it is also about ensuring that our workforce, whether in prisons or in courts, have the tools to do the job that they were trained to do and want to do properly. That is why we are empowering them with digital tools, and it is why we provided the sitting days to hear the cases that need to be processed through our courts. We do not need a royal commission to tell us what is needed—what we need is action right now.

Criminal Justice Reform

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

Like pretty much every Lord Chancellor for a number of years now, the first thing in my inbox on day one was a note saying, “By the way, we are going to run out of prison places”—my note said in November. I am pleased to say that as a result of changes made by my two immediate predecessors, the Sentencing Act improves on that saturation date, moving it comfortably into the future. Where we are on that will be set out when we publish our capacity report later this year, but my commitment is to go much further. Colleagues will have heard the Prime Minister say that he wants us to take a 10-year arc on these things, and the same is true for prison capacity.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The Government tell us that restriction zones will keep people safe, but victims need to see the small print to believe that, especially after the warnings in July’s National Audit Office report into tagging. If an offender leaves a restriction zone, what guarantee can the Justice Secretary give that the GPS system will warn police and probation officers so they can act to keep victims safe in real time?

[Alex Norris]

Tagging is exceptionally important. The technology is improving, as is compliance with the contract. Similarly, we are making changes as part of this process. The presumption of tagging eliminates a point of failure, and tagging in prisons—a pilot that is developing—also reduces failure at that point. However, I appreciate the substance of the right hon. Lady’s point: we have to demonstrate to those who are interested in this space that this big commitment will be impactful. That is why I have made the commitment to do challenge work with those who care about this issue to demonstrate what we are doing.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Catherine Atkinson]

I will make some progress, and then I will take interventions.

Many have graciously—often at huge personal and emotional cost—shared their experiences with us to shape the Bill. The changes that it brings forward are so needed. It is thanks to their campaigning, perseverance and willingness to work with us to find solutions that the Bill is back before the House today. The House and the country owe them a debt of gratitude. I know that some of them are in the Gallery with us today—thank you.

Before I turn to the Government amendments, I must pay tribute to the work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). I was on the Bill Committee, and I know how hard she worked to get us to this point. I also thank the Attorney General, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and colleagues across Government for coming together to resolve these complex issues, so that we could bring the Bill back before the House today.

From the start, we have been clear that this is a Bill for the families concerned. That means listening to their views, and ensuring that the legislation delivers and has their confidence. It was in that spirit that the Manchester Arena families raised their concerns about the duty of candour and how it would apply to the intelligence services; I thank them for doing so. It is right that when a concern is raised, we pause, take stock and, where necessary, change course. The process has not been easy, and it has taken some time, but we had to get this right, and assess all possible implications and unintended risks resulting from how the duty would work in practice. I thank Pete Weatherby KC, the Intelligence and Security Committee and experts across our national security community, campaigners and Members of both Houses.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am proud to have sponsored the original proposal, promoted by the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and I salute the survivors and the victims’ families. I am glad that the UK Government have listened to them, and that the Bill reflects the level of accountability required of our public authorities. Plaid Cymru stands in firm solidarity with the Hillsborough families and other families in their long campaign for justice. Considering the Labour Government’s reset next week, will the Minister assure me that this law will be implemented in partnership with devolved Governments, and that constructive engagement with Wales and elsewhere will be ensured throughout the legislative process?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I know that this is a highly sensitive debate, but interventions must be short and to the point. Lots of colleagues want to get in on the debate.

Prisoner Early Release

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

As I have said, there was an inquiry into these issues, which was begun by the last Conservative Government. The chair of that inquiry, Professor Alexis Jay, said that their response was

“inconsequential, insubstantial, committed to nothing.”

Victims waited years for action and got nothing. There were briefings that it was “hysterical and half baked”, and highly emotional, and the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that money spent on child sex abuse inquiries was being “spaffed up the wall”. I will not take any lessons from the right hon. Lady or the Conservative party on this issue.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr, Lefarydd. Richard Tung of Penisa’rwaun, Caernarfon, is in prison after being found guilty of historical rape and sexual offences against a child in Nottingham. He was reported to Nottinghamshire police in 2022, but his first police interview was not until June 2023. Concerns have been raised with me that Tung remained at liberty and free to work in a restaurant in my constituency until he was sentenced to 12 years in prison on 17 April this year—four years later. Will the Minister advise me on how to find out why Tung was not remanded to custody prior to the court case and, given that this is a cross-border police force issue, what child protection and public safety measures should be put in place between Nottinghamshire police and North Wales police?

[Jake Richards]

As the right hon. Member knows, questions as to whether a defendant should be remanded are a matter for the judiciary. I am happy to look into the particulars of this cross-border issue and the matter of local protective agencies working together to keep the public safe, and will get back to her.

G7 Summit

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Protecting primary steel production, which is critical to UK national infrastructure, is the No. 1 priority. From 1 July, overall quota levels for steel imports will be reduced by 60% compared with current arrangements, with steel coming into the UK above those levels subject to a 50% tariff. Measures are targeted at steel that could be made in the United Kingdom. We continue to engage with the industry and trading partners on our steel measures, and we will confirm final quotas shortly ahead of 1 July. We will monitor the impact closely, including through a review after 12 months.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. Ten years on, Brexit has cost the Welsh economy £4 billion, raised the cost of living and narrowed the life chances of young people. If the next Labour Government are serious about change for the better, rebuilding relationships with European members of the G7 and with the EU must be front and centre. Given that the Brexit reset summit due to be held a month from now has been postponed, with no date, surely the definition of stability would be for the next Government to campaign to rejoin the single market and the customs union and to be up-front and forthright with the British people on the advantages of doing so.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady and I have discussed these issues—indeed, we did so before we came into Government. There is no change to our manifesto red lines, and I will not pre-empt what our next manifesto might say, but I look forward to the next EU summit and am quite sure that it will take place as soon as is possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Plaid Cymru Westminster group leader.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The Secretary of State had some cheek earlier, but Wales had 27 years of Labour and has had less than six weeks of a Plaid Cymru Government, so we have work to do, and we are getting on with it.

The Port Talbot steelworks fire caused huge damage, but not a single penny of Labour’s £2.5 billion steel fund has been guaranteed for steel in Wales. Instead, millions are being spent from this fund to support steel at Scunthorpe, leaving Welsh workers fearing they have been pushed aside. Will the Government stand up for Welsh interests and guarantee a fair share of the steel fund to all steel sites in Wales?

[Anna McMorrin]

Our steel strategy will revitalise the UK steel sector, restoring domestic production, 50% of which will come from Wales, and securing supply for key sectors and national infrastructure. I really hope that the minority Plaid Welsh Government will support this work to support our Welsh steelworkers.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am interested to hear the Minister’s response, but she is muddying the waters, because what she said does not relate to the steel fund. I am specifically talking about the steel fund and the contribution it will make to Wales; we know that that money is going to Scunthorpe.

On another matter, next week it will be a decade since the EU referendum, and the promised Brexit dividend is still a fantasy unicorn. The Welsh economy is at least £4 billion smaller and exports are down £1.1 billion. Over the same period, Northern Ireland—still in the single market, remember—has seen gross value added per head grow 20% faster than in Wales. We see the damage, and we know the solution. Wales, of course, is very much an exporting economy. Surely the Minister knows that the right thing to do by Wales and the rest of the UK is to rejoin the single market and the customs union.

[Anna McMorrin]

I am proud that this Government are resetting our relations with European partners to improve our economic and security co-operation following Brexit. The historic first UK-EU summit last year marked that turning point, and striking a deal is good for bills, good for borders and good for jobs. Our focus is on driving that forward and delivering a very strong EU-UK relationship.

Youth Justice

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend not just for championing these issues from the Back Benches, but for the tremendous work she did while she was Children’s Minister. She will be pleased to hear that I met Penelope Gibbs just last week to discuss these very issues, and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to look at what more we can do. This is an important consultation. A third of people on jobseeker’s allowance have an offence on their record. We have to do something to ensure that these things do not follow young people for the rest of their lives.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Devolving youth justice powers is hardly a novel argument, and the White Paper itself acknowledges Wales’s action on the prevention of youth offending. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether Labour will finally listen to the people of Wales, who have elected a Government clear in their stance on devolution, and allow Wales full powers over justice?

[Mr Lammy]

I look forward to meeting the new team in Wales soon to discuss what more we can do together.

Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) on securing today’s debate. For more than a decade, I have had the honour of being the co-chair of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group, during which time I have heard first-hand accounts, some of them grim, visited many prisons and heard from prison officers, the Prison Officers Association and others about the violence and how deeply it affects people.

The Prison Officers Association has been warning for years that its members’ health and safety is in practice a low priority for the Prison Service—that is the reality of what they experience. It has been difficult for the union, for a long period, to improve the safety of prison officers. We must now find a way to change that, but that has been their experience, and some aspects of their experience have yet to be addressed in any meaningful way.

Six years ago, I helped to launch the first Safe Inside Prisons Charter, developed by the Joint Unions in Prisons Alliance, a coalition of 10 national trade unions representing the majority of prison staff, including the POA. The third updated version of that charter was published last year, but the Prison Service has yet to adopt its common-sense recommendations. I press the Minister to tell us why it has not done so. A vast majority of unions that are present in prisons have adopted it and saying, “Every union needs to adopt it,” as a reason not to take it on board is not a reasonable rationale.

It is important to highlight how significantly violence in prisons has increased over the last 15 years. We have heard already how the rate of prisoner-on-prisoner violence has risen from around 130 assaults per 1,000 prisoners in 2013 to 240 last year, nearly doubling. The rate of prisoner-on-staff violence has also soared from roughly 40 assaults per 1,000 prisoners to just under 120, tripling in just over a decade. I also have a snapshot from Wales. In 2024, assaults on prison staff rose 22% on the previous year, with a total of 536 attacks. At HMP Berwyn, the nearest prison to my constituency in north-west Wales, there was an increase in that year of 42%. Unsurprisingly, recruitment at that prison in Wrexham has long been challenging.

In any other workplace, this would be all over the news as a national emergency, but because this is about prison staff, who are effectively hidden in their work behind high walls, the POA tells me—and I have seen this—that it is treated as just business as usual by the Ministry of Justice, as if this is what people should expect in this workplace.

The POA gave evidence to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee in the other place last year, in which it described being taken to the High Court by the previous Government after two horrific attacks on staff at HMP Lindholme in South Yorkshire. One of those attacks saw a prison officer strangled to the point of unconsciousness, but when officers at the prison told the governor that the prison was unsafe and demanded immediate changes, this was put into effect with the operation of a controlled lockdown to restrict the regime, and the MOJ responded by dragging them into court. Something is very wrong when the response to such extreme workplace violence is to punish those very workers at the sharp end of the assaults.

At the High Court, what shocked me most about the POA’s evidence is that the Government barrister, according to media reports at the time, made the argument that although the violence at Lindholme was “deeply regrettable”, it was—once again—

“business as usual in a prison”.

The POA was dragged back to the High Court again the following year, also for standing up for the health and safety of its members. Because of the permanent injunction that the Government have against the union from taking any form of industrial action, the POA was fined a six-figure sum for what the court called the illegal inducement of members to take action.

Even more outrageous were the threats made in court by Government lawyers to imprison the POA’s leadership for simply protecting their members, meaning that prison officers were threatened with jail for protecting other prison officers. That is the context in which we are talking about the steady increase in violence and the feeling in the profession that there is a lack of response.

I wish I could say that the direction under the Labour Government was significantly different, but evidence suggests that we must question that. When officers at HMP Liverpool took issue last year with the governor’s changes to the prison regime—changes that he himself admitted to the Justice Committee carried an expectation of leading to a potential increase in violence—he cut off direct contact with the local POA committee and restricted facility time, threatening members with disciplinary action and dismissal simply for exercising their health and safety rights.

It is clear to me from talking to the POA many times that the blanket ban on its members from taking any form of industrial action is one of the key factors in prison officers’ discontent. They sense that they are impotent and unable to change their circumstances. The European Committee of Social Rights recently ruled that the UK is in breach of its obligations under the European social charter because of that very ban. It said that

“the blanket ban on prisoner officers striking cannot be deemed proportionate and thus goes beyond the limits permitted by Article G of the Charter.”

The committee concluded that

“the situation is not in conformity with Article 6§4 of the Charter on the ground that that there is an absolute prohibition on the right to strike for the prison officers.”

That is an important ruling, and I urge the Minister to consider its implications seriously, especially in the light of the POA’s current case before the European Court of Human Rights.

Let me go from one aspect of safety to another: back to body armour. The roll-out of stab-proof vests in the high security estate is of course to be welcomed, but it needs to be the norm. The POA is calling for that vital equipment to be mandated across the entire closed male estate. I urge the Minister to take seriously other demands, such as replacing the cumbersome and impractical utility belts, which are weighed down with equipment, with lightweight slash-proof vests, which redistribute weight and can prevent injuries, especially for female officers.

According to the POA, the last Government objected to utility vests because they look too militaristic and intimidating, but surely that is yet another example of the low priority given to prison officer health and safety. In the circumstances, those were not credible objections. Protection at work for prison officers means more than just the right personal protective equipment; it also means the legal protections that almost every other worker enjoys, and specifically the right to take industrial action as a last resort. The last Government treated prison officers as expendable. I urge this Government not to make the same mistake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

I accept the principle that too often there are attacks in all sorts of prisons, but of course there are more acute settings where that risk is greater. I accept that we have to take protective measures in all sorts of prisons. I do not think that I can go as far as the right hon. Gentleman may want me to in accepting the second part of his premise—I can see that he is trying very hard to get me to, but I think it is more complex than that, and I hope I can set out a bit why that is in the short time that we have.

As I said, rolling out protective body armour—as we have committed to, and I am proud to be serving in a Government who are committed to doing what the last Government did not in the high-security estate—is not just about having equipment; it requires thoughtful planning. There needs to be secure and accessible storage so that officers can access their kit quickly while also preventing unauthorised use. There needs to be clear guidance on how to handle and check the armour, and regular inspections and proper replacement schedules so that equipment remains effective. Compatibility with other equipment is also vital. Protective body armour must work seamlessly with body-worn video cameras, radios, batons and PAVA—the synthetic pepper spray. It must fit within existing uniform requirements and the regulatory environment around that. We also need to consider the impact on other staff who are prisoner-facing, but who may not be equipped with protective body armour. Making sure that their safety is not compromised is also vital.

While protective body armour is important, the Government do not feel that it is an instant silver bullet. It is one part of a broader package to improve staff safety. Officers in the adult male estate already have access to PAVA spray, which is used to prevent serious assaults. We also have over 13,000 new-generation body-worn video cameras. Work on that began under the last Government and has been continued under this Government, and it means that every officer in bands 3 to 5 can wear one during their shift. They provide high-quality evidence to support prosecutions and include a pre-record function to help capture the often crucial lead-up to incidents.

We are also going further. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is working to train, equip and deploy up to 500 officers in the long-term and high-security estate with tasers. That will improve safety and enhance frontline capability in the most high-risk environments.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) raised how key performance indicators for safety would be one particular driver that the Government could bring in immediately, which would enhance all the factors that the Minister is mentioning. Does he agree that another critical KPI could be staff retention? That is the canary in the mine, because where staff are happy, they stay—and they stay with all their expertise.

[Jake Richards]

I reassure the right hon. Member that details on violence in both the adult and the youth estate are seen by Ministers, and the Lord Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister, on a regular basis. This is a key concern for all Ministers and the whole Department, and we are doing everything we can to clamp down on it. The same is true for staff retention. I am happy to call it a KPI, but it is absolutely at the top of our concerns about our prisons in this country. There is a long list of reasons why there are issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The key point is what is measured publicly. I appreciate that Ministers will have the information, and I am delighted that they do, but the sense of what is measured and the standards by which our prisons are held to account—that the public are aware of—are key drivers in creating change within a culture that we know has needed to change for 12 years or more.

[Jake Richards]

Forgive me; I misunderstood the original question. I am very happy to look into what data is published and what is not, and to make sure that appropriate data—where it is safe, secure, quality assured and everything else that comes with that—is available to hon. Members. I will look into doing that in due course.

As I said, we are going further. HMPPS is working to train, equip and deploy up to 500 officers in the long-term high security estate with tasers. Violence against any prison officers is totally unacceptable. Perpetrators will face the full consequences of their actions, and measures are being taken to extend the punishment for such offences.

Prison officers do a valuable job in our prisons. They keep us safe, and we must do the same for them. Deploying protective body armour in high-risk areas and a wider roll-out is an important step. We will make sure that frontline officers have the tools to do their job safely. This is also part of our broader approach to reducing violence, strengthening control and, above all, upholding the safety and dignity of the staff who serve with dedication every day.

Members have raised other issues about conditions for prison officers. As I indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), I am very happy to meet Members and representatives of the Prison Officers Association, as I have done previously, to discuss these issues in some depth. As the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), so wisely touched upon, all these issues come back to the stability of our prison system. Fundamentally, that comes back to issues of capacity and staff retention, training and recruitment. This Department’s No. 1 aim is to deal with and stabilise the prison capacity crisis, invest in our prison and probation staff—these two issues are innately interlinked—and make sure that we have a sustainable prison system that can keep the public safe in the future.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

We all know that years of underfunding and under-investment have caused a crisis across our legal and justice systems. I commend some of the people who spoke earlier about their experiences, particularly the hon. Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). It takes immense courage to stand up in the Chamber and put those experiences on record. They came at this from a different point of view. I have immense respect for them. Of course, they are doing what we should be doing here. Victims and survivors—their voices, stories and needs—should be at the heart of the justice system, and they are, as we know, facing unacceptable delays to justice. The Government, of course, must speed up the process. Only the state can do that. It is only through the state that the citizen can get justice, so there is an undeniable need for reform.

The second part of the Bill makes immensely important interventions that will make a real difference to victims. They include the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement, and measures relating to the admissibility of evidence and special measures in court, and they are to be welcomed. The question that we are debating, however, is the degree to which clauses 1 to 7 are the major reforms needed to speed up the process. Removing the right to jury trial for offences that are triable either way and imposing a single-judge model are serious changes to individual rights, as we have heard. They go beyond what Sir Brian Leveson recommended that the Government do to address court backlogs, and they increase the risk of bias and miscarriages of justice, increase the risk to the safety of judges, and increase pressure on legal aid services.

Although nobody denies that action is necessary, we have to bear in mind that the Institute for Government estimates that the Bill will save only between 7% and 10% of total court time, and that judge-only trials will save only 1.5% to 2.5%. There is little concrete evidence that these are the right sorts of changes to make, and we fear that they will not achieve what we want.

I turn to Wales, because the problems are not the same everywhere across the England and Wales jurisdiction. Welsh Crown courts make up only a small proportion of the overall court backlog. Indeed, the Lady Chief Justice said that Wales is disposing of—wait for it—

“more Crown Court cases than it receives”.

That suggests that our Crown court backlog is actually going down. The legal reform charity JUSTICE points to Welsh Crown court measures that were taken to increase efficiency when those courts faced covid-era backlogs as examples of practical steps that have helped to keep clearance rates high.

Rather than us restricting a fundamental public right in order to tackle a problem, what would be useful in Wales is action to tackle the operational issues that our courts face, which we all know about. We need better data tracking, modern systems, improved pay, measures to address the Tory court closures, and proper building maintenance. Some of those things are pretty boring, but we will not make a difference until we address them.

We fear that the Bill could make things worse in Wales. Although there were 2,663 outstanding cases at the Crown court in Wales as of December 2024, there were nearly 12,000 outstanding cases in magistrates courts; they have serious capacity challenges that look set to increase as a direct result of the Bill. We also have serious challenges in Wales in recruiting magistrates, especially Welsh-speaking magistrates.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) mentioned a pilot scheme. It seems to me that, rather than making a huge, untested change of this gravity, a pilot scheme is exactly what we should be looking at, if we are to make changes to jury trials, because then we would actually know the effect. We need a pilot scheme with a sunset clause, rather than changes that will break the system everywhere to address an urban English problem.

It is undeniable that there is a crisis in the court system, and that we need changes to address it, but we need different solutions to address different problems in different areas. We must not break something in which there is so much trust at a time when we should be doing everything in our power to protect trust in politics—and, I fear, trust in the law, too.

Jury Trials

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I will complete this point and then I will take an intervention.

Investment is what is needed, and investment can get us out of the crisis we are in. Let me be absolutely clear: this Government are making an investment, turning round an oil tanker that had been run into the ground for years when we inherited it. This year alone, we allocated more than 11,000 sitting days to the Crown court. That is the highest ever number of sitting days, and 5,000 more than His Majesty’s Opposition allocated when they were in government. The concordat is taking its course, and there will be more to come.

We have also invested in the professions, with an uplift for criminal legal aid solicitors of £92 million. That is part of this package. We have £34 million for criminal defence barristers, and, crucially, match funding for pupillages to increase the talent pipeline, so that we can have the sustainability in legal practitioners to both prosecute and defend cases in the system.

We are making that investment, and we will ensure that that record-breaking investment continues so that people are not waiting longer and longer, but let me be absolutely clear that funding alone will not solve the problem. The Government cannot simply sit their way out and write a blank cheque. Do not take my word for it; that is the central conclusion of the independent review of the criminal courts. We need more investment, but investment alone will not resolve the crisis and decline in our criminal justice system.

We need three things. We need investment, which is starting to be made and to percolate into the system. We need reform, which is what the independent review of the criminal courts tells us; the Opposition say, “Ignore it,” but I am not prepared to do so. We also need modernisation. How can we harness the technology at our disposal, whether it is AI transcription or case summarisation, to ensure that we get swift justice? It is those three pillars that will transform and bring our criminal justice system into the 21st century.

There are those who tell us that simply spending our way out or tweaking a lever here and there will solve the problem, but it will not. I agree with those who say that we should bring prisoners to court more efficiently to avoid delays. Do we need to do that? Yes, we do. I eagerly await part 2 of Sir Brian’s report, but we are working on those things straight away. Do we need more efficient listing? I agree that we do, so let us get those efficiencies—there is consensus on that. Do the Government and I think that that alone will salvage the system where there is such an acute degree of crisis? No. We need the reform and the modernisation together with the investment.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

We have already recognised that there is a regional aspect to this issue. Wales’s Crown courts generally outperform those in England. They are not perfect—we have a backlog of maintenance issues and other problems—but I can only reiterate the opposition of past and present Labour Welsh Government Counsels General, who say that scrapping jury trials is both extreme and unnecessary. Why not take this as an opportunity to keep jury trials in Wales so that we can get a real-time impact assessment that we could compare with what is happening in England if we have to have changes?

[Sarah Sackman]

The right hon. Lady is right that there are regional difficulties—the situation for those in the south-east, London and parts of the north-east and the north-west is utterly dire—but let me be absolutely clear and clarify something. She says that we are scrapping jury trials, but we are not. Let us get the facts straight about the way in which the system works now and the way in which things will work once these proposals are implemented.

People talk about a right to a jury trial, and the public could be forgiven for thinking that everybody who graces a criminal court gets a jury trial, but that is not how things work. Some 90% of cases in this country are heard without a jury trial; they are heard robustly and rigorously in our magistrates court, which retains that lay element. I pay tribute to the work of our magistrates, who are drawn from our communities, provide local justice and represent the communities that they serve. The remainder of cases are currently heard by jury trial, and all the most serious crimes, such as homicide, kidnapping, robbery, serious drug offences and possession of a weapon, will continue to be heard by juries under our proposals.

What we are making is in line with expert recommendations, as occurs in other jurisdictions such as Canada and New South Wales, which are comparable with ours. This is a fairly modest reform removing the right to elect so that those cases that can be heard by the magistrates court are retained in the magistrates court and a modest number of cases are heard through a swifter court—the Crown court bench division. In addition, complex fraud and economic crime currently heard with a jury will appropriately be heard by an expert judge. That is a sensible, pragmatic package of reforms informed by an independent review.

I am afraid that asking us simply to ignore the work of the review is not sensible. If we were to leave that review on the shelf gathering dust, people would say, “The Government are failing to pull every lever.” I am not prepared to do that. We have asked people to have a long, hard look at it—not just Sir Brian Leveson, but David Ormerod, a distinguished criminal law academic, and other members of the panel. We will take that and implement it as our blueprint.