Courts and Tribunals Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Paulette Hamilton and Joe Robertson

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak to the new clause that is tabled in my name, which I do not intend to push to a vote. It would require the Lord Chancellor to conduct and lay before Parliament a review of the impact of clause 3 after 12 months, and again after no later than 36 months. At its heart, the new clause is both modest and reasonable. It does not seek to block the Government’s proposals outright, nor does it attempt to rewrite the substance of the Bill. It simply asks that we understand the impact of the changes we are making and that we are accountable for them.

As Members across the House know, clause 3 introduces significant changes to the operation of the courts, particularly through the insertion of the new provisions into the Senior Courts Act 1981. Those provisions mark a clear shift in how justice is delivered. When we make changes of this scale, we have a duty not only to legislate, but to reflect on their impact and remain accountable for the consequences.

The Law Society of England and Wales has raised concerns that reforms to court processes must be carefully monitored to ensure they do not inadvertently undermine access to justice, particularly for those who already face barriers in navigating the legal system. These concerns are drawn from the experience of legal practitioners working day to day in the courts, particularly in cases involving litigants in person who often are trying to navigate complex procedures without legal representation. It has also emphasised the importance of evaluating how such changes operate in practice, including their impact on vulnerable and disadvantaged groups and on the capacity of the courts to deliver justice effectively.

The society has made it clear that such changes can have unintended consequences that are often felt most by the people who already struggle to access justice. That goes directly to public confidence in the justice system. Surely, trust and perception in the justice system are just as important as the legal framework itself. Concerns have also been raised by the Family Services Foundation, which highlights how procedural changes can disproportionately affect vulnerable individuals and families already facing complex challenges. That reflects its work with the families involved in the court system, where even small procedural changes can have a significant impact on people who are already dealing with instability, stress or crisis situations.

New clause 29 would ensure that Parliament receives clear evidence-based assessments of how the provisions are working in practice. Crucially, it would require that the assessments consider the impact on two groups: people from ethnic minority backgrounds and white British individuals living in lower-income households. As highlighted in earlier stages of the scrutiny of the Bill, there is a lack of clear statutory review built into the provisions, in particular in clause 3.

Some may ask, why specify those groups? The answer is simple—because justice is not experienced equally by all. We know all too well through evidence, lived experience and countless testimonies that people from ethnic minority communities often have lower levels of trust in the criminal justice system. That shapes how justice is perceived and whether it is seen as legitimate. For ethnic minority communities, this is fundamentally about trust in the justice system and perception of fairness.

Equally, we must recognise that socioeconomic disadvantage can profoundly affect a person’s experience of the courts. White British individuals from lower-income households are also more likely to feel marginalised by systems that appear distant, complex or unresponsive to their circumstances. If this House is serious about fairness, we must be serious about understanding how reforms affect those who are most at risk of being left behind.

New clause 29 does not assume the outcome. It does not claim that the provisions of clause 3 will necessarily have a negative impact, but it does recognise that without proper review, we simply will not know. That in itself would be a failure of our responsibility as legislators. The timeline set out in the new clause—a review after 12 months and a further review no later than after 36 months—strikes a careful balance. The reviews allow for early identification of any emerging issues, while also ensuring that long-term effects are properly understood. Importantly, the reviews would be laid before Parliament, ensuring transparency and enabling this House to scrutinise the findings. If the changes are working well, a review would demonstrate that; if they are not, a review would give us the opportunity to put things right.

I urge Members across the House to support new clause 29, not as a challenge to the Bill, but as a practical step towards fairness, transparency and accountability in our justice system. This House should be confident in reforms, but it should also be confident in knowing when to pause, assess and reflect. That is all that the new clause asks for.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I wish to address a number of issues in relation to this grouping. First, I will say something about the figures that have been quoted at length today and in previous sittings. Secondly, I will say something about the reasons given by the Government for curtailing jury trials in this way. Then I want to go on to say something about evidence and procedure, and why jury trials exist at all, because sometimes it is possible to sit here listening, wondering whether the Government’s reasoning would not justify a banning of all jury trials for evermore on any crime. Finally, I will talk about some of the perversities that the hon. Member for Chichester has articulated well.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Paulette Hamilton and Joe Robertson

Committee stage
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Paulette Hamilton]

Thank you. You have explained that perfectly.

[Joe Robertson]

Q Victims say that they want to see greater diversity in the criminal justice system, and I agree with them. Which group of people is more diverse: juries, the British public or judges?

Dame Vera Baird: Is it your only point? The answer would be that judges are not as diverse as juries.

Department of Health and Social Care

Debate between Paulette Hamilton and Joe Robertson

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paulette Hamilton]

I thank the hon. Member for that deep and thoughtful point. He is absolutely right. Timescales are an issue, and that is why, as a Select Committee, we are asking the Government a number of questions so that we can scrutinise what is happening and get the information.

My Committee considered the better care fund in our inquiry into adult social care. It was introduced with the aim of driving better integration between health and social care, and shifts resources upstream from NHS acute services. However, the evidence we heard was stark. These resources have been overwhelmingly focused on hospital discharge. While timely discharge is important, that does not match the fund’s original objectives. How will the Government ensure that this increase in funding leads to a greater focus on prevention? The Chancellor referred to the Government’s plan for an adult social care fair pay agreement. Reaching such an agreement is not just desirable but essential. Staff working in care homes are far more likely to live in poverty and deprivation than the average British worker.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making her points very well, and I congratulate her on her success in bringing this debate to the Chamber. I agree with what she has said about fair pay for social care workers—I support that as well—but does she agree that a fair pay agreement will put undue pressure on providers unless there is some money or financial incentive attached to it so that they are able to meet their fair pay requirement?

[Paulette Hamilton]

The hon. Gentleman has made a valuable point. The problem is that we in the Committee are waiting for the workforce plan, and we are not sure what is being planned. What the hon. Gentleman has suggested is desirable, but at this moment we do not know what the workforce plan will throw up. It is possible that what he has suggested is already in the plan; let us just wait and see.

The current position is both morally unacceptable and economically short-sighted, fuelling the workforce crisis. What concrete progress has been made in establishing the fair pay agreement? Can the Minister give the House an update? Will she also tell us whether the funding that is required to pay for this essential agreement will come out of the £4 billion that has been announced for social care?

While both the main estimate and the spending review present a vision of reform, it is clearly a vision built on some highly optimistic assumptions. We need to see robust, detailed plans to deliver the digital transformation and the unprecedented scale of efficiency savings that the Minister is counting on. Without such plans, and without realistic assessments of the challenges, the risk is not just that these reforms will fall short, but that they will do so at the expense of frontline services, patient care, and the morale of our dedicated health and social care workforce.

I urge the Minister to address the specific questions that I have raised today.