Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Legal aid can be a lifeline and should be available to those who need it, wherever they happen to live. This Government have made substantial new investment in legal aid—both in criminal legal aid, with an additional £92 million a year, and in civil legal aid, where we are investing an additional £20 million a year.
Ben Maguire
I thank the Minister for that response. Would she please join me in congratulating Coodes Solicitors, which provides a weekly pro bono surgery to my constituents in Bodmin? Firms such as Coodes face, in its own words, so much unnecessary bureaucracy and hoops to jump through when providing legal aid. As the Minister highlights, I understand that the Government have made some progress towards making the financial investment in the system that is needed, but is she aware of the incredible burden of this needless bureaucracy and will she please commit to simplifying public funding contracts?
Sarah Sackman
I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I commend all lawyers who provide pro bono support to their clients, which is incredibly commendable. However, it is ultimately a sticking-plaster and no substitute for a well-functioning legal aid system. That is why, as well as increasing fees, we are investing in the transformation of the IT digital platform to enable providers to cut through some of that red tape.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
This Government are committed to access to justice, and that involves supporting people from every social background to uphold their rights. As I said earlier, we are investing in civil legal aid. We have introduced the greatest expansion in a decade of legal aid through the Hillsborough law, and we continue to provide financial support for law centres and Citizens Advice so that people—wherever they come from, whatever their background—can access legal support.
Ian Lavery
The Labour Government’s investment in legal aid and legal services is hugely welcome. However, expert analysis has shown categorically that young people from more deprived backgrounds find it extremely difficult to access justice. Many people from constituencies such as mine are very much unaware of what might be available to them when they most need it. Can the Minister assure me that everything possible is being done to ensure that our people are acutely aware of what is available to them to access the justice they so rightly deserve and, in many cases, they urgently require?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. If people do not know their rights, they cannot enforce their rights, so raising awareness is incredibly important. It is important that we expand access to legal support where people are living their lives, and the online service where people, especially young people, can access digital legal advice is a vital component of that.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I was interested to hear the Minister’s answers to the previous question, but true access to justice must include those still imprisoned under legal tests since ruled wrong, including many young people from marginalised communities convicted under joint enterprise. Will the Government consider adopting the review mechanism in my amendment to the Sentencing Bill, which would create a statutory process for a review of convictions so that they, too, can access justice?
Sarah Sackman
The review of criminal law in this area is incredibly delicate, and we need to look at it in line with common law and case law, but we are keeping it under review.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Behind the backlogs in our courts, and behind each and every one of those case statistics, there is a human story, and there is no doubt that the delays in our criminal courts are taking their toll on victims and all participants in the criminal justice system. However, we are gripping the situation by investing in a greater number of Crown court sitting days, making additional investment in criminal legal aid and commissioning the review from Sir Brian Leveson. What is required is a once-in-a-generation reform of our criminal justice system, and we will be providing our response to that review in due course.
Helen Morgan
I thank the Minister for her answer. The situation she describes is similar to one that I am about to describe. A constituent of mine got in touch about a case of historical sexual abuse, which they bravely reported in 2018. After years of waiting, a trial date was set for this May, only for it to be put back again until July 2027—nine years after first reporting the case. I am sure, Mr Speaker, you can imagine the toll that has taken on my constituent’s mental health and wellbeing. I urge the Minister to progress at speed with her reform of the Courts Service and, in particular, address the problems in Shropshire where there are significant issues with the Crown court and magistrates court service.
Sarah Sackman
I am incredibly sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent’s experience and I reiterate my sympathies. She articulates, with that case, precisely why it is vital that we pursue reform. Timeliness is an essential ingredient of fairness and the state’s obligation is to deliver fair trials. That is why we will do whatever it takes to bear down on the backlog as we bring forward our response to Sir Brian Leveson’s review.
Luke Murphy
I thank the Minister for her answer. I have heard, from several constituents who are victims of domestic abuse, how the delays in the family court that were inherited from the previous Government, particularly for financial settlement orders, have compounded the traumatic experience and included ongoing financial harm and detriment. Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to reduce those delays and, in particular, to support victims of domestic abuse through our courts system?
Sarah Sackman
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are committed to improving timeliness not just in criminal courts but in family courts too, and to providing better support to victims of domestic abuse, who we know make up many of the participants in that litigation. The Pathfinder model is working. It resolves cases faster and offers specialist domestic abuse support. We have expanded the Pathfinder model to five additional court areas and we are continuing that expansion into 2026. He will be happy to know that that includes Hampshire, where I understand his constituency is based.
Mr Speaker
That could also help with the reopening of Chorley court, Minister.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
This Government inherited a justice system on its knees, starved for years of adequate funding, but we are fixing the foundations. We are investing in our buildings, in our people and in a record number of sitting days—sitting at or close to maximum judicial capacity in every jurisdiction. That is how we are fixing the courts system.
Vikki Slade
I was fortunate to visit Poole magistrates court last week; indeed, it is interesting to hear mention of the state of buildings, because they were appalling. I was most concerned when the district judge and court manager explained to me that there is no shortage of magistrates or court space and that the shortage is one of legal advisers in the system. They explained that the funding for one extra legal adviser would allow them to progress 500 cases a year, but they simply cannot retain them. What is the Minister doing to review that role and make sure that we can get those smaller cases through quickly?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Lady is right that our court staff are the backbone of our courts system and they make it tick every day. It is an absolute pleasure, as the Courts Minister, to visit courts like the one she described. I recently visited Snaresbrook Crown court and it was a pleasure to meet staff there. As she says, legal advisers are critical to the functioning of the magistrates court, and that is why we are investing an additional £5.2 million in addressing the retention challenges that she describes.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. and learned Friend is right to commend court staff and to highlight the significant issues in the courts system. In my time on the Public Accounts Committee, we uncovered problems with the buildings, the IT systems and the Probation Service—the whole system was in real difficulty. How long does she think it will take this Government to clear up the mess that the last Government left?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have a mountain to climb, and we cannot fix the foundations overnight. This Government are committed to restoring the public’s confidence in the justice system. That is why, through the spending review, we have committed an additional £450 million to the courts system. That means, as I said, investing in our buildings and in our people to restore the public’s confidence in our system.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his commitment on this issue? We had an incredibly constructive debate in Westminster Hall recently on the topic of third-party litigation funding. Litigation funding is what enabled Alan Bates and the sub-postmasters to fund their landmark legal action against the Post Office. It plays a critical role in access to justice and a vital role in contributing to our economy. For that reason, I am carefully considering, alongside colleagues, our response to the Civil Justice Council’s review to ensure that we get our reforms right.
Sir Julian Smith
I thank the Minister for that answer and for the constructive debate a week or so ago. May I press her on timing—as she said, this is important for consumers, businesses and the legal sector—and test her on the opportunities for early dispute resolution, which were mentioned in the CJC report and which I would encourage the Government to look at seriously?
Sarah Sackman
As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the report is incredibly detailed and contains a whole host of recommendations. It is important that we go through that very carefully. We have all seen the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court judgment in the PACCAR case. We are looking at what the appropriate response would be. If we are going to effectively reverse the effect of that judgment, then we want to build back better and get the reforms right so that we can achieve the access to justice and the economic benefit that he so rightly says he is committed to.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
The hon. Member raises a really important point. We need investment, structural reform and modernisation—that is, the adoption of technology. That is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct his detailed review. We have got part 1, which suggests to us that structural reform. We are awaiting part 2, which should arrive by the end of the year, which will direct us as to how we can drive efficiency and get swifter justice for all victims, but in particular those of serious sexual offences.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Sasha Marsden was 16 years old when she was murdered, raped and then set on fire by David Minto. Sasha’s sister, Katie—who is my constituent and who joins us today—is campaigning for victims’ families to have fairer access to sentencing appeals. Despite the need for closure in sentencing, perpetrators are given multiple appeal opportunities, while victims’ families have just one chance. What will the Government do to ensure that victims’ families do not have fewer rights than perpetrators in this process?
Whiplash Reform Programme: Post-Implementation Review and Call for Evidence
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I would like to inform the House that today we are launching a post-implementation review of the whiplash reform programme.
The review will assess the measures introduced in part 1 of the Civil Liability Act 2018. This includes the statutory definition of a whiplash injury, the fixed tariff of damages for whiplash injuries where the duration of the injury, or injuries, does not exceed two years, and the ban on seeking or offering to settle a whiplash claim without medical evidence.
The review will also consider the supporting secondary legislative change to increase the small claims track limit from £1,000 to £5,000 for road traffic accident-related personal injury claims. The impact and effectiveness of the industry owned and operated official injury claim service, introduced to help claimants affected by the reforms, will also be assessed.
To inform the review, we are launching a stakeholder call for evidence today to gather expert opinion, data and evidence on the impact and effectiveness of the whiplash reforms. This call for evidence will run for eight weeks and will close on 22 December 2025.
The responses to the call for evidence will provide vital insight into the effectiveness of the measures in achieving their intended aims. They will be considered alongside data provided by operational partners and other Government Departments to inform the final assessment of the reforms.
We plan to publish the post-implementation review of the WRP in spring 2026.
[HCWS1002]
Civil Justice Council Review of Litigation Funding
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) for securing a debate on this very important subject. It gives me an opportunity to cover three of my favourite themes: consumer protection, access to justice and growth, especially as it is delivered by the very successful legal services sector in this country.
We are here to discuss the Civil Justice Council’s review of litigation funding, which was published in June. As others have said, litigation funding refers to the mechanism by which litigation is privately funded in England and Wales. Third-party funding is where a party unconnected to a dispute, most often a financial institution, funds the cost of the legal action in return for a share of any damages awarded. As others have observed, this performs two functions: a social function and an economic function. Third-party funding is an essential tool in ensuring access to justice for many. It enables those who would not otherwise be able to afford to litigate—ordinary people, the small businesses referred to— to assert their rights before a court of law, against often far better resourced opponents, often large corporations and institutions.
Without third-party funding, as others have noted, the sub-postmasters would not have been able to bring their landmark civil claim against the Post Office. Those individuals without the financial means or legal clout to bring a claim themselves, were able to secure compensation for their losses as a result of third-party litigation funding. Such funding has also been used to support equal pay cases, environmental challenges, consumer claims against multinational companies regarding data breaches, and the other sorts of cases mentioned today.
As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) notes, this also makes a huge economic contribution. Along with the quality and calibre of our judiciary and legal services, third-party funding is an important factor in attracting international business to England and Wales as a jurisdiction of choice. That is because third-party funding is also used in high-value commercial cases, where there is a significant financial imbalance or where parties do not wish to use limited capital resources on legal proceedings.
It is important for the House to recognise that third-party funding plays a critical role in supporting the attractiveness of our jurisdiction as a global hub for commercial litigation and arbitration. Legal services contributed £42 billion to the economy last year. I am happy to be their greatest champion, but it is fair to say that the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in the PACCAR case has created a degree of uncertainty for funders and litigants alike.
As we have heard, the case concerned litigation funding agreements—LFAs. The Supreme Court held that third-party litigation funding agreements were damages-based agreements. The ruling rendered many such LFAs unenforceable, by bringing them into the scope of the regulatory regime for damages-based agreements. As others have noted, that has created a degree of uncertainty. There is a concern and very real risk that funders are beginning to pivot away from London, England and Wales to look at other jurisdictions, such as New York, Paris and Singapore, more favourably. In short, that is not good for UK plc.
The PACCAR judgment and the report of the Civil Justice Council that followed present an opportunity for the sort of debate we are having. What would it look like to reverse PACCAR? Do we want to go back to exactly what the regime looked like before? Can we evolve an even better regime, which provides the right regulatory balance, ensuring access to justice, and that damages-based agreements work for client and funder alike? How do we develop that? For that reason, the Government have taken time to ask the CJC to conclude its work, and we are considering carefully how to achieve that balance.
Third-party funding is currently subject only to self-regulation via the Association of Litigation Funders’ code of conduct. I welcome and echo the invitation by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon to those who are not currently subject to the code’s ethical and operational standards to seize the opportunity to bring themselves within what is currently a voluntary regime.
Despite litigation funding’s importance to effective access to justice, not all feel that current third-party funding arrangements always work in the client’s best interest, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) pointed out. Some have questioned funders’ role and level of control in legal proceedings. Those weaknesses in the pre-PACCAR regime are ones we recognise and want to take time to consider, so that we can ensure that third-party funding works for all.
In the light of the judgments and those concerns, the Civil Justice Council, an advisory body chaired by the Master of the Rolls, has conducted a thorough and learned review. It looks at this issue and the wider ecosystem for third-party litigation funding and its regulation. The scope of the review was to set out the current position of litigation funding and third-party litigation funding, and to consider access to justice, effectiveness and a host of regulatory options. Specifically, the review considered whether the current arrangements for third-party funding deliver the effective access to justice that we all want to see. We are incredibly grateful for the report.
We are now taking the time, as I said, to consider the report and its recommendations very carefully. I am sure that hon. Members here today will appreciate that it is essential to take this detailed and considered approach to what is a technical area but one that is fundamental to the human aspects of access to justice. We must ensure that the right balance is struck to ensure fair and effective access to justice, while enabling economic growth, which is, as so many others have said, the primary mission of this Government. We are aware that many are eagerly awaiting the Government’s response, and I look forward to announcing our way forward in due course. The stakes are high: access to justice, consumer protection and economic growth. We have to get this right.
I will say one more thing in response to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon on retrospectivity. I think it is highly unlikely, given the general rule-of-law principle against retrospectivity, that we would look to have that, but as I said, we must get this right; we have to get the balance right. We want an improved regime that works for the funders and for their clients and consumers.
Question put and agreed to.
Lasting Power of Attorney
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for continuing to raise awareness on this extremely important subject.
While I cannot speak to the individual cases that my hon. Friend raises, I send my deepest sympathies to those individuals impacted by the behaviours and abuse he describes, which were directed at them by people who had been selected to protect them and trusted with lasting power of attorney. I recognise the personal and financial impact on those affected people, and the impacts that are more widely felt by families.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the risk of abusers misusing lasting powers of attorney, and he highlighted the Office of the Public Guardian’s important role in investigating such concerns when they arise. His strong, ongoing commitment to raising awareness of those issues is welcome. As many hon. Members will know, he tabled a ten-minute rule Bill on this subject at the end of last year. That Bill has not yet reached Second Reading, but I know that he continues to engage across the mental capacity sector to raise awareness of it. As he noted, we met and discussed the Bill and his work in this space, and I welcome that engagement. I know that he has also engaged directly with the Office of the Public Guardian so that they can work together. Today’s debate is another demonstration of his dedication to the issue.
For context, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides the legal framework for supporting individuals who may lack capacity to make specific decisions. It ensures that any decisions made on a donor’s behalf are in their best interests, and that their rights and autonomy are respected. A lasting power of attorney is a legal document that allows a person—the donor—to appoint one or more trusted persons to make decisions on their behalf if they lose mental capacity. In that sense, at its best, it is a source of empowerment for individuals.
As my hon. Friend rightly points out, we need to set the very real issue of financial and economic abuse in context. The evidence demonstrates that the incidence of such abuse is thankfully relatively rare. At the end of 2024-25, the Office of the Public Guardian had 9.3 million lasting powers of attorney on its register. A total of 11,300 concerns were received by the Office of the Public Guardian during 2024-25. Some 96% of those concerns were responded to within five working days. Of those concerns, 3,800 cases led to a full investigation by the OPG, and 24% of completed investigations resulted in court action.
That does not for one second diminish the significance of the impact of abuse in individual cases, but it tells us that cases of abuse are rare in the context of a powerful and empowering tool for many. We want the LPA to be accessible, affordable and empowering. Indeed, I was advised by my officials that we should all take one out—obviously, through the proper processes and with the proper safeguards. It is important to set this discussion, which centres on the role that banks and financial institutions play, in the context of the existing regime and its safeguards.
LPAs must be registered with the Office of the Public Guardian before they can be used, and there are safeguards in place to protect against abuse. A lasting power of attorney must contain a certificate, signed by a person with relevant skill and expertise or by someone who has known the donor for at least two years. That person confirms that the donor understands the LPA, and that no fraud or undue pressure was applied in the making of it. That confirmation is an important protection against the coercion and abuse that we have been discussing. There is also an existing statutory right for attorneys and persons named in the LPA to object to its registration if they have concerns about how the LPA has been made. Once the LPA is registered, anyone—any third party—can raise an objection about how it is being used for the Office of the Public Guardian to consider. Those are the concerns that I spoke about, which in 3,800 cases last year led to an investigation and, in many cases, to court enforcement.
As I have said, the abuse of LPAs can have serious financial and personal consequences. The OPG plays an important role in identifying and responding to such cases. It investigates concerns raised about an attorney’s actions. It has powers to request information from individuals and organisations such as banks, care providers and medical professionals. It can ask attorneys to explain their decisions and to provide records. If the investigation reveals serious concerns, the Office of the Public Guardian can apply to the Court of Protection to suspend, restrict or remove an attorney.
The Court of Protection plays a crucial role in protecting individuals from the abuse or misuse of powers under a lasting power of attorney. It can order the revocation or suspension of LPAs or the removal or replacement of attorneys if it determines that the attorney is acting contrary to the donor’s best interest. If a donor has lost capacity when a lasting power of attorney is revoked and there is no other attorney to act, the Court of Protection can step in and appoint a deputy to manage the donor’s affairs. It can also issue orders to protect the donor, such as freezing bank accounts or prohibiting certain actions by attorneys. If an attorney’s behaviour raises concerns but does not breach the criminal law, the OPG can still order remedial actions.
The point I seek to make is that we have a regime that contains a sequence of safeguards designed to guard against the very abuse that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East raises. It is also important that we scrutinise and hold the Office of the Public Guardian to account. That is the job of the Ministry of Justice, so I take very seriously the cases that my hon. Friend has raised, particularly where there are suggestions that the Office of the Public Guardian has not been as proactive as it might have been. That ongoing performance review of the OPG is critical.
I want to look ahead to the future. I am not for one second seeking to minimise the severity of what my hon. Friend described, nor seeking to suggest that there is not room for improvement or that we cannot strengthen those safeguards, because that will be a critical part of modernising the lasting power of attorney. As others have mentioned, such powers are only going to become more critical in an ageing society with growing numbers of people losing mental capacity through conditions such as Alzheimer’s or dementia.
As a Government, however, we are committed to going further and modernising the service to increase the safeguards in the lasting power of attorney process and to improve access to them. The Powers of Attorney Act 2023 introduced several provisions to enable a modernised system. To combat fraud and abuse, the Act will facilitate the introduction of further identity checks for parties making an LPA. The Act also lays the groundwork for reforms to the objection process so that any third party—typically organisations already involved with vulnerable adults, such as local authorities or the police—can object to an LPA being registered. Those reforms, which are in train, are designed to make the LPA system more secure, providing greater protection for individuals appointing attorneys to manage their affairs.
I am conscious of time but I will say something quickly about banks. My hon. Friend will understand that the Treasury leads on the regulation of the banking sector and on safeguards for vulnerable consumers, including those with LPAs. I am not a Treasury Minister but I want to reassure my hon. Friend that the Government work closely with the Financial Conduct Authority, which is the independent regulator, on vulnerable customers, including vulnerable donors of LPAs. In 2023, the FCA introduced the consumer duty. Banks, of course, are also subject to the financial abuse code, the Equality Act 2010—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Work of the County Court: Government Response
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andy Slaughter
First, I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman in his place. I thank him for his interest in the subject and for his question, to which my response is yes. I hope our work is useful—the Government have said it is—within the jurisdiction of England and Wales, but, equally, many of the same points apply to Northern Ireland and, indeed, to Scotland. I do not know whether the Minister is going to intervene on the two points we have heard from my colleagues or on the point from the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure she has heard his point and will make sure that the work is shared. In any event, I undertake to ask my secretariat to ensure it is communicated.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I understand that am allowed to ask a question, so I will frame this as one. As the Minister with responsibility for the courts, I am tremendously grateful to the work of the Justice Committee. The report on the county court and the lens that the Committee has placed on our civil jurisdiction is incredibly welcome because, as the Committee says, the focus that the Department places on criminal justice cannot be allowed to divert from the important reform programme that we need in the county court, for all the reasons the Committee has stated.
With the helpful lens that the report places on the county court and the recommendations that the Government have taken on board in mind, and although I would be first to acknowledge that we have a long journey to travel, does my hon. Friend agree that the latest civil justice statistics—on delays in small claims coming down; on delays in fast, intermediate and multi-track coming down by almost seven weeks; on the greater use of mediation in small claims; and on a new electronic document-processing mechanism, moving away from the frustrating paper-based process—are all steps in the right direction that take on board the thrust of his report? Does he agree that that represents some progress towards where we need to get to?
Andy Slaughter
I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the fact that the Government have accepted the vast majority of the recommendations, as I have already put on the record. Without making this too cosy, it gives me confidence that my hon. and learned Friend, as the Courts Minister, is seized of this issue and understands its seriousness. That came across in the evidence she gave to the Committee, and she has the background and skills to ensure that change happens. That gives us a lot of confidence.
On my hon. and learned Friend’s specific point, yes, I concede that there are some early indicators of improvements. We would like to see that continue over the years to come. We are very conscious of and aware that—this is obviously no fault of this Minister or this Government—there has been a very long process of decline, which means the climb out will be quite slow. We want steady progress along the way. As the Minister says, the report identifies many problems, but the digitalisation one is crucial. I hope we can soon see the new programme for that, because that is how the courts will become efficient, usable and customer friendly. I know it was tried in good faith under the reform programme, but we have to be honest and say that that has largely failed. The ball is now in the Minister’s court to try to succeed.
Sentencing Bill
Sarah Sackman ExcerptsTuesday 21st October 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sentencing Bill 2024-26 View all Sentencing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 21 October 2025 - (21 Oct 2025)
Esther McVey
I am deeply dismayed by what the Minister had to say. This Bill will make the streets of our country less safe. It will both let thousands of criminals out of prison and stop thousands of criminals going to prison. It will have a devastating impact on society. If the Minister is honest and is being truthful about this being an emergency—[Interruption.] I apologise —not “truthful”. If he is being accurate, and the reason really is that there is an emergency because of a lack of prison places, why has he not accepted my new clause 62? That sunset clause would allow two years for three further prisons, initiated by the Conservative Government, to come on line. He has not done so because, as I think we have revealed or exposed, this Government are soft on crime, and they are on the side of the criminal, not the victim.
Esther McVey
“Shocking” actually is the word for this Bill.
As the Minister did not offer any way forward and has not agreed to a sunset clause, I will push my amendment 46 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Criminal Courts: Independent Review
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing a debate on this crucial subject, and for the typical expertise and measured, analytical tone that he brings to it. I thought, until the speech of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), that something of a consensus had broken out among us. To quote the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam, “something must be done about it”—I think we can all agree on that.
In the opening words of part 1 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review, he tells us that
“Criminal justice is in crisis.”
Indeed, it is. This Government inherited a record and rising courts backlog. As of June 2025, the open Crown court caseload stood at over 79,000 cases and it is rising. Other hon. Members have spoken to the human impact of that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for raising her constituent’s case. It is a graphic illustration of the impact of the Crown court backlog bequeathed to us by the previous Government, and particularly the impact of the appalling delays on victims.
The backlog not only places a psychological strain on victims, disrupting their ability to function, work and maintain relationships; it corrodes justice, because many of those victims—and indeed witnesses—pull out of the process, meaning that trials become ineffective. As the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam said, it also has an impact on defendants—those who are accused of a crime—as well as on our prisons, and on all those who serve within the system. It creates increasingly perverse incentives to exploit the delays and ultimately undermines the public’s confidence in justice. As many hon. Members have said, justice delayed is justice denied.
I reject the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that this Government have sat idly by. Far from it. We inherited a crisis, in both our prisons and our courts, and we have gripped that crisis. It is a fact that, as of today, the Government have added record, historic numbers of sitting days for our courts: 5,000 sitting days more than the number allocated by the previous Government. As other hon. Members have pointed out, we have invested in the workforce crucial to running our criminal courts, and in our solicitors, with an additional £92 million in legal aid on top of a £24 million investment in our duty solicitors. We also, of course, commissioned Sir Brian Leveson, one of our greatest jurists, to undertake his review. If the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle had bothered to read beyond the first couple of paragraphs of the 388-page report—
Sarah Sackman
I will conclude my point, then give way.
Sir Brian tells us that “greater financial investment”—which by the way, the Government have already begun to make—
“on its own, without systemic reform, cannot solve this crisis.”
That is a premise that the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam set out in his remarks, and it is absolutely right. We cannot sit our way out of this crisis. Of course, additional sitting days are part of the solution but, as Sir Brian Leveson and his team have told us, greater financial investment—namely sitting days on their own, without systemic reform—cannot solve the crisis. The Government will heed that lesson.
Dr Mullan
Just for information, I have read the whole report and it does not do the Minister justice, given her usual, sensible approach, to suggest that the fact I and many other hon. Members, including some in her own party, do not agree with her means that we have not read the report.
Sarah Sackman
I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member has read the report. I was not seeking to politicise the discussion. It sounded like, in many respects—other than the issue of jury trials, to which I will turn in due course—there had been an outbreak of consensus that something needed to be done. I want to draw attention to the central premise of Sir Brian Leveson’s report: that, in and of itself, greater financial investment—which of course is a necessary ingredient—will be insufficient to dig our way out of this crisis.
Grip is needed, and it is grip that the Government are showing. Three strands are required. One is investment. That is a question of the number of sitting days. As I said, we are setting record numbers of sitting days. That requires investment in our workforce and, as other hon. Members have pointed out, investment in the infrastructure of justice—investment in the court estate.
Sarah Sackman
I will give way in a moment; allow me to finish this point.
The second strand is modernisation. While we await part 2 of Brian Leveson’s report, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is undertaking modernisation and efficiency measures. The adoption of technology and the increased use of video hearings, which I witnessed on a visit to Kingston Crown court last week, are enabling us to realise some of those productivity benefits, but we need to go further and faster. I look forward to seeing what Sir Brian recommends in the second part of his review. We need investment and modernisation, but also, as I said, fundamental, once-in-a-generation structural reform to ensure that we progress cases quickly and more proportionately.
A number of hon. Members have outlined the variety of ways in Sir Brian’s holistic package in which we may reduce delays in the Crown court, retaining more cases in lower courts—where 90% of criminal cases are now heard without a jury—and also looking at how we might divert demand away from the system in the first place through making greater use of out-of-court disposals. There is also a proposal for a new bench division in the Crown court jurisdiction.
I understand and take heed of the contributions of a number of hon. Members—my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) and for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi), and the hon. Members for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), for Bexhill and Battle and for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). All of them rightly expressed an admiration for jury trials and a concern that they remain a cornerstone of our legal culture and British justice. I can reassure hon. Members that the jury trial will remain a cornerstone of British justice for the most serious crimes.
The essay question, as it were, that we have set ourselves and Sir Brian is: how do we deal with more cases more quickly and proportionately, so that we can squarely look the victim my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred to in the eye and say, “We did everything within our gift to reduce the delays”? Timeliness is an essential ingredient of justice. We can all agree that the state’s obligation is to deliver a fair trial. It is not a right to a jury trial; it is a right to a fair trial, and timeliness is a key ingredient in that.
Sir Ashley Fox
Has the Minister’s Department done any analysis of how much time would be saved by adopting Sir Brian’s proposals on jury trials, and if so, what was the result?
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Before the Minister answers, please bear in mind that I will be looking to bring in Jeremy Wright at 5.58 pm.
Sarah Sackman
I certainly will, Mr Efford.
Sir Brian Leveson proposed the Crown court bench division idea based on consultation with experts, members of the profession and the judiciary. He makes the point that the deliberation of 12 members of a jury is less efficient than the deliberation of an individual judge who has heard the evidence, because it involves dealing with one person. As I understand it, the modelling analysis undertaken to support Sir Brian’s report suggests a time saving in the region of 20% to 30%. Before such a proposal could be adopted, we would need to test that and understand whether that finding is robust, but as the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam said, it stands to reason. In comparative criminal jurisdictions that have either one judge or a bench of three, cases are processed and progressed faster than under the current, jury trial system.
Ultimately, what we are looking to achieve is to ensure a fair trial for every person who comes into the criminal process. That is what we must guarantee, and we support Sir Brian’s overarching principles for reform. Plainly, we have to carefully consider each and every one of those proposals and all 388 pages before we provide our response in due course.
Sir Jeremy Wright
As the Minister says, she will have to consider each of Sir Brian’s proposals, although she will know that he says that they are to be taken as a “package” and not with a “pick-n-mix” approach. Is that something that the Government accept? Will they take the view that it is either all of Sir Brian’s recommendations or none of them, or not?
Sarah Sackman
As the right hon. and learned Member laid out, and as Sir Brian laid out, it is a highly complex system with lots of moving parts. The overall objective is to bear down on the backlog and reduce these delays. We must consider the totality of Sir Brian’s recommendations in careful detail and establish whether they do enough to achieve that overall objective. If we think they do not achieve that objective, it will be necessary to consider other ways to reduce the backlog.
We will put forward a holistic package, but I will not comment at this stage on whether it will include the entirety of these recommendations. That is something we will have to consider very carefully. Ultimately, as I said, our objective is to deliver swifter justice for victims and bear down on the backlog. How we achieve that has to be led by the evidence, and this is an important component of that, which is why I answered the hon. Member for Bridgwater in the way that I did.
Ayoub Khan
The Minister rightly points out that we need investment, modernisation and structural reform, but one of the biggest elephants in the room is prosecution and defence barristers. We have seen a very low take-up of that profession because graduates do not feel that the income, which can be below the national minimum wage, is sufficient. We have also seen a lot of people leave the profession, so although we can have all these sitting days, we simply do not have enough counsel in Crown court to deal with trials. What does the Minister have to say about that?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member is absolutely right. As I said, the workforce is key—they are delivering a vital, frontline public service. We need to invest not just in the barristers, but in the rest of the staff who run our courts every single day, and that is why we have made a record investment in criminal legal aid.
The hon. Member is right: when others speak about empty courtrooms and sitting days, we have to look at the capacity of the whole system. It is not simply a question of adding judicial time; it is about making sure that the system has enough capacity—enough court staff, solicitors, prosecutors and defence lawyers—to meet the demand coming in. We must make it an investment that ensures that this is an attractive profession and one that can meet the public’s needs.
Sarah Sackman
I am content to give way, but I am conscious of time, so this may have to be the last intervention.
Tessa Munt
I want the Minister to respond to the point about experts who will not or cannot work to legal aid rates and the legal funding that is not granted in time, which causes such a long delay when defence solicitors cannot get the access they need to experts.
Sarah Sackman
I am happy to follow up with the hon. Member on that.
In short, this Government believe that once-in-a-generation reform is necessary to address the crisis in our courts. Everyone agrees that something needs to be done, and we will do what it takes, but we also know that we need to get it right. That is why we are taking the time to carefully consider Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations and why I welcome today’s debate. I welcome the views and insights of hon. Members across the House, as we consider necessary reforms to save our justice system.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
For years, our court buildings under the last Government were left to crumble and decay. This Government have boosted capital funding from £120 million last year to over £148 million for this year. From Reading to Blackpool, we are building new courts and restoring old ones.
Becky Gittins
Prestatyn justice centre and its hard-working staff provide a vital service to my constituents, but on a recent visit it was clear that the building needs investment. Can the Minister update the House on what the Government are doing to repair and modernise our court estate, and will she look at what can be done to support our facility in Prestatyn?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is right that the Prestatyn justice centre is a valuable facility for her community. We have a number of projects in the pipeline for Wales. Obviously we must prioritise those court buildings that are most in need and where there is most disrepair so that we can bring them back into use, but I am happy for her to write to me about that particular case.
Cat Smith
Since 2019 my constituents in Lancaster have had to look at a ring of steel fencing around the Lancaster courthouse in our city centre as it awaits maintenance work to make it more sightly. The fencing has been there since 2019, so how much longer will my constituents have to wait for this maintenance work?
Sarah Sackman
I understand that people in Lancaster have been using the Crown court in nearby Preston, which is a more modern and accessible facility. We are undertaking a consultation about the future of Lancaster Crown court, but I am happy to write to my hon. Friend in more detail about the timeline.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the Minister agree that access to justice is very important, particularly in rural areas, where sometimes witnesses or those offering family support have to travel to court appearances? Is it not vital to maximise accessibility for such people?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member is absolutely right. When we talk about access to justice, that must mean access to justice in every single respect, and there is no more obvious demonstration of that than accessibility to the door of the court. That is why we undertake continuous review of our court estate to ensure that it is physically accessible to all users.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I am deeply troubled by this case, and of course, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend. It is hard to think of a more graphic illustration of what we mean when we say that justice delayed is justice denied, and it is exactly why this Government are gripping the backlog in our courts, with record sitting days, increased sentencing powers for magistrates and by proposing once-in-a-generation, bold reform of our criminal courts.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member raises a very important point. We know that the success rate of appeals is high and the delays are severe in the SEND tribunal, which has a huge impact on children and families. We are close to the maximum number of sitting days across all our jurisdictions, to bear down on those delays, but I will certainly take his point on board as we look to reform the SEND system.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Sarah Sackman
The sorts of delays that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent is experiencing are unacceptable. The consensus is that the delays are unacceptable and that we have to do something big and bold about them. This is a complex system, which is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson, with his expertise, to tell us how best we go about that, but we will have to get behind once-in-a-generation reform. We are gripping the issue now—we are making record investment in criminal legal aid and sitting days—but we will need reform as well.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his announcement on the Hillsborough law. For decades, the families have carried the weight of injustice, and Governments have failed to act. Today, the Hillsborough law will be laid before this House, but it must not be another false start. Will the Deputy Prime Minister promise me that this Bill will be the Hillsborough law, and that it will emerge stronger and not weaker from Parliament and, finally, deliver justice for the 97?
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Sarah Sackman
I was pleased to meet Andrew Turner and the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on this important issue. We have to get the balance right between protecting vulnerable adults from financial abuse while at the same time ensuring that they can access assets that are theirs. It is complicated and requires cross-Government work, but I assure the hon. Lady that the impetus is there.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Does the new Secretary of State for Justice recognise sharia law and sharia courts in the United Kingdom—yes or no?
Sarah Sackman
Sharia law forms no part of the law of England and Wales, but where people choose to put themselves before those councils—in common with Christian, Jewish and other courts of faith—that is part of religious tolerance which is an important British value.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to officers at Harlow police station? During recess, I went on a ride-along and saw their professionalism and dedication at first hand.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I am sure the Lord Chancellor has read Baroness Harman’s independent review of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the Bar and on the bench, which was published last week. Its troubling findings are primarily for the Bar itself and for the judiciary to address, but do the Government support the report’s recommendations and what can they do to ensure that they are implemented?
Sarah Sackman
In typical fashion, Baroness Harman has conducted a thorough review into our professions and the judiciary. The judiciary and the Bar are one of the prides of this country, but where there are unacceptable practices and behaviours, it is right that we shine a light on them and demand that we do much better.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As Ministers will know, some rogue builders take thousands of pounds from people, wreck their homes and leave them while they go on to do the same to other victims, yet victims are told that no crime has been committed. Will the ministerial team look at the notion of fraud when a pattern of such behaviour can be evidenced?
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
For six years, Lancaster courthouse has been surrounded by temporary fencing as it awaits maintenance. How much longer will my constituents have to wait?
Sarah Sackman
I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to address her point and to give her the details that she requires.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The new Minister stated earlier that the Government have created 2,405 new prison places, but 1,468 of those are at HMP Millsike, which is part of the new prisons programme that was announced by the previous Conservative Government. The 10,000 additional prison places estate expansion programme—including the houseblocks and refurbishments programme, and the category D programme—has been downgraded from amber to red in the delivery confidence assessment, due to the programme’s key supplier entering administration. What steps is the Justice Secretary taking to put prison construction back on track?
Justice
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
What Sir Brian’s comprehensive report demonstrates is the terrible state that our once envied criminal justice system was left in by the shadow Lord Chancellor and his colleagues. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree with Sir Brian that digging ourselves out of the hole in which they left us will require more investment, greater efficiency and structural change? Is that the debt that we owe to victims of crime in particular, to ensure that they get justice? It is up to this Government to put right the wrongs that have been done over the past 14 years.
Sarah Sackman
As ever, my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee, gives a considered response and he is absolutely right. There needs to be a recognition of the scale of the problem and two things are required: investment and reform. When hon. Members read the report, they will see that Sir Brian is very clear that we need investment. This Government are already beginning to make that investment, through the additional Crown court sitting days that we have laid on this year; running the system at system max; additional funding for legal aid lawyers and criminal legal aid; and £92 million to keep the sector going, on both the defence and the prosecutorial sides. We are making that investment but, critically, as Sir Brian makes absolutely clear, that alone will not be enough…
[Official Report, 9 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 951.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the hon. and learned Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman):
Sarah Sackman
As ever, my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee, gives a considered response and he is absolutely right. There needs to be a recognition of the scale of the problem and two things are required: investment and reform. When hon. Members read the report, they will see that Sir Brian is very clear that we need investment. This Government are already beginning to make that investment, through the additional Crown court sitting days that we have laid on this year; running the system at system max; additional funding for legal aid lawyers and criminal legal aid; and £92 million to keep the sector going. We are making that investment but, critically, as Sir Brian makes absolutely clear, that alone will not be enough…
SW v. UK Judgment: Remedial Order
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) has today made the following statement:
I would like to inform the House that I am laying a draft proposal for a remedial order to amend section 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to allow an award of damages in a new set of circumstances. This is to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in SW v. UK—application no. 87/18.
The applicant in this case, SW, was a social worker who was called as a professional witness in childcare proceedings in the family court. The family court judge made adverse findings about SW in his judgment and directed that his statements be sent to SW’s employer, as well as to other local authorities where she had worked and relevant professional bodies, without giving SW an opportunity to respond. SW was dismissed and suffered various health issues as a result.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the relevant findings on the basis that, if left standing, they would breach SW’s rights under article 8—right to respect for private and family life—of the European convention on human rights. SW was advised she would be unable to obtain compensation under the HRA due to section 9(3) of the Act, which prevents the award of damages in respect of judicial acts done in good faith except in very limited circumstances, which do not include a breach of article 8 ECHR. The ECtHR subsequently ruled that article 13 of the ECHR—right to an effective remedy—read together with article 8, had been violated because SW did not have access to an effective remedy at the national level capable of addressing the substance of her article 8 complaint and by which she could obtain appropriate relief. The ECtHR also held that the applicant’s article 8 rights had been violated. The ECtHR awarded a sum in damages, which has been paid.
The UK is obliged under article 46 of the ECHR to implement this judgment, which includes resolving the circumstances that led to the violation. In order to address the violation of article 13 of the ECHR, legislative change is required as the violation was the result of the statutory bar on the award of damages under section 9(3) of the HRA.
Subject to approval by both Houses, the order would make a targeted amendment to the HRA which would have the effect that:
in proceedings in respect of a judicial act done in good faith;
where the judicial act is incompatible with article 8 on the grounds, or on grounds including the ground, that it was done in such a procedurally defective way as to amount to a breach of the requirements of procedural fairness under that article;
a financial remedy could be awarded to the person to compensate for the breach of article 8. We are satisfied that damages would be available to individuals in situations similar to that of SW and would therefore satisfy the requirements of the judgment.
The Government consider that there are compelling reasons to amend the HRA via remedial order. We consider that the nature of the article 13 breach, and our obligation to implement the SW judgment, contribute to there being compelling reasons for making the necessary legislative change without further delay via remedial order. The alternative approach to a remedial order would be to make the amendment by way of primary legislation. However, we consider that there is little prospect of finding suitable primary legislation to make an amendment in the near future.
This draft proposal for a remedial order is being laid under the non-urgent procedure. It will be laid for a period of 60 days during which time representations may be made. The Joint Committee on Human Rights will scrutinise the remedial order and report on it to the House. Following that, the draft order, with any revisions the Government wish to make, will be laid for a further 60 days before being considered and voted on by both Houses.
[HCWS846]