Contingencies Fund Advance
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I hereby give notice of the Ministry of Justice’s intention to seek a further advance from the Contingencies Fund totalling £1,850,000.
This is the second occasion on which the Ministry of Justice has sought a Contingencies Fund advance for this work. An initial advance of £1,700,000 was announced in a written ministerial statement on 28 April 2026. The further advance would bring the total pre-Royal Assent funding for the interim inquests digital solutions to £3,550,000.
The Public Office (Accountability) Bill is currently progressing through Parliament and is not now expected to receive Royal Assent before November 2026. The further advance is required to maintain delivery ahead of Royal Assent.
Parliamentary approval for additional resource of £1,850,000 for this new service will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Ministry of Justice. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £1,850,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS344]
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
We inherited a criminal justice system in crisis, with challenges in prisons and criminal courts at risk of collapse. That is why as an early priority, we launched two wide-ranging reviews—one led by David Gauke, the other led by Sir Brian Leveson—to tackle that crisis holistically. This is a system-wide challenge and requires urgent action from across the whole criminal justice system.
Brian Leishman
Just a fortnight ago, the Justice Secretary said that
“we have to build a new criminal justice system.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 86.]
After the damage done by a decade and a half of austerity, I wholeheartedly agree. Nobody knows how far our justice system has fallen better than the hard-working frontline workers who are desperately trying to hold it all together, and who have watched and warned about this dangerous situation coming down the track for years. Will the Department listen to the leaders of the six national justice trade unions, who are calling for a royal commission on prisons and the wider criminal justice system?
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.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
In Croydon, as elsewhere, we are taking a three-pronged approach to reducing the Crown court waiting list. That involves increasing Crown court capacity, removing the financial constraint on sitting days, driving efficiency in our courts through schemes such as every Crown court having a case co-ordinator, and of course the structural reforms we will bring forward in the Courts and Tribunals Bill.
Luke Taylor
I visited Croydon Crown court recently and saw at first hand the impact that the delays are having on victims. Backlogs across London have increased by 122% over the last decade, which is having a particular impact on domestic abuse and sexual offence victims. Given that, will the Minister consider listening to Liberal Democrat calls to abandon plans to restrict trial by jury and instead create specialist sexual offence and domestic abuse courts so that those sensitive cases can be dealt with as quickly as possible?
Sarah Sackman
I speak as a fellow London MP and agree that the waiting lists in our London courts are appalling, because behind each and every one of those cases in the backlog there are victims, witnesses and defendants whose lives are entirely put on hold. That is why we have got to run hard at the problem, but getting the backlog down will involve a multifaceted approach. That is why the efficiencies we are making at courts, unlimited sitting days and the blitz courts initiatives we are piloting in London courts are so crucial. As I said, as somebody with a vested interest in seeing London waiting lists come down, I will be glad to work with the hon. Member to see what we can do on that.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
We recognise the vital role that high street law firms play in serving communities such as Scarborough and Whitby, and I greatly valued the meeting that we had, in which my hon. Friend raised a number of concerns in relation to the consultation that is currently being undertaken, in which we are engaging extensively with stakeholders to ensure that the potential impacts of the proposals—which are targeted, by the way, at access to justice—and all views are carefully considered.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that cross-criminal justice system working between the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the judiciary and our Courts Service is vital. I know that steps have been taken in Newcastle. Some agility has been shown on courtroom capacity and case progression, which is starting to bear results, and I encourage more of that right across our Crown court system.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Sarah Sackman
Early legal advice is absolutely essential to access to justice, and that is why one of the first actions we took when I became the Minister responsible for legal aid was to give legal aid lawyers delivering immigration and housing advice the first pay lift they had received since 1996—an injection of £20 million. That was precisely because of the issues the hon. Gentleman raises.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
A few weeks ago, I visited Margaret Green Animal Rescue in Wareham, where I was told that the rescue takes in animals when pet owners are prosecuted for animal welfare offences, but that those animals cannot be rehomed during the delay before prosecution. We should be dealing with the court backlog for many reasons, but for the sake of animal welfare, will the Minister look at how we can ensure those animals are rehomed and not delayed in these facilities?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member is right: a backlog is a backlog, irrespective of the offence. The victims in all these cases might be of a different nature— they might be animals, or they might be humans—but local authorities have a responsibility in this, and if she wishes to write to me, I look forward to giving her a full answer about what the Ministry of Justice is doing on this.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Last week Appeal launched a campaign calling for Trew’s law, which would review the cases of all imprisoned police officers, following the actions of a corrupt and racist British Transport police officer, Derek Ridgewell. Will the Minister agree to meet me and the campaigners to discuss this law?
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Let me start by echoing the thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for securing time for this important debate. I thank everybody across the House who has contributed so thoughtfully to it. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and ensuring that time has been given for considering this vital subject. It is perhaps all too rare that cross-party consensus breaks out on such an issue, as it clearly has done at this slightly ungodly hour, but it is all the better for it.
Let us be clear: SLAPPs are an abuse of power and the legal system, designed to shut down scrutiny, not to seek justice. As we have heard, they are brought to harass, intimidate and wear down opponents through financial pressure and psychological strain. They are often brought by wealthy individuals or corporations to silence journalists, authors, publishers and academics, and, as we heard particularly powerfully from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), to silence ordinary individuals and to seek to exploit the power imbalance that exists in our society.
In this David and Goliath situation, it is not just individuals who lose out. This issue is corrosive to the principle in our society that respects the rule of law and says that everyone should be equal before the law. This is a media freedom issue, but it is not just that; it is about access to justice. When SLAPPs predominate, we all lose out. As we heard eloquently from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), they pose a threat to our democracy, because the purpose of SLAPPs is intimidation—to silence critics through fear and to deter public interest reporting through the threat of costly litigation.
As the Minister for Courts, I want to underline that the courts should always be a forum for justice, not a weapon of intimidation. The Government’s position is clear: freedom of expression and investigative journalism must never be undermined by abusive litigation. The calls that we have heard tonight from across the House for universal anti-SLAPP legislation are calls that the Government welcome. As others have pointed out, we have begun to take the stepping stones towards that universal framework.
I pay tribute to the previous Government, who put on the statute book the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which this Government began to implement. It was designed to stop wealthy elites from effectively silencing critics, journalists and activists, but, as a number of Members have pointed out, that definition of SLAPPs—defined in statute for the first time to help courts to identify abusive claims—was confined narrowly to economic crime. As we have heard, SLAPPs are used in a far wider context. While it is a vital stepping stone, it is just that. As we have heard tonight, there is agreement that we need to go wider, because many alleged SLAPPs fall outside the current framework, including cases involving sexual abuse allegations, medical negligence concerns, academic research and consumer reviews. Such things are in the public interest, so we need a wider definition of SLAPPs that goes beyond economic crime and adopts an objective test of what is reasonable behaviour in the conduct of litigation. We recognise as a Government that the test needs to be simplified, so that we can deploy that early dismissal mechanism—that cost protection in the 2023 Act framework—in a more refined and effective way. I and the Government find an objective test attractive. A better definition of harassment, alarm or distress is needed, and we will look to work on that with those who bring forward the private Members’ Bills.
Other Members have spoken about the need not just for legislative action, but for a culture change in the legal profession and among our independent regulators. To be clear, the overwhelming majority of solicitors and legal professionals in this country and in this jurisdiction act with honesty, professionalism and a deep commitment to the rule of law. There is a reason why England and Wales is rightly regarded as world-leading when it comes to legal services and as a legal jurisdiction. Lawyers play a vital role in upholding justice and protecting rights, but that should not detract from the high standards that need to be demonstrated right across the profession, because maintaining public confidence requires recognising not just the profession’s strengths, but those cases where legal processes are being misused and abused by legal professionals. That is why I welcome the calls for further action and robustness from our independent regulator, the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
We need to look again at the SRA’s enforcement powers and whether it has the tools it needs to charge fines and place disciplinary sanctions on those lawyers who let down the reputation of the profession. That culture change is important, and it needs to be a cross-government initiative. Legislation is not worth the paper it is written on if it is not applied properly. That is why the initiative led by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, working with the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists—it brings together Government, the media, the legal profession and civil society—to track the use of SLAPPs and how journalists are being targeted is so important.
The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) asked what work we are doing with the legal profession. I can assure her that I meet regularly with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and that this matter is frequently a topic of discussion. She asked, rightly, about the Government’s position on the forthcoming private Member’s Bill from the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale). As he acknowledged, he and I are in constant contact. We are working together, because there is much common ground. We see that there can be a good way forward that gets the results that we need on the statute book, and that strikes a coherent balance between the right to access the courts—that must be maintained, so that people can protect their reputation and their right to privacy—and freedom of expression for journalists and individuals, which many have spoken about tonight. Our conversations have been constructive. We are working closely with one another, as well as with Baroness Stowell in the other place. I am confident that we can get a carefully balanced and proportionate approach that the Government can support, and I look forward to continuing that work with him.
To conclude, our focus is on tackling all SLAPPs. This abusive litigation is used to intimidate and silence public participation. It is necessary to tackle it for the integrity of our legal system, to protect freedom of expression and to protect democracy itself. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley once again for his championing of this critical issue. I thank not just those in the Chamber, but all those ordinary individuals and brave investigative journalists who determinedly campaign against the abuse of our legal system and for freedom of speech, for bringing these matters to the nation’s attention.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Alex Sobel to wind up the debate, briefly.
Court Transparency Measures
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Open justice relies on court proceedings being transparent and accessible. This Government are committed to ensuring that appropriate court and tribunal information is available to the public, legal professionals, journalists, and researchers in a way that is both meaningful and secure. I am today updating the House on two actions towards that commitment: the expansion of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service’s court and tribunal hearings service to include criminal court hearing lists, and the launch of a new data-sharing licence for organisations that successfully apply to analyse court data at scale.
On 10 February 2026, I updated Parliament on our intention to establish court and tribunal data-sharing arrangements, which would support the publication of hearing information while maintaining essential data protection safeguards. I am pleased today to report on the delivery of that commitment.
Court and tribunal hearings service expansion
CaTH is a secure online portal on gov.uk that publishes court hearing lists in an accessible format.
It makes court listing information freely and publicly accessible in one place, replacing fragmented and inconsistent local arrangements in local courts.
CaTH already published hearing lists for the civil and family courts, excluding the Court of Protection; for the first-tier and upper tribunals, excluding employment tribunals; for the Royal Courts of Justice and for single justice procedure cases. Since 1 April 2026, Crown court and magistrates court hearing lists have been added, meaning that all criminal court hearing lists are now available too.
The public can view all these court and tribunal hearing lists free of charge without registering. Authenticated users—such as journalists and legal professionals who are entitled to additional information—can access and receive notifications of enhanced court hearing lists, which include greater detail about cases, also free of charge. During a transitional phase, manual emails from local magistrates courts will continue.
Third-party courts and tribunals data licence
Supported by the recent CaTH service expansion, HMCTS has today launched a new non-exclusive third-party courts and tribunals data licence.
This enables organisations that successfully apply to conduct approved computational analysis of court and tribunal data, including court hearing lists, at scale. While it will be for successful applicants to determine, they might use the data to help journalists track cases and identify hearings of interest, or enable researchers and charities to analyse trends across the courts and tribunals system. This supports innovation, research, and wider public understanding of the justice system, in keeping with the principle of open justice.
Any organisation with a legitimate case for its use may apply for a licence, and multiple licences may be granted, enabling broad access to court and tribunal data while ensuring appropriate oversight.
The data-sharing licence includes robust safeguards. Applicants must satisfy a panel chaired by a member of the judiciary, that their proposed use is lawful and consistent with open justice principles, judicial independence, data protection rules, anti-bias, and computer-generated transparency. They must meet security standards, and access to restricted data is limited to those with an existing entitlement. The licence requires that information must not appear on search engines—and strictly prohibits sharing data into public large language models.
The panel will assess each application, including requested data retention periods that seek to maximise the benefits of open justice while balancing privacy, commercial value and data protection requirements, and the needs of specific user groups including researchers, academics, journalists, legal professionals, or charities.
The licence is launching free of charge, realising immediate benefits for open justice and transparency. The application form and guidance are now available on gov.uk, and I encourage interested organisations to apply.
[HCWS256]
Legal Services Board: Public Bodies Review
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I am announcing today the conclusion of the review of the Legal Services Board as a public body, led by independent lead reviewer Richard Lloyd. The summary and findings can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-legal-services-board-independent-public-bodies-review
It is important that Departments regularly review their public bodies to provide assurance to both Government and the public that these bodies are operating effectively, that their functions remain useful and necessary, and that there is clear accountability without unnecessary duplication. In the context of legal services regulation, effective and proportionate oversight plays an important role in supporting high professional standards across the legal sector and maintaining public confidence in the legal system. This review considered the LSB’s statutory remit, strategic clarity, governance and accountability arrangements, and organisational capability. The review’s focus was on the operation of the LSB as a public body within the existing statutory framework established by the Legal Services Act 2007, rather than on wider legislative reform. That is a subject for another day.
The conclusions of the report are stark. The LSB has, in some respects, lost its way and must take steps to refocus on consumer protection and strategic oversight. Richard Lloyd’s report recognises that there have been a series of regulatory failures across the system which have resulted in significant consumer detriment and are not acceptable. It concludes that decisive action is needed to address these shortcomings and identifies an opportunity to strengthen and support the legal services sector through a more collaborative and effective approach to regulation, supporting both public confidence and the sector’s long-term success. The report identifies this as a critical moment for a reset, driving improvement and renewed focus across the system. It sets out an action-focused programme of recommendations aimed at strengthening oversight of the sector, improving clarity of priorities and accountability, and supporting a more effective, proportionate, outcomes-focused and risk-based approach to oversight and assurance, while maintaining the LSB’s operational independence.
We recognise in the report’s recommendations, which I have discussed with Richard Lloyd, a proactive role for the MOJ as the sponsoring Department to provide clear and robust oversight of the legal services framework while respecting the LSB’s independence. There are already indications of progress at the LSB under its newly appointed leadership, including organisational changes that are aligned with the direction of the review’s recommendations. Going forward we will work with the LSB leadership to ensure their role is effective and that the LSA regime is delivering for consumers of legal services across the country.
The report highlights that consumer protection should remain at the centre of legal services regulation. That includes a greater emphasis on access to justice, effective redress, underserved consumers and emerging risks associated with technology and AI. It sets out recommendations on how the regulatory framework can evolve in a way that maintains public confidence, supports a strong and resilient legal sector, and ensures that lessons are learned and embedded across the system.
I am grateful to Richard for undertaking this review and for his careful consideration of these important issues. It is clear that prompt action is needed, and I will work with my officials and the LSB to consider the report’s findings. I will set out the Government’s response in due course.
[HCWS213]
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
This Government inherited a criminal justice system in crisis, with record and rising Crown court backlogs. We simply cannot accept the intolerable delays currently faced by victims, witnesses and defendants alike. Sir Brian Leveson’s conclusion was clear and emphatic: it is only with investment, efficiencies and pragmatic structural reform that we can begin to turn the tide on the backlog and deliver swifter justice for victims. Those are the measures being brought forward in the Government’s Courts and Tribunals Bill.
Mr Mohindra
Will the Minister confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister’s legacy is that he will be the first Justice Secretary in the United Kingdom to restrict the centuries-old right to jury trials?
Sarah Sackman
There is no right to a jury trial in this country; there is a right to a fair trial, and timeliness is a key ingredient of a fair trial. If someone has to wait years for their day in court, that simply is not fair, whether they are a defendant or a witness. Of course, there is precedent for this, including from someone who is perhaps the hon. Gentleman’s hero: the late, great Mrs Thatcher. The fact is that we have always made a policy choice about who can access jury trial, and we are going to make that policy choice again to deliver swifter justice for victims.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
There are concerns that the changes the Government have made will give more power to judges to make decisions on their own, so what is the Minister doing to monitor the impact of these changes and ensure that there is transparency at all stages? Can I add, following your comment, Mr Speaker, that we would like to see Harlow magistrates court reopen as well as Chorley magistrates court?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend, as always, is an outstanding advocate for Harlow. Our judges take the judicial oath to act without fear or favour, which is why our judiciary is the finest in the world, but of course transparency matters, which is why the recording and transcription of proceedings and the review that we have committed to, to test the impact of our reforms, are so important. I observe directly the training that our judges receive, which is first class.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Justice Secretary and his ministerial team say that the attack on jury trials is needed to deal with the backlog in the courts. When the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) takes over and scraps the policy on jury trials, does the Minister predict that court backlogs will get worse?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman mischaracterises the Government’s policy, as so many do. We are preserving jury trials as a cornerstone of British justice, but it is no justice at all if someone is waiting years for that jury trial. When witnesses and complainants pull out of the process and those trials collapse, that is no justice at all, whoever is in charge. The dereliction of duty by the Conservatives—the so-called party of law and order—allowed the Crown court backlog to run out of control. They buried their heads in the sand, but we will not do so. We will take on Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations and make the difficult choices to bring down our backlog and deliver justice for the British people.
Nick Timothy
I listened carefully but do not think the Minister answered my question—[Interruption.] We will see, won’t we? I am replying to the Justice Secretary’s comment from a sedentary position. I think the Minister has just made it very difficult for herself to stay in the Ministry of Justice when the right hon. Member for Makerfield takes over. The Government are continuing to say that the attack on jury trials is vital and there is no alternative, but we know that is not what the next leader of the Labour party thinks. He has made it clear that he is going to scrap the policy, so will the Minister spell out what this means? She is saying that the right hon. Member for Makerfield is wrong, isn’t she?
Sarah Sackman
I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to an interview with my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield that took place in December, well before this House voted conclusively on Second Reading. Any ministerial team would have to take on this challenge. Unlike the Conservatives, we will not duck it. What my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield actually said was that we need to pause and reflect. The evidence base is clear. Sir Brian Leveson offered a blueprint. We cannot bring down the backlog without structural reform—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) says we can. As so often happens, the Conservatives ignore the experts and the evidence. They crashed the justice system, and we know who suffers: it is the British citizen. We will not allow it.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
The Government are reforming the family justice system to better support families and children. We are rolling out the successful child-focused courts nationally. That means that in Northamptonshire, Coventry and Warwickshire, Northumbria, north Durham, Cleveland and south Durham, Lancashire, Cumbria, York and North Yorkshire, and Cheshire and Merseyside, you have a child-focused court coming to a court near you. We are developing a cross-system family justice strategy and legislating for new child safety measures that ensure child welfare continues to be prioritised.
Max Wilkinson
When family courts decide that care is to be split between parents 50:50, we might expect that fair financial arrangements follow. However, when courts make that ruling, and the Child Maintenance Service makes decisions based on which parent is the recipient of child benefit, one parent often finds they are significantly worse off than the other. Will Ministers have a word with their colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the justice system and the CMS work more closely to achieve financial fairness for both parents in cases where courts rule for 50:50 care splits?
Sarah Sackman
In individual cases, how those financial settlements are made is a matter for the judiciary. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, as in so many cases, the family court is downstream of decisions that have been made elsewhere, and it is quite right that there should be join-up between areas of Government. I am happy to take away his direction that we should liaise with DWP colleagues to ensure that child maintenance is addressed fairly.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Will the Minister reassure me that we remain committed to repealing in this Parliament the presumption of contact in family courts, to bring full justice to the 67 children murdered at the hands of abusive ex-partners with whom contact should never have been granted?
Sarah Sackman
We are resolute and committed to repealing the presumption of parental involvement in the Children Act 1989. The campaigning efforts of the likes of Claire Throssell have been little short of heroic, and we will redouble our efforts to ensure that the repeal of that presumption comes about through the Courts and Tribunals Bill.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
The law governing wills has not changed substantially since 1837. It is in that context that the Government welcome the Law Commission’s comprehensive and thorough review; we will be taking our time to consider it, and will respond in due course. Innovations such as electronic wills could improve accessibility and increase the number of people making wills, putting them and their loved ones in a more secure position.
Fabian Hamilton
In 2018, I began my campaign to abolish the rule that stipulates that in England and Wales, remarriage revokes any previous will. It is clear that such a rule is no longer fit for purpose and opens the door to abuse—unscrupulous individuals often marry vulnerable people, enabling them to inherit their estate upon death. Will the Government now commit to accepting the Law Commission’s recommendation that that archaic rule be abolished?
Sarah Sackman
I commend my hon. Friend on his work, looking at how we can combat predatory marriages and those who prey on the vulnerable. The Law Commission’s recommendation that the rule that marriage revokes a will be abolished is well evidenced. We will take a holistic look at the issue, but we will certainly consider carefully.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) back after his operation. It is good to see him again, and I wish him a speedy recovery.
I thank the Minister for her answer. What steps is her Department taking to ensure that the insights and the drafting expertise in the “Modernising Wills Law” report are taken on board by the Northern Ireland Executive, to ensure families in Northern Ireland can benefit from similar modernised protections against predatory marriage through updated legislation?
Sarah Sackman
As we consider the Law Commission’s recommendations, we will of course consider how they might lead to law changes and law reform across the United Kingdom. However, where matters are devolved, we respect that as well.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
The Government are committed to greater transparency and access to justice in our courts. Transcripts are an important part of that, and I know that there has been a lot of cross-party campaigning on this issue. Victims of sexual offences and bereaved families of homicide can already request a free copy of sentencing remarks. From spring 2027, eligibility will be extended so that all victims can request them.
Tessa Munt
I am particularly keen that this matter is progressed at speed, because the fees for victims who want to get their transcripts are eye-watering. My constituent is a victim of domestic violence and her barrister needs transcripts of her hearing in the family court now to appeal against procedural irregularities and errors in the published judgment, but the transcripts will cost her thousands of pounds. Will the Minister address this gross inequality and waive court transcript fees as soon as she can for all victims, including for the family courts—with the requisite redactions to protect anonymity of the parties—to ensure robust justice, transparency and fairness for all?
Sarah Sackman
I am sorry to hear about the hon. Member’s constituent’s case. Technology in this area is a potential game changer. However, as with all technological adoption, particularly in the justice arena, we have got to ensure accuracy for the very reason she says. The transcript has to be accurate, and redactions have to be made where necessary to protect individual participants in the case and to ensure reporting restrictions. That all has to be done safely, but I can assure her that the Ministry of Justice is progressing at pace with the adoption of AI, which will be a game changer in the years to come.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I listened carefully to what the Minister has just said. Court transcripts are important to a victim’s sense of justice served, but does she agree that access to this very important information should never be dependent on the victim’s ability to pay?
Sarah Sackman
Equality before the law should mean just that, and as my hon. Friend says, it is an important principle to bear in mind when we talk about barriers to access to justice, whether we are talking about the cost of representation, which we try to address through legal aid, or about the cost of transcripts. In the current context, the targeted approach that we have taken—prioritising the victims of the most serious crimes, and now extending eligibility so that all victims can request court transcripts through the Sentencing Act 2026 from the spring of 2027—constitutes a big step forward. I hope that developments in technology will enable us to lower the costs and make that freely available to all in due course.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Charlotte Meijer will never have access to her transcript, because her case was heard in a magistrates court where no recording was made. The Government are seeking to address that, but Charlotte has continued to campaign for all victims of crime so that they can gain access to free transcripts, given that some are still being quoted costs of thousands of pounds. Her campaign, Open Justice for All, is calling on the Government to go further and faster to make the justice system fair, transparent and open.
This is a cross-party issue, and I know that many Back Benchers in the Minister’s party feel passionate about it. Will she assure the House that the job is not done, and recognise the desire for all court transcripts eventually to be made free and accessible for all victims?
Sarah Sackman
I know that the hon. Lady is a great advocate in this regard. I have had the pleasure of meeting Charlotte on a number of occasions, and I know how important her campaign is. The hon. Lady is right: owing to the Government’s commitment to audio recording and the capital investments that we are making to enable it to happen, change is coming soon and fast. We will seek to go as far as we are able while preserving the accuracy of those transcripts.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our magistrates are the backbone of our justice system. I meet magistrates from across the length and breadth of the land, and I have met the Magistrates Association. We have to make being a magistrate more attractive. That is why our reform of their expenses, allowing for greater flexibility, is so important. We are transforming the application process and the training that magistrates receive to make it more attractive for people to volunteer their time. I want to put on record that we are incredibly grateful to our army of volunteers who keep the justice system going.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Ranby Prison in my constituency is undergoing a £70 million expansion. The main prison car park is across the very busy A620 road. On 1 December last year, prison officer Phillip Tetley was knocked down and killed as he crossed the road to get to work. He leaves behind his wife Eve and seven children. Eve Tetley is campaigning for a crossing to prevent such an awful accident happening again. Will the Minister meet me and Eve to discuss this further?
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
My constituent is here. Her ex-husband sexually assaulted her children, and attempted to murder them and her by removing the brake pads from her car, yet the court appeared to listen more to the abuser’s allegation of parental alienation syndrome, a concept discredited by the World Health Organisation, than her evidence. The abuser today has unsupervised access to the children. What steps will the Government take to prevent discredited concepts from obstructing criminal justice, leaving children at risk of rape and murder?
Sarah Sackman
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising such a moving case, and I pay tribute to his constituent, who is here today. Let us be absolutely clear: the Government’s position is that parental alienation has no evidential basis and is a totally discredited concept. We are working carefully with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to limit the instruction of unregulated experts, including those who hold that they are parental alienation experts. I hope that will ring the changes and prevent this sort of thing in future.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement from the Deputy Prime Minister today about changing the disparity in sentences for domestic homicide. Carole, Julie and Elaine have campaigned tirelessly for this change, following the murder of their daughters, and it will make a huge difference to how violence against women and girls is treated in this country. The campaigners have met seven Lord Chancellors, and the Deputy Prime Minister is the first of them to commit to doing this. Can I implore him to do it as soon as possible? It is this Labour Government who are committed to tackling violence against women and girls.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
One of my constituents experienced horrific abuse at the hands of her ex-husband. Deepfakes were put online on porn sites. This is something he did to other women as well. He is now in prison, but when my constituent tried to divorce him, she could not get access to legal aid for the arbitration service, or to further legal aid, because of his bail conditions. Will the Minister meet me to discuss access to legal aid for people who have suffered domestic abuse in such circumstances?
Sarah Sackman
Of course I will meet my hon. Friend about that case. She is a tremendous advocate for her constituent. It is important to say that we have ensured that legal aid is available for domestic abuse victims, and we have also changed the evidence thresholds that must be met in order to access that aid. I will look into the case that she raises, and I look forward to meeting her to discuss it.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Following an attack that led to long-term mental and physical health difficulties, a constituent got a disappointing offer of compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, after a two-and-a-half-year delay. It took an appeal and my intervention for her to finally be offered fair compensation. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that victims of crime receive a good service when applying for criminal injury compensation?
Home Office and Ministry of Justice
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I associate myself with the remarks of those who have thanked the Chairs of the various Select Committees for securing this important debate, and I thank everybody who made incredibly thoughtful contributions to it, although there was the odd exception.
To govern is to choose, and those on the Opposition—[Interruption.] I am coming to it. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) is getting started early. We know what choices the Opposition would make, because the Government’s inheritance in the criminal justice system was intolerable. Our prisons were allowed to run red hot so that the most serious offenders had nowhere to be locked up—a total dereliction of duty from the so-called party of law and order. In our courts, we had record and rising backlogs—there is consensus about that in the House—with both victims and defendants seeing intolerable delays. I could not agree more with the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) that this is one system, and it must keep the public safe and command public confidence. Yes, indeed, justice delayed is justice denied.
We see the brass-neckedness of Opposition Members—there is no apology—but this Government do not duck the choices. As I will come to, in both areas we have grasped the nettle. We have sought expert advice in the form of the independent review led by Sir Brian Leveson into the state of our criminal courts, and from David Gauke in relation to sentencing. We have heard the conclusions of those reviews, and yes, we have been prepared to make the tough choices required to put our justice system first and to put it on a stable footing.
The context outlined by the hon. Member for North Cotswolds and astutely by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) is one in which for several decades justice has been relatively sidelined in public policy terms and in investment terms. That has changed under this Labour Government with the uplift in the capital budget, as hon. Members across the House have rightly acknowledged. That is seen in prison construction, the investment in our court estate, the investment in the technology required to bring our justice system into the 21st century and, indeed, in the vital intervention of uncapping sitting days to salvage our courts from the brink of collapse. That is the choice that the Government have made to put justice first and to fix the mess that the Opposition left us with.
Let me turn first to the crisis in our courts. We have taken a multi-pronged approach to this issue, as is set out in the estimates Bill. In colloquial terms, I would say that we have thrown the kitchen sink at it. We have done that in three ways: investment; modernisation and efficiency; and reform. Let me take each in turn.
First, we have taken the choice that the Conservatives failed to take when they gutted our legal aid system, our court workforce and the capital spend in our courts. We have reversed that. Now, £2.78 billion has been agreed in the concordat with our courts, including those uncapped sitting days, and £287 million in capital spend is literally fixing the leaking roofs in Newcastle and right across the country. I was also pleased to see Harrow Crown court reopened when I visited the other day.
On investment in our workforce, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle speaks of empty courtrooms. Of course we do not want to see empty courtrooms, but that is a reflection of the state of system capacity. We cannot 3D-print judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers or court staff; we have to train them. Those people are skilled. They have to be trained, they have to be remunerated, they have to be retained. That is why this Government chose, early doors, to make the investment of £116 million in criminal legal aid for solicitors, the £34 million pledged to advocates and the record settlement for the Crown Prosecution Service, as well as the investment in our judiciary. It is that that is going to fill and sustain our empty courtrooms.
Many, including the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), have rightly spoken about victims. We have made a £0.5 billion investment in victim support services. The transformation in the availability of transcripts and audio recording of proceedings in our magistrates courts is vital not only to improving the victim experience but, given the intolerable delays, to keeping victims and witnesses engaged in the process, because when victims and witnesses pull out of the process and walk away, they do not get justice at all. That is the situation that the Conservatives left us with.
Efficiency and modernisation are vital too, and it is right that Members across this House challenge the system and challenge those responsible for it to improve matters. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for referring to prisoner transport and the prisoner escort and custody services—PECS—because this issue has been highlighted by the Bar, by the judiciary and by Members in this House. The Minister for Prisons in the other place and I have set up an oversight board to grip our PECS contracts—contracts that were agreed with Serco by the previous Government—to ensure that we are driving out inefficiency in that operation from end to end.
The judiciary is making a step change through a national listing framework, accompanied by AI data-driven tools, to improve the listing and scheduling of cases and make it more consistent. We are seeing investment in blitz courts in London and other places, as well as a case co-ordinator in every single Crown court centre to progress cases more rapidly. The adoption of remote technology is increasing the amount of remote participation, reducing the need for those prisoner transfers and enabling us to get through the easier cases. All of that is being done to drive the efficiency that everyone quite rightly wants to see.
However, I have to be clear that—just as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick said, and consistent with the conclusions of Sir Brian Leveson—efficiency and investment alone will not reduce the backlog. It is true that the investment that we have made in sitting days, uncapping them for 2026-27, has resulted in a stabilisation of the backlog, just as we hoped it would, but the backlog continues to sit at over 80,000. Behind each and every one of those cases, there is a victim waiting for justice and a defendant stuck languishing in the remand system, and the public’s confidence in our criminal justice system is waning. That is why we will not duck the necessity of structural reform.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
The Minister is absolutely right: it is necessary to have confidence in our criminal justice system. Will she therefore answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan)? Will the Government be letting out rapists and other serious offenders under the early release scheme, and if so, how many?
Sarah Sackman
I am talking about courts, but I will turn to sentencing and prisons in due course. However, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Sentencing Act provisions, which will come into force in September and to which he refers, were made necessary by the Opposition’s failure to invest in prison places over many years. Over 14 years in government, they made their choice, and they added net 500 prison places. In the first two years, this Government have already delivered an additional 3,000 places, and the biggest prison building programme since the Victorians is set to deliver 14,000 additional prison places.
Let me return to the Crown court backlog. Reform cannot be avoided. To bring the backlog down, it is vital we ensure that the right cases are heard in the right place. It cannot be right that defendants can insist on their right to a jury trial in cases that could be heard by magistrates under even the existing sentencing powers. That is not fair on victims, and it is not fair that those cases are in the same queue as other, more serious cases, which have to have a jury trial, but a timely one. We cannot duck those choices.
The proposals to increase magistrates courts’ sentencing powers, remove the right to elect and create a Crown court bench division are sound. When a triable either-way case is heard in the magistrates court, it moves far faster than in the Crown court. We have to take a proportionate and hard-headed approach that balances the rights of defendants, the rights of victims and the entitlement of every citizen in this country to a timely trial. Timeliness is an essential ingredient of fairness.
As I have said, we inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. To govern is to choose, and we took decisive action: £4.7 billion invested in the largest prison building programme that this country has seen, more foreign national offenders deported than ever before, 3,000 prison places delivered in the first two years of this Government and the Sentencing Act reforms, which will put our prisons on a more sustainable footing. As others have mentioned, we have also made a vital £700 million investment in probation, which is crucial to keeping the public safe and, as others have said, getting reoffending under control. Punishment can take place in prison, but punishment can also take place outside prison. The tough community sentence regime, the presumption of tagging, and the managed, structured and orderly early release system, as compared with the chaotic and opaque system under the previous Government—that is the choice that we make. That is how we get our criminal justice system under control.
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member has had an entire urgent question in which to ventilate these issues, and I am here to debate the estimates and address some of the other points that have been raised. I do not duck the essential point that our early release scheme will apply to some of those guilty of the offences to which he refers, if safe to do so. If they have misbehaved in prison, they will not benefit from those provisions. The point is that this is not a free-for-all. They will be subject to tagging and control on the outside. That is why the investment in probation is critical.
Sarah Sackman
The policy exists, as I have said, critically in the context of a restored probation system, and it is to that which I come right now.
Probation is an indispensable part of the scheme that the hon. Member talks about—a probation system that was, as I have said, absolutely gutted under the Opposition. Probation and community services will receive an additional £700 million by the final year of the spending review. In real terms, that looks like recruiting at least an additional 1,300 trainee probation officers by March 2027, on top of the over 2,300 who have been onboarded in the past two years. Those hard-working probation officers—not the slackers that perhaps were portrayed by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox); far from it— doing some of the most difficult jobs in our public services have been delivered a 6% headline increase in pay, and rightly so, because they do such valuable work. They have been given the tools with which to do that work.
We have the biggest expansion of tagging in British history, with a presumption that every offender will be tagged on release from prison, save in very specific circumstances. All of that keeps the public safe, and staff will be given the technology to enable them to do their work in a more efficient and accurate way with the Justice Transcribe AI-powered tool. These investments and reforms will ensure that probation officers can have the biggest impact by focusing on those who present the highest risk.
A number of points have been made on legal aid, which will celebrate its 80th anniversary in a couple of years’ time. It is one of the proudest achievements of a previous Labour Government—the Attlee Government. It is something that we have put back on a stable footing. As I have said, we have put in an enormous uplift of £116 million for legal aid solicitors, up to £34 million for barristers, match funding for pupillages, building the workforce and, to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell), investment in the digital system.
My hon. Friend is right that the particular line in the estimates pack from the House of Commons Library to which I believe she refers does not reflect the totality of the capital investment that the Government have made in this area. We are at £61 million invested in the digital transformation. That is much needed because those in this House will know that the impact that the criminal cyber-attack had on the legal aid system was so detrimental, precisely because there had been so much underinvestment and neglect of the system. It is therefore important that we not just stabilise the system, but transform it so that legal aid providers, but even more importantly, their clients can benefit in the long term.
I am conscious of time, and so I will speak briefly about policing. The hon. Member for North Cotswolds is absolutely right that this is one system and it needs to behave as such. I recently had the privilege of visiting the Greater Manchester local criminal justice board, and I saw an outstanding example of cross-working in the criminal justice system. Prevention is better than cure, and so much of the investment we see in policing, but also the reform in the policing reform Bill, which will bring so many officers out from behind their desks and onto the streets in neighbourhood policing, will mean that we can prevent so much crime and intervene before so much of that behaviour becomes problematic.
Sir Ashley Fox
On prevention being better than cure, would the Minister care to comment upon the reduction in provision of prison education before she concludes her remarks?
Sarah Sackman
Prison education is vital, and I have seen some fantastic examples of it, in particular on a recent visit to High Down. Prison education can take many forms, such as vocational training and education in a conventional sense. In some senses, the bigger question is how do we make our prisons safe? There is no point in having outstanding education—I agree with the hon. Member that it is important; I do not think we disagree on this—if drones are bringing drugs and contraband into prisons, as he pointed out, and if prisons are overcrowded. If that is the case, it is almost impossible to deliver and see the benefit of that education. The fact that this Government are prioritising, through a £40 million investment, a drone prevention programme, that we are building new prisons that are fit for people to live in and receive that education, is a choice that makes sense and that, as I said, prevents so much of the problem.
Violence reduction units, the prison reform Bill, and the workforce plan that the Home Office has put forward are all part of the choice—I return to that theme—that the Government make, whether on policing, courts, prisons, or probation. We choose to fix the mess, and when we see a problem we make the choices required to fix it. Investment, modernisation and reform: the contrast between that and the choices that Opposition Members made when in government could not be starker. We must now give the plan a chance to work.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown to wind up the debate briefly.
Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Sarah Sackman ExcerptsTuesday 28th April 2026
(5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Courts and Tribunals Bill 2024-26 View all Courts and Tribunals Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 April 2026 - (28 Apr 2026)
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I wish to make some brief remarks. I am keen to see suggestions of alternative approaches, but we have to be careful when it comes to discounts for guilty pleas, because there is a balance to be struck from the perspective of victims and complainants. We do not want to be in a situation where they feel that justice is undermined, particularly given the many other things the Government are doing to reduce the punitive element of the justice system.
I am sure the Committee will know that thousands of serious violent sexual offenders will be getting reductions in their prison time. For example, two thirds of those sent to prison every year for rape will have their prison time reduced, and more than 90% of those sentenced for child grooming offences and similar offences will have their prison time reduced to one third. We are already seeing appalling erosions of the punitive element of the justice system by the Labour Government; I would be wary about doing anything that adds to that.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden for speaking to the new clause. As she knows, an early guilty plea avoids the need for a trial, shortens the gap between charge and sentence and, crucially, can save victims and witnesses from the concern of having to give evidence.
Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts found that
“guilty pleas are being entered later and later”
in the process. It found that
“in 2016, approximately 25% of defendants who pleaded guilty to all counts prior to trial did so at or after their third pre-trial hearing”,
compared with 35% in 2024. That reflects the decline in the efficiency and the increase in delays in the criminal courts. Sir Brian made it clear that that was contributing to the backlog and, in turn, creating a “feedback loop” of perverse incentives for defendants. There are, then, clearly benefits to ensuring that those who intend to plead guilty do so at the earliest possible opportunity.
For those reasons, it has long been the practice of the criminal courts to give a reduction in sentence when an offender pleads guilty earlier in the process. The level of sentence reduction that the court can give on a guilty plea is currently set out in sentencing guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council. In his review, Sir Brian made a number of recommendations relating to early guilty pleas, including a recommendation to increase the maximum reduction in sentence for a guilty plea from 33% to 40%, which new clause 1 seeks to implement.
However, we must maintain the right balance between the benefits to the system obtained by the making of early guilty pleas and ensuring that offenders are appropriately punished for their crimes. Sir Brian also notes that increasing the maximum sentencing discount for early guilty pleas could increase the
“risk of pressure being brought to bear on defendants to plead guilty, who might not otherwise have done so.”
It is therefore important that we consider whether there are alternative ways to encourage early guilty pleas, as opposed to increasing the level of maximum sentence discount.
We are not convinced that a further discount will work to incentivise the behaviours that we desire in the system, not least because other matters play their part in incentivising an early guilty plea, or the opposite. They include the nature of the offence, whether a defendant is remanded or released on bail, and the level of early engagement by the prosecution and defence in advancing case progression. We consider all those things as alternative factors that drive defendant behaviour. Most importantly, the punishment must be appropriate to the offence in question, and we think the new clause would cut against that.
We are currently carefully reviewing Sir Brian’s remaining recommendations, alongside part 2 of his review, and we will set out our full detailed response to that review in due course. For those reasons, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden to withdraw the clause.
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Specialists courts for sexual offences and domestic abuse cases
“(1) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations establish specialist courts for cases relating to sexual offences and domestic abuse.
(2) Any case heard in a court established under subsection (1) must be conducted with a jury and specialist judge.
(3) Additional guidance or directions may be formulated by the judiciary in relation to—
(a) the nature and dynamics of behaviour including—
(i) coercive control, and
(ii) honour-based abuse;
(b) best practice in hearing cases involving violence against women and girls, including ensuring fair and trauma-informed proceedings.
(4) Regulations under this section must make provision for such courts to have specialist facilities for alleged victims.
(5) The Lord Chancellor must take reasonable steps for any necessary resources for judicial, administrative and legal support, including advisors, prosecution and defence, to be made available to operate such courts.
(6) Any case heard by a court established under subsection (1) must be subject to such considerations regarding—
(a) time limits for case preparation,
(b) fixed dates for trial, and
(c) third party material review and disclosure,
as the Lord Chancellor may by regulations specify.
(7) Regulations under this section must include provision for the prioritised listing and progression of hearings and trials for such cases in such specialist courts, including the prioritisation of cases where the defendant is on bail.
(8) Regulations in this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”—(Yasmin Qureshi.)
This new clause would establish specialist courts for sexual offences and domestic abuse cases, with those cases heard by a specialist judge and a jury. It makes further provision including for victim support, and to prioritise cases where a defendant is bailed.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I will speak on new clause 6, new clause 25 and, in particular, new clause 2 tabled by the hon. Member for Warrington North. Her proposal represents the genuine structural reform that victims of sexual violence and domestic abuse have long been promised and too long denied—the radical change that the Labour party proposed when in opposition and in fighting the last election. I acknowledge the hon. Member’s extraordinary courage in waiving her anonymity to speak openly in the Chamber. She revealed how long she had had to wait before going to court and mentioned that every single one of those days was agony, made worse by having a role in public life that meant that the mental health consequences of her trauma played out in public.
New clause 2 would deliver what this Labour Government themselves pledged in their manifesto: specialist courts for rape and domestic abuse, trauma-informed proceedings, fixed trial dates, and proper support facilities for victims. It would create time limits for case preparation, fixed trial dates and prioritised listings, including for cases where the defendant is on bail, addressing one of the most dangerous and distressing features of the current system.
I remind Government Members that the front cover of the Labour party manifesto featured one word: “Change”. The Government’s supporters and their own Members—and even the Opposition—all thought that would be change for good, not for bad. They thought that it would be change of the sort that was in the manifesto, not restricting jury trials, of which there was no mention in the manifesto. Public confidence in this place is at an all-time low. If Governments win elections with manifesto pledges and then ignore those pledges or offer diluted concessions that go not so very far, they lose the confidence of the public. It is so fundamental, and it is such an important moment in our democracy. Governments have to live by what they said they would do. Here is the Government’s chance to do so.
Rather than diluting the right to jury trial, as the Bill’s central provisions would do, new clause 2 proposes a better answer to the backlog: courts established specifically for sexual offences and domestic abuse cases, with specialist knowledge and resources to handle them properly. The Liberal Democrats believe, as I think do many Government Members, that victims of sexual violence and domestic abuse deserve a justice system designed with their needs in mind, not one that treats their cases as scheduling problems to be managed and uses a pretext for restricting jury trials.
Sarah Sackman
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden for speaking to new clause 2, the hon. Member for Chichester for tabling new clauses 6 and 23, and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for tabling new clause 25. Before I turn to new clause 2, I will take a moment, as others have done, to acknowledge the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North, and to thank her for having the courage to share her experiences on this issue in the Chamber in order to drive forward change for victims of sexual violence. I think all of us remember the moment when she gave her speech in the Chamber—you could have heard a pin drop. That obviously took considerable personal courage. Hearing from her then, and subsequently when we have spoken about how she feels the system let her down, has been invaluable in shaping my thinking on the issue.
New clause 2 has catalysed the debate about how our criminal justice system treats those who have experienced rape and serious sexual violence. The hon. Member for Wimbledon made a powerful speech about the Labour party manifesto. It contained a commitment, which we have been driving forward, to halve violence against women and girls. Let me be absolutely clear. Our manifesto commitment to introduce specialist courts for rape and sexual offences has never changed. It has not been watered down, and our commitment to it has not wavered. The Minister for Victims and I, as well as others across Government, have been putting in place the foundations to deliver those specialist courts.
It is important to note that that change and the efforts to drive down the delays right across our criminal justice system are not mutually exclusive, because we need to deliver change for all victims of crime. Those two things are not an either/or. While it is true that the proposals, which build on the recommendations of the independent review of the criminal courts, are not in the Labour party manifesto, I also believe, as I have said before, that to govern is to choose. When we see a problem in any public service—when we see a backlog of over 80,000 cases, and cases being listed into 2030—we could say, “Well, we didn’t specify in our manifesto how we were going to fix it; we’ll just get on with everything that was in our manifesto and turn a blind eye.” I am not prepared to do that.
I want to be absolutely clear with the Committee, and with Parliament in general, that the two things are not mutually exclusive. We can deliver both specialist courts for victims of rape and the necessary changes that I have contended for to drive down the backlogs and delays that are denying justice to defendants and victims right across our criminal justice system.
Mr Kohler
While I concede that the black hole might not have been foreseeable, the fact that there was a backlog in the courts was clearly foreseeable. The idea that the Government came into power and then suddenly realised there was a backlog is implausible.
We are two years into this Government. The change that was promised is long delayed and people are losing confidence—we see that. This point crosses political boundaries. The public are losing confidence in our democratic processes, and change delayed is change denied.
Sarah Sackman
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I will make two points in response. First, the full extent of the crisis in our criminal justice system was not apparent. It was not apparent in prisons, when we opened the car bonnet on day one and essentially found prisons at breaking point. That obviously interacts with courts, because if we are sentencing people and there is simply nowhere to put violent criminals, we have a pretty serious problem on our hands. The full extent of the crisis in our courts was not apparent either, and we need to have a solution that meets the moment. That is what this Bill is.
Secondly, I strongly refute the suggestion that we have been sitting on our hands; rather, we have been putting in place the building blocks and ingredients of a specialist court. We are rolling out trauma-informed training not just for our specialist judges but for every member of the court staff—that is in train. We are changing the way that evidence is dealt with, as we debated on clauses 8 to 11. We are investing £6 million in the introduction of independent legal advisers for victims of rape as they go through that process. We are committing more than £500 million to victim support, some of which will cover victims of rape and sexual offences. I would argue that that is far from change denied. I would call that change in train, which will deliver a transformation for victims of rape in this country.
Dr Mullan
The Minister is in danger—there is a bit of a pattern here—of wanting to have things both ways. She is suggesting that waiting for Brian Leveson’s review, and the parliamentary time and effort going into the legislation, has had no impact or delay on the measures regarding specialist rape courts, which were in the Government’s manifesto and they could have just got on with from day one. That really stretches credibility.
The Government must accept the consequences of their decisions. If they have decided that the erosion of jury trials is the way forward, they should just say that and accept that there has been a negative consequence on their manifesto commitment to introduce rape courts. The Minister cannot say, “We’re pretty much doing what we would have done anyway, and this is all fantastic from both sides of the paper.” It is really not.
Sarah Sackman
Once again, I strongly reject that suggestion. The two things are not mutually exclusive: wanting to bring in measures that speed up justice for every victim in the criminal justice system and building the foundations for a specialist court.
Let us get back to basics. What is a specialist court? What are we talking about? I have discussed this with my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North. A specialist court prioritises a type of offence to address the timeliness issue. It guarantees special measures. Again, we have debated provisions in Committee about how we ensure the consistent guarantee of special measures in whichever Crown court in the country a rape trial occurs. Thirdly, it is a court in which not just those who are adjudicating and directing juries, but those who are supporting the participants, are trauma-informed, as that is how we now in contemporary society understand that evidence needs to be treated. That training is in train.
Those are the essential ingredients of a specialist court. Those are the building blocks. We guarantee them not just in this Bill but through the funding of training and the measures being implemented in our courts. That is really important, but it does not have a bearing on the overall backlog problem. It prioritises those cases, as we recognise them being among the most serious with some of the most acute trauma, but it does not deal with the huge backlog delays for other forms of violent crime and other types of crime.
Siân Berry
The Minister and I have both talked about making choices. The brass tacks are that the Minister has chosen to make huge changes to our court processes, but not to introduce this change in the Bill. There is still the chance to introduce measures into the Bill on Report and make different choices. Will she consider that?
Sarah Sackman
We are making those choices. The difference is that we do not need legislation to make those choices. We have made those choices, including the commitment of money to fund independent legal advisers, trauma-informed training and victim support. We have made those decisions. We have put those building blocks in place. We do not need legislation to deliver specialist courts. I had this discussion yesterday with the Victims’ Commissioner. We do not need legislation.
I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of the new clause. How could I not? It is in our manifesto. We are taking action to deliver it. We do not need the new clause to deliver it—that is the point. I will come shortly to its unworkability, but I will not take from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion or anyone else the suggestion that we have not been making the choices to deliver on our commitment to halve violence against women and girls.
Sarah Sackman
I am going to make some progress.
As I said, and as I discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North, I assure the Committee that the principle behind this proposal is recognised by the Government. I agree with my hon. Friend on her assessment of what is needed: swifter justice and prioritisation so that victims do not wait years for their day in court; specialist staff and judges who are trained in these kinds of cases; and properly equipped courtrooms that support victims and witnesses to deliver their best evidence with dignity.
Jess Brown-Fuller
The Minister talks about the practice of floating trials or over-listing, which we know is so harrowing for victims, who get themselves ready for a case only for it to not go ahead. Quite often they are not told that they have a floating case or that their case has been listed; they are just told that their case has been adjourned and that they will be provided with a new date.
If we look at the data for the number of cases that fell at the last hurdle in 2024, we see that there were 444 where the prosecution advocate failed to attend; 314 where the defence advocate failed to attend; 209 where the prosecution advocate engaged in another trial; and 186 linked to prison transport delays, although I would argue that that number is much higher because of the way they are recorded. How does the Minister square the circle of trying to speed up the process while asking the judiciary not to over-list, which could cause the number of courts that are sitting empty each day to go up, because when a case falls that Crown court will then be empty?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Lady asks a really good question. The point about ineffective trials is one of the greatest sources of both delay and waste in the system. She is right that last year over 1,000 trials were ineffective on the date of trial. That means that everyone had turned up except for one element, and the hon. Lady cited a number of the missing elements. That is why I do not take issue with the data presented by the Institute for Government, but I do take issue with its remedy. As the IFG itself points out, one of the greatest drivers of those ineffective trials is workforce pressures—the fact that we do not have enough prosecutors and defence barristers.
We are constantly being hit with the criticism that there are courtrooms lying empty. That slightly misrepresents the problem—sometimes we need that spare capacity in a court—but it is not entirely untrue. Part of that is about not just sitting days but system capacity and workforce. Building that workforce back up will take time. That is why the Government’s investment in criminal legal aid and match funding for pupillages is crucial, as is the record settlement that the CPS received. Building up the workforce to meet the demand and reduce the number of ineffective trials is so important.
The hon. Member for Chichester made an important point about the interaction between the measures we are discussing, the desirability of reducing the number of floating trials because of the impact of late adjournments, and the need for some agility and flexibility, which is why listing is a judicial function in individual Crown courts. Some parties might be ready to go, and they will want to get the trial on sooner, so we want to allow for some flexibility to enable that. It is not about watering down all the special measures that might be needed to support best evidence, but about where it is desirable to have some agility.
In that vein, the Government’s piloting of an AI, data-driven listing tool, which has been tested in Preston and Isleworth and is showing early positive results, will be crucial. I have seen the tool, and it allows us, based on certain factors in a case, to get a pretty rich understanding of how long it is likely to last. It works in much the same way as an NHS appointment: if somebody cancels because they are not well enough to go ahead with a surgery, but everybody else is ready—including the team, the doctors and the hip surgeon—can they pull in someone else on the waiting list? The tool will allow us to do the same kind of thing, building on some of the know-how from NHS appointment systems. We want to retain some agility while, at the same time, having a consistent approach to prioritising cases.
We want to see rape cases prioritised in the national listing model, because of the vulnerability of the witnesses involved and how pernicious delays can be, and we want to drive out floating trials, but there has to be some flexibility in the system. One thing we must guard against—this is why we have to think really carefully about when legislation is needed and when it is not—is creating a situation where the intent might be absolutely right, but we inadvertently create inflexibility by legislating.
In this case, we should not legislate in this way out of respect for the separation of powers and the constitutional dividing line between the executive and the judiciary, but there are other reasons why we might not want to legislate—for example, if it would lead to inflexibility and counterproductive results that go against the interests of some complainants in rape trials. That was a slightly long-winded answer, but I hope it gives the Committee a sense of how much is going on in the justice firmament that is not legislative but represents real progress for citizens in this country who have the misfortune of encountering the criminal justice system.
New clause 23 would require the Lord Chancellor to undertake a review of how the reforms impact the way RASSO cases are handled. It is not right for victims to continue to pay for the crisis in our courts, particularly in respect of delays. We know that victims of rape are facing, on average, a wait of over 400 days for trial, and we know that a large proportion of the outstanding caseload—around 20%—is made up of sexual offences. We need to drive down that backlog, why is why I have said that reform measures are needed. There is no doubt that, if these reforms receive Royal Assent, the Ministry of Justice, the Justice Committee and others will look to measure the impact they are having. I urge the hon. Member for Chichester not to press new clause 23 to a vote.
In a similar vein, new clause 25 seeks to introduce specialist courts, which I have already spoken about. I hope I could not have been clearer that the Government remain committed to this enterprise and to our manifesto commitment. However, the introduction of such courts does not require primary legislation. In essence, we are getting on with it, regardless.
One thing I have already mentioned is providing trauma-informed training to all court staff, which will be available from this spring. Again, there is change happening right now in our courts, irrespective of what happens with the Bill. That is happening as we speak, and it will be a real step change. It is something for which victims groups have been calling for a very long term, and which I hope and believe will improve the experience of going to court for victims of sexual offences.
I sincerely thank all Members who have tabled new clauses in this space. It is important—and, frankly, a welcome opportunity—for me, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and others to talk about how we are galvanising these different initiatives within our criminal justice system. We want to deliver the specialist courts that we promised, to drive forward progress and to encourage our judiciary to be front-footed and progressive in its listing practices, but this is not mutually exclusive with the reforms in the Bill designed to drive down the backlog; it is a question of both/and, not either/or. I thank hon. Members for raising these important issues, but I urge them not to press their new clauses to a vote.
The Chair
I remind Members that you will be able to decide later whether to press new clauses 6, 23 and 25 to a vote; you do not need to do that now.
I understand that you want to come back in, Kieran. I do not want to make a habit of that. I will allow it, because new clauses have been tabled from across the Committee and I can see that this is a very significant subject, but, in fairness to the Minister, I do not think other Members should come back in once she has spoken. I will make an exception this time, but please be brief.
The Chair
Fair enough. I therefore turn to Yasmin Qureshi—you can speak now if you wish to.
Dr Mullan
The Minister is correct. That is the only time I have referred to it more broadly; I have been consistent throughout in saying that it is a system with significantly less access to jury rights than there is at present. There is a third way: to take the path towards operational excellence and better placed resourcing. We should not trade a centuries-old right for a 1.5% efficiency gain on a Government spreadsheet.
Sarah Sackman
I thank the hon. Member for Chichester for tabling new clauses 3 and 4, which seek to extend Crown court sitting hours, including the possibility of running two separate sessions per day, and enabling multiple cases to be heard in a single courtroom each day. In the same vein, amendments 59, 35 and 36, tabled by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, also call for a consultation on extending sitting hours in the Crown court, funding for 130,000 sitting days and a consultation on increased sitting days.
As colleagues know, the Government have funded Crown court sitting days to record levels, and we are funding unlimited sitting days in the new financial year. That means that there is no financial constraint on the hours that Crown courts can sit. They can sit for as many days as possible within capacity constraints. That offers complete flexibility in Crown court centres to hear as many cases as possible. That represents real progress, and has been welcomed by Members on both sides of the House, the Bar and judges.
But we cannot immediately increase capacity to 130,000 sitting days. That is not just a question of funding. Court capacity is not just about the rooms; it depends on judges, barristers, solicitors and court staff. We cannot 3D print those. We predict that sitting at unlimited levels next year will allow us to sit for 117,000 or 118,000 days, but we are not yet ready to ratchet up to 130,000 sitting days. That is the figure referred to in Sir Brian Leveson’s review, but he acknowledged that, even in the medium term, we will not get there. I say that because, although it is part of the Government’s ambition to grow capacity in the Crown court to meet the incoming demand and put the system on a sustainable level, the fact that we will not get there, even in the medium term, means that all those impacted by the cases sitting in the backlog—defendants on remand and potential victims—are left waiting.
The lifting of the cap on sitting days is highly significant and is part of the investment lever that we all agree is needed to get our Crown court back on its feet. However, the central insight of the independent review of criminal courts is that that investment alone will not be enough, because even when we remove the limit on sitting days we cannot get to 130,000 sitting days because of capacity constraints. Extending hours alone does not increase the underlying capacity. Extending sitting hours or attempting to run multiple trials per day risks, I would argue, reducing time for case preparation, potentially increasing ineffective and cracked trials, and then potentially worsening delays rather than improving them.
Sarah Sackman
Well, during covid courts did operate with extended and flexible arrangements, but those were temporary measures, under exceptional conditions, dealing with reduced volumes. By the way, to the point made by the hon. Member for Chichester, the reduction in the hearing time in a sitting day—now under four hours—concerns me greatly. That loss of time aggregated over the 117,000-odd sitting days adds up and is hugely significant. But where HMCTS conducted pilots of increased and flexible sitting hours, it found that increasing hours alone delivered limited gains. There was also, at the time, substantial opposition from the Bar, because although we are primarily concerned with the hearing time, because that is where progress is driven in a trial, all the case preparation—whether that is judicial, reading the papers, or the preparation time that is needed by the barristers and the prosecution—needs to be factored in. Extending sitting hours sounds like a good remedy to this problem, but we do not think it provides a solution, because time needs to be afforded to enable proper case preparation, so that when we do get on with a trial we can crack on with a hearing.
Dr Mullan
I intervened when the Minister said she thought that extending sitting hours would make things worse. When I asked her to explain that, she then said that she thought the benefit would be minimal. That is a different point. Given that we have said there should be an extensive consultation to figure out all those things, so that it appeals to people, such that that they will want to take part in these extended sitting hours, why would it make things worse? If people are willing to do it, I just do not see the logic of that point.
Sarah Sackman
As I have said, we have precedent. The pilots showed that there was precious little improvement. Extending sitting hours might make things worse if, for example, one is stuck in extended hours on one trial, meaning that one is not available to be in other parts of the country.
Mr Kohler
Is the Minister talking about extending one trial over more hours? Surely the solution is having two trials in parallel. I do not know whether the Minister has ever been on a jury; I have been on a jury three times. It is very difficult for jury members, particularly non-lawyers, to listen to evidence for more than four hours. Currently they might do five, or five and a half hours in a day, and that is difficult for them. The idea of a trial in the morning and a trial in the afternoon running in parallel, separately, is better for jury members and for the system, and addresses many of the Minister’s concerns, does it not?
Sarah Sackman
We heard evidence from Sir Brian Leveson about how in his earlier years sitting in the Crown court it was not unusual to hear a couple of trials in a day. One of his insights was that part of the changing nature of what we are grappling with here is that Crown court trials are just taking longer. That ability to hear multiple trials within the court day has been impeded by the fact that trials are taking longer because of the nature of the evidence and the procedural safeguards. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about multiple trials. It important to note that the Lord Chancellor has a power under section 78(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to determine when the Crown court sits. The amendment is not necessary with regard to needing to change primary legislation in order to change sitting hours.
Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Sarah Sackman ExcerptsTuesday 28th April 2026
(5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Courts and Tribunals Bill 2024-26 View all Courts and Tribunals Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 April 2026 - (28 Apr 2026)
Yasmin Qureshi
I take your ruling and guidance, Dr Huq. I was trying to explain it because the disparities are important and the issue does affect people. I ask the Government to think about new clauses 32 and 33, because they will hopefully have an impact on joint enterprise. I will not press them to a vote.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
This group contains a number of new clauses, and I want to make sure that I address all the principal themes.
New clause 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Chichester, relates to publishing targets for reducing court backlogs. It would require the Lord Chancellor to set and publish targets for reducing court backlogs, and to report annually to Parliament on progress. It is important to note that the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service are downstream Departments, by which I mean that we are subject to demand pressures that are not fully within our control as they are driven by additional arrests and charging decisions. We have published our central demand forecasts, on which the Department’s impact assessment and modelling is based, but the fluctuation and uncertainty in demand makes it particularly challenging for us to set a fixed, specific target.
In the absence of credible reforms, targets will not achieve much. I can tell the hon. Member for Chichester in general terms that we want to get back to a sustainable position. Some Members have referred to reverting to our position before the covid pandemic, which was when we saw the exponential rise in the backlogs. However, I do not want to put a figure on it, because that would simply not be achievable, and having targets that we know we cannot achieve is setting ourselves up to fail, and it lacks credibility.
In the independent review of the criminal courts, Sir Brian Leveson made a series of recommendations related to how performance management and accountability across the criminal justice system could be strengthened. We are looking carefully at those recommendations, particularly in respect of whether we ought to establish a performance oversight board, in addition to the governance forum that already exists. Sir Brian recommends that such a board should monitor and report on the performance of local criminal justice boards and publish a shared set of performance measures. As I have said, we will be publishing our response to the second part of Sir Brian’s review shortly.
Performance management, and monitoring our success in reducing the court backlogs, is essential. Within Parliament, we have the scrutiny provided not only by shadow Justice Ministers, as well as all parliamentarians, but by the Justice Committee, which provides rigorous scrutiny on a cross-party basis. Of course, we also have the regular, frequent publication of Crown court data. Although those targets are not specified, no one is pushing at them harder than the Ministry of Justice and myself, and that is what the Bill primarily targets. However, we do not think that it is necessary to publish specific targets in the legislation, and I ask the hon. Member for Chichester not to press new clause 5 to a vote.
New clause 17, and to some extent new clause 13, touches on efficiencies. It suggests that we ought to review efficiencies before we embark on reform. Indeed, the hon. Member for Reigate and others have made this argument during the debate: do the efficiency first, and see whether it works, before engaging in reform. I want to address that argument head on. We have been clear from the start that there is no silver bullet or simple panacea to the backlog. The insight of the independent review of the criminal courts is that we need investment, efficiencies and reform, and we are not ducking the need to drive efficiencies. One of the areas where I think we all agree is the fact that the system is incredibly inefficient, and the backlog itself compounds that inefficiency, but we are not waiting for legislation to drive at that efficiency reform.
A number of other Members and I have mentioned relevant measures, and I want to touch on a few. For example, the blitz courts have been in operation in London since April, and I am going to visit one in a couple of weeks. That highly effective model of very aggressive listing has had success in the past, and it is being used to drive down certain case types in the backlog, such as assault against an emergency worker. We also need a consistent and clear approach to national listing, such as using the AI listing assistant that I referred to earlier.
We are gripping the issue of prisoner delivery right across the country. Lord Timpson and I have established an oversight board, bringing together representatives of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, and the prisoner escort and custody service. It is a year-long project—a sprint, as it were—to look at how we can drive improved performance under the existing contract, and how we can imbed digital solutions to make that run much more efficiently.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I appreciate the work the Minister is doing with the Prisons Minister. Can she explore something that has been reflected to me by court staff and judges working in the system? The PECS contract will say that it is delivering 99% of prisoners on time, and refer to the data that shows how many times PECS has delayed a case. But, because of the way we record the data in HMCTS, if a judge knows that the prisoner is not going to arrive until 11 am, they will make a decision not to sit until 12 pm. That is recorded as a judge’s decision, rather than reflecting that the reason for the delay is that the defendant has not been delivered to the court on time. Will the Minister take that away and work out whether there is a way of analysing and scrutinising the data slightly differently from how the PECS contract will try to explain it?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. There is a mismatch between the performance data that PECS has recorded and the qualitative evidence that one hears from barristers and the judicial office as to the time that is being lost because prisoners are not being produced on time. One of the things we discussed in the first meeting of the oversight board was that we need to have a shared understanding of the data and how we capture it.
Another important theme, which we will come to in respect of another new clause, is remote hearings. Clearly, while we absolutely need to improve and speed up the operation of prisoner transport, and initiatives like opening up bus lanes are all to the good, we also have a demand issue. If we want to reduce the demand for prisoner transport, unless it is needed to further the interests of justice, one way to alleviate some of the pressure is to make greater use of remote hearings. This kind of cross-agency working and grip, with ministerial attention, as well as taking soundings and engaging with the Bar, which sees the effects every day, is going to be really important.
We are expanding case-progression functions and case co-ordinators to every Crown court; introducing staff with delegated judicial powers to focus on progressing cases; and sorting out problems that would otherwise take up judges’ time and reduce the hearing time that we spoke about earlier. All those things are under way and will drive at the problem. But I want to be honest with the hon. Member for Reigate, and others who maintain the argument that we should make the efficiencies and have the uncapped sitting days and the investment before we trouble ourselves with reform.
I am a realist, and when I look right across Government, questions of efficiency and productivity challenge our public services all the time. Of course we want our systems to be more efficient, and so we should—the taxpayer deserves nothing less—but we have the insight of the independent review, and our own modelling, which assumes that we have maximalist investment coupled with 5% efficiency gains year on year, and those two things together will not reduce the backlog. They temper it and dampen it down, but they do not cut into it. Assuming efficiency gains above 5% year on year would be optimistic for the system. If it were easy to do, previous Governments would no doubt have achieved it. I am not going to assume more than a 5% efficiency gain, because to do so would be setting ourselves up to fail.
This is probably the area where I take issue with the Institute for Government, because although it accepts, in broad terms, the time savings that can be made through our reform package—I understand that Members will say, “The assumptions are highly uncertain” and all the rest of it—it assumes that we can revert to the efficiency levels that existed pre-pandemic. It essentially assumes an efficiency gain of between 18% and 20% practically overnight, and I simply do not think that that is achievable.
Of course we want to drive improvements in prisoner transfer. Of course we hope that case co-ordinators will get the systems going through, and that blitz courts will work, particularly in London, where things are most acute. But I am not prepared to assume that all that will cumulatively amount to efficiency gains of more than 5% year on year, because we have all seen the lessons, not just from the criminal justice system but right across public services, in respect of how difficult efficiencies are to achieve.
That is why we are pulling every lever—not just the investment or the efficiency drive but the structural reforms—so that the investment is going into a reformed, modernised system that takes the decision to reallocate work to the magistrates court, where we know that cases are dealt with in a more timely and proportionate fashion, and out of the Crown court. That is what all these reforms amount to.
I know the establishment of the Crown court bench division keeps being cited because it will make a 2% saving, but we estimate that the package of measures taken together will make a 20% saving, because of the combined effect of the changes to magistrates courts’ sentencing powers and the magistrates retaining more work. We are pulling every lever because, when we combine all three levers, that will get the backlog down in the timeframe that the Deputy Prime Minister has set out in his various statements.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is wonderful to hear the Minister’s enthusiasm for the changes, but if she is so confident that they will deliver that benefit, why was she not willing to start with a pilot, or even agree to a sunset clause?
Sarah Sackman
I do have confidence in the changes. Look at the levers in the Government’s gift: we can get more money for the system—tick. We can try to drive performance and govern the system to be more efficient—we are doing everything we can, but I refuse to be over-optimistic about that. The other lever I can pull is reform, based on the recommendations we have had. The hon. Lady asks me why we are not piloting, being more cautious or waiting for the efficiencies to work themselves through the system rather than running all these things in parallel, and I simply say: look at the crisis we are in, and look at the extent of the problem.
If I were to wait for that 5% to play out year on year, even with maximalist investment, I cannot say that we would get the backlog down in 20 or 30 years. I do not know if we would ever get it back down, because our modelling shows that it is insufficient. That is the conclusion that Sir Brian Leveson drew and it is supported by our impact assessment. It is why we have to act for the people stuck in the system now, with their cases being listed until 2030.
I have drawn on healthcare analogies a number of times in this debate, as have others. The NHS, for example, is an institution that always needs more funding—we are all living longer, and some of the conditions we are facing are more and more complex—but we do not keep pouring money into an unreformed system. Here, we are saying, “Let’s reform the system, get it working better and more efficiently, and give it a chance to succeed by equipping it not just with the investment in terms of sitting days, but with the capital investment, too.”
This is not, I hope, an enthusiastic strategy. I call it the kitchen-sink strategy, because I am trying to throw everything at it to achieve the real-time goal of bringing down these backlogs. When we announced these plans and the timeframe for when we expected to see the backlogs come down, even with these bold and radical plans, the argument I was met with was, “My goodness, you’re not getting the backlog down until 2035,” and we are pushing to see if we can make that date sooner and pulling at every lever we have.
I understand that this Department is going to be judged on whether we turn the corner on the backlog in this Parliament, and whether we see it start to come down in enough time, so that victims of crime and defendants on remand can start to feel it in this Parliament and certainly early into the next. That is the essay question I set myself, and we asked for a comprehensive, evidence-based answer from an independent review. It told us that we could not pick and choose our levers; we need to use all three, and that is what these measures are designed to drive at. That is the best explanation I can give for why we say that, while efficiency and investment are hugely important and necessary, they alone are not sufficient. We need the reforms in clauses 1 to 10.
New clauses 32 and 33, which were tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Bolton South and Walkden, rightly highlight the disparities in outcomes that we see across our criminal justice system, and the questions about the trust and confidence that many minoritised communities have in the system. We had a constructive debate on this issue last week, generated by new clause 29, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington.
As I said then, the Government are listening carefully, not only to the Committee but to stakeholders that represent those communities impacted every day by questions of racial inequality in the criminal justice system. We remain committed, during a later stage of the Bill’s passage, to tabling a Government amendment on a review that will cover all the things that we believe are necessary, including consideration of the impacts of our criminal justice system not just on black and minority ethnic groups but on those from working-class backgrounds. Given that commitment, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden not to press the new clauses to a vote.
New clause 13 touches on efficiencies, on which I have already set out my arguments, and also addresses questions of public trust in the system. A theme of our debates has been the importance of public trust in our criminal justice system. Even those who do not directly interface with the criminal justice system need to know that it works and is there if they need it.
There are two essential elements to sustaining public trust, the first of which is transparency. We have spoken about this a lot, and I know the hon. Member for Chichester has tabled further new clauses on transcripts. We have spoken a lot about transcripts and the recordings of proceedings in both the magistrates court and the Crown court. I think that opening up the process and making it intelligible to the public is so important, as well as the provision of reasons by judges in the Crown court bench division. Those are all ways in which transparency can play an important part in maintaining public trust.
However, there is another element of public trust: people trust systems that work. If a system ceases to work and breaks down—if someone who reports an assault that they experienced on their way home from the underground station is told that they will receive a court date that is one or two years away—that is the sort of thing that corrodes trust. We can think of myriad ways in which it can happen, but I would suggest that a state failing to deliver the very basics of timely justice is corrosive of trust.
That is why what I am trying to do is not just about efficacy, or being able to say that we now have a properly run criminal justice system; it is about trust and legitimacy. Those questions of trust are true, irrespective of someone’s social background. We say again that the new clause is not necessary, but those questions around public trust in our system are writ large through the Government’s mission, not just in our approach to this legislation, but in our entire approach to restoring our criminal justice system to the state it needs to be in.
Dr Mullan
I wish to speak briefly in support of the principle that different approaches to case management and ways of working are making a difference in a number of areas. The Committee has had extensive back and forth about the fact that backlogs are actually coming down in certain locations. There has been debate about whether that is just a seasonal trend that we see at some points in the year; we will have to wait to see whether that is the case.
We have also spoken about the approach to case management in Liverpool, and this morning I read out various statistics from other courts that are bringing the backlogs down. I think new clause 7 drives at the same point; other measures are already showing benefits before the passage of this legislation, and we should prioritise them.
Sarah Sackman
Let me begin, as we all have in this Committee, by acknowledging the challenges that victims face in accessing the information and support they need. We have talked about the Government’s drive to centre victims in the criminal justice process.
I have a couple of things to say in response to new clause 7. First, there is lots of work under way. For example, on 5 February this year we launched a consultation on a new victims code to ensure that we get the foundations right for victims. Through the connecting criminal justice data programme, we are aiming to strengthen data sharing by seeing how we can both track and share that data with victims, as appropriate. We have published statutory guidance on independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers, recommending best practice for those roles. Of course, we have also begun to roll out the independent legal adviser service for rape victims. We have also undertaken consistent engagement; I met the Victims’ Commissioner just yesterday to discuss some of the ways in which we can marshal the over £500 billion-worth of investment that the Government have made in victims services, so that we can ensure that we have a victim-centred approach.
Case management is ultimately a matter for the judiciary, but taking into account the impact that delays in processes have on victims will of course form an important part of that. I would say that a publication strategy is not a matter best addressed through primary legislation, but I understand the thrust behind the hon. Lady’s proposal, and it is one that we would agree with.
Jess Brown-Fuller
The Minister mentions the increased funding to victims support services, which I know is a really important arm of what the Government are trying to achieve. I would just caution that some of the victims support services that I have spoken to have said that, because of the length of the backlogs and the delays in the current system, the increase in funding has only allowed them to maintain the status quo, because they are now supporting people for much longer, and they are trying to make sure that they stay engaged in the process. It has not allowed them to change up their practices or introduce some of the best practice that they would like to see, just because of the length of time for which they are now supporting victims through the system. I just wanted to get that on the record.
Sarah Sackman
I absolutely recognise what the hon. Lady says. That is why I come back to this: swifter justice for victims is the guiding principle behind all these reforms. As she says, the longer people are stuck waiting for their day in court, the longer they need to be supported. It becomes a vicious cycle, because we must expend more resource on victim support to keep them engaged in the process. It is not just that we do that for longer; it gets harder the longer they are stuck in the backlog. I very much agree with her: I would rather that money were redeployed to enhance what those victim support agencies can do. I do not think primary legislation is the vehicle for it, but I absolutely agree with the sentiment. I urge her to withdraw her new clause.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I am pleased the Minister recognises the Government must go a long way to do more for victims, but it is getting harder for services such as victim support to manage an ever-increasing caseload. I am keen to press this new clause to a vote, because the idea of victim-led case management, which many of the courts are keen to adopt, is a key tenet of improving victims’ experience in the system.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Jess Brown-Fuller
The feeling of the organisations and charities that I have spoken to is that everybody in the judiciary should have the opportunity to go through trauma-informed training and training around violence against women and girls, around coercive control and around recognising and identifying racial bias so we can make sure that every victim is confident—whether they are going through the criminal or the family justice system—that everybody they will come in contact with understands them and the additional support that they may require.
I am sure that the Minister will say that the Government cannot mandate training because the judiciary are independent. New clause 30 aims to make sure that members of court staff, who are employed by His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, receive mandatory and consistent training on trauma-informed practice because they are the people who will support victims and witnesses through the criminal justice system. We clearly need to change our approach. In the evidence session, witnesses described an environment that is hostile to witnesses; we need one that stands up for their interests. Our new clause 30 should be the bare minimum across the courts estate, and represents a position supported by a number of organisations.
Sarah Sackman
I entirely agree that training, in all the respects that the hon. Member for Chichester speaks about, is key, whether it is training on equal treatment or on a trauma-informed approach to rape and serious sexual offences, or specific training pertaining to domestic abuse and identification of coercive and controlling behaviour, or to ensure the consistent application of special measures and evaluation of expert input into trauma-informed practice.
Jess Brown-Fuller
The new clause is consequential on amendment 16. Amendment 16 would require the Government to pilot the removal of the right to elect trial by jury before national implementation and report to Parliament on its impact.
The design of these reforms has not been tested in practice, and there are many different estimations of their impact on the backlog. The Institute for Government’s modelling suggests that that is likely to be around a 7% to 10% reduction in total time taken in the courtroom, with just 1.5% to 2.5% of that coming from the introduction of judge-only trials in the Crown court bench division. The Government’s impact assessment indicates an expected saving of 27,000 Crown court sitting days. That is based on the fact that cases heard in the bench division will reduce the time per hearing by 20%.
That 20% figure is an estimate that Sir Brian Leveson uses in part 1 of his independent report of the criminal courts. He is explicit that, should the Ministry of Justice
“consider pursuing this course of action, it may wish to consider undertaking further detailed analysis in order to understand the potential time-saving fully.”
That figure is based on a different package of reforms. Sir Brian includes the reclassification of some offences and the removal of the right to elect for some low-level figures.
The Government have used the 20% figure as a starting point, which is problematic. It is the number that informs their modelling, but there is no concrete data to prove that this would be the case. Policymaking must always be evidence-led. That imperative is even more urgent when such legislative reforms restrict fundamental rights. Time savings must be considered holistically. With no juries in the bench division, judges will have to provide a reasoned judgment for their decision. The Bill stipulates that this judgment must state the specific reasons for the conviction or acquittal. That represents a change from traditional jury trials, where juries do not provide written or spoken reasons for their verdict. The composition of these judgments will be time consuming for judges, who will have to ensure that their conclusions are legally tight. If the Government truly believe that the reforms laid out in the Bill will genuinely reduce the backlog, they should prove it before making a change to our justice system that we will never see reversed.
Sarah Sackman
We are not going to do a pilot, not because piloting is not a good idea per se, but because a pilot would necessitate legislation, which is why the hon. Lady has proposed it in this way, and because it would lead to a criminal justice system with different models running in parallel. That is okay—that happens with pilots and trying new things, I understand that—but fundamentally we are not piloting the changes to courts because of the extent of the crisis we are in.
We need to bear down on the backlogs. We are satisfied that we have the evidence that the package of reforms will deliver significant time savings in the Crown court to achieve those efficiencies. We think we have struck the right balance between access to jury trial and speeding up the courts. For that reason, we maintain that we do not need to do a pilot here.
We do not have anything against piloting per se, but in a world in which the demands on our criminal justice system are changing, we must keep up. We have thought long and hard, based on independent review. I would suggest that that is an evidence base.
Jess Brown-Fuller
If the Government will not agree to a pilot or to a report that would allow us to scrutinise whether the changes that they have introduced in the Bill actually make a difference to the Crown court, how are Labour and opposition MPs able to scrutinise whether these changes have made a fundamental difference to the backlog, especially if a sunset clause, which I am sure we will get on to shortly, is not included?
I totally recognise Sir Brian Leveson’s eminence and experience—he is right to point that out and has written a very comprehensive report—but people with thousands of years of combined experience within the criminal justice system are saying this will do nothing to reduce the backlog. I therefore would like the Minister’s guidance on how Members from across the House are supposed to scrutinise these decisions to see if they make a difference, if the Government will not agree to things like pilots or reports.
Sarah Sackman
I do not accept that the vast majority of the changes we are introducing are unprecedented; in the main, we are shifting caseload from the Crown court to the magistrates court, and we already have a way of testing that. Trials for either-way offences, some of which are already retained in the magistrates court, give us a direct comparison. People can elect the Crown court, and we can see that those retained in the magistrates court are dealt with more promptly.
We also saw evidence from international comparators, as well as from experienced judges. We think these are the right measures, and not only to deal with the backlog; they also have a normative basis in striking the right balance between defendant’s rights and those of complainants and victims. We think that is right. I understand that the Opposition disagree, but we think, based on the expert review we were provided with, that this is the right package. We do not think there is a need for a pilot, nor is there a need for a sunset clause.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I would still like to press my new clause to a vote, because having a pilot we can refer to, as in the earlier two-trials model, is really important. We should be data and evidence led as a Parliament.
Dr Mullan
I rise to speak briefly in support of the new clause. Whenever we talk about narrowed elements of a transcript, I always think to myself that, in giving these remarks, the judge will hopefully have written them down and not be doing these sorts of things off the top of their head. That is why I struggle to understand why these more limited elements are not more meaningful and easily available.
If a judge does not happen to write these sorts of things down, I do not think it will be much to ask them to do so and to make it so that the transcript can be quickly and easily checked. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Chichester will not press the new clause to a vote, but as she mentioned, in any opportunity we get we should push the issue of transcripts. It is particularly important in relation to, as we will come to talk about, the unduly lenient sentence scheme, because all these things would help somebody, in theory, to give an appeal a shot. If they do not have that sort of thing, it is much more difficult.
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member for Chichester rightly acknowledges the significant amount of work that the Government are currently undertaking in this space, and we had an opportunity to debate that in Committee earlier.
In relation to the new clause, it might be worth briefly explaining why such an extension would not provide significant benefits compared with the systems already in place. In relation to bail decisions, a transcript of the hearing is rarely informative for victims. What victims need and want to know, and what the victims code already requires, is for victims to be informed of the outcome of the bail hearing and any conditions imposed. Those updates are already provided to victims by victim witness care units within five working days. We are currently exploring how responsibilities under the code are being met by the relevant service providers and how to better support them in the delivery of the code. To strengthen that further, once commenced, the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 will introduce a compliance framework, requiring criminal justice bodies to keep their performance against the code under review.
Transcripts of judicial summings-up are unlikely to add significant value for many victims. Those remarks are given before the jury begins to deliberate and are intended to guide them by summarising the evidence and setting out the relevant law. They are not, and cannot be, a reflection of the jury’s decision. Without the full context of the trial, they may risk causing confusion rather than providing clarity. Before being released, summings-up must be manually reviewed to ensure that they are accurate. That, too, is resource intensive. In looking at where we can roll out making transcripts available at either low or no cost, we must target those areas that add value for the public and victims.
As I said when we discussed this last Thursday, we are focused on driving improvement for the longer term. That is why we are undertaking a study in the use of AI to transcribe court hearings. The findings will identify what is possible from AI transcription in a Crown court setting, in considering how to make the provision of transcripts more cost-effective. I think we are in a good place. As the hon. Member for Chichester says, there is more to do, and the Government would be grateful for work across the House to see how we can drive greater transparency in transcription in our Crown courts, but I urge her to withdraw her new clause.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I am happy to withdraw the new clause, on the basis that the Government continue to work on the measures that they have already introduced. Let me quickly put on the record the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who has been campaigning for access to court transcripts for many years. She is delighted that we are now seeing progress. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 13
Report on the effect of the Act on public trust and participation in the criminal justice system
“(1) The Lord Chancellor must commission a report on the effect of the provisions of the Act on public trust and participation in the judicial system.
(2) A report under this section must—
(a) include consideration of the effect of the provisions of the Act on—
(i) witness participation;
(ii) the effect of these reforms on public confidence and trust in the criminal justice system;
(iii) the effect of these provisions on BAME engagement with and trust of the criminal justice system;
(b) contain recommendations for further provision, or changes to delivery of provision under this Act, to increase the levels of each criterion set out in subparagraphs (2)(a)(i) to (2)(a)(iii).
(3) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament—
(a) a copy of a report under this section,
(b) the Lord Chancellor’s response to recommendations made by that report.”—(Jess Brown-Fuller.)
This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to commission, lay, and respond to a report on the effect of the Bill on public trust in the criminal justice system.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Sarah Sackman
The Committee will not be surprised to hear that the Government do not support a sunset clause, for two primary reasons. First, these reforms address a challenge in our system that not only is acute—because of the crisis, which we inherited from the previous Government, that has been allowed to run out of control—but has long-term drivers, meaning that the demand pressures on our court system are not going away.
Of course we want to get the backlog down to a sustainable level, but that will not alleviate the challenges, described in the independent review of the criminal courts, presented by the changing patterns of crime; the procedural safeguards in our system, which mean that trials take longer; advancing technology; and the types of evidence that need to be dealt with. All that contributes to a demand pressure that will be sustained, and Government forecasting shows that that demand will continue to grow. Even once we have the backlogs under control, we will need these reforms to maintain an improved, sustainable position as part of the modernised rebalancing of the workload between Crown court and magistrates court, which is supported not just by the authors of the independent review but by the likes of Lord Ian Burnett, an experienced Lord Chief Justice, who spoke about this in his evidence.
Secondly, as colleagues well know, Parliament is sovereign. We are bringing these reforms forward because we believe they are the right measures to tackle a crisis and modernise our system. People have heard me say this time and again, and I stand by it, but this is about turning a crisis into an opportunity. I have spoken about the ways in which we have seized the opportunity to modernise our system and make it fairer and more sustainable. If future Parliaments think that we did not get it right, they can no doubt pass legislation to change it.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Yasmin Qureshi
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is, in some respects, fairly self-explanatory, in that it provides that cases should not go to the Crown court without being trial-ready. In essence, it is a safeguard —we could call it an oversight amendment—that is linked to the jury trial reforms in the Bill.
The rationale behind the new clause is to reflect concern that the Government are making significant changes by removing or restricting jury trials without strong evidence of impact. It aims to introduce caution, likely through a review, limits or accountability mechanisms. In that respect it is similar to the approach in new clause 27, about piloting, but it is more about ongoing scrutiny than delaying implementation.
We are trying to say to the Government: “If you are going to do this, please prove that it works and build in the safeguards.” That aligns with the position of the Bar Council and others in the light of the argument regarding jury trials. It fits with the fact that the Government are trying to make structural change, but we say that, before they do that structural change, they should look at all these things before cases are sent up to the Crown court. I will not be pressing the new clause to a vote.
Sarah Sackman
Our understanding is that the new clause seeks to improve efficiency by requiring cases to be trial-ready before they are sent to the Crown court. I will explain very briefly how a case is currently prepared for trial in the Crown court and why it is important that that preparation takes place before a judge in the Crown court, as early as possible.
All criminal cases begin in the magistrates court, and indictable offences such as murder must, by law, be sent to the Crown court at the first hearing, after the magistrates have dealt with matters such as identification and bail or remand. At the plea and trial preparation hearing in the Crown court, a professional judge examines the issues between the parties, such as evidence and disclosure issues, and sets a timeline for trial preparation, as well as the trial date. It is also at that point that a formal plea is entered in the Crown court.
There are clear statutory expectations on parties, set out in the criminal procedure rules, to be proactive in case management, and judges are experienced in managing timeliness through enforcement action. However, we recognise that there is always more that can be done, which is why we have effected the roll-out of case co-ordinators in our Crown court to drive case progression. Magistrates are not similarly trained in managing trials on indictment, and we do not think they would be an effective equivalent to a Crown court judge in determining these matters before they reach the Crown court. Requiring cases to be held back until they are considered “ready” prior to being sent to the Crown court would, we believe, risk introducing further delay for the most serious offences.
In addition, retaining such serious cases for longer in the magistrates court could have several unintended consequences, including additional pressures on custody time limits and delays in accessing special measures—measures that enable vulnerable and intimidated witnesses to give pre-recorded evidence at an early stage. Those protections are available across the Crown court but are not all available in the magistrates court, so delaying transfer to the Crown court would delay access to them for some victims and witnesses, potentially undermining the quality of their evidence. The new clause would, in practice, introduce delays into the court system and delay the progression of the most serious cases. For that reason, I urge my hon. Friend to withdraw it.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank the Minister for her response. I have made my points—throughout the Committee’s proceedings, I have been making points about the issue of jury trials—and I will not add anything further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 22
Remote Court Participation: Strategy
“(1) The Lord Chancellor must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a strategy for the use of remote proceedings to reduce the case backlog (‘the strategy’).
(2) The strategy must include—
(a) an assessment of the current use of remote proceedings;
(b) an evaluation of the impact of remote proceedings on the speed of case disposal and the overall reduction of the outstanding caseload;
(c) recommendations on how the principle of open justice can be upheld with the increased use of remote proceedings;
(d) criteria for determining the suitability of proceedings for different forms of remote participation; and
(e) provisions for the security, reliability, and resilience of digital systems used in remote proceedings.
(3) The Secretary of State must, at intervals of no more than 24 months following the laying of the strategy, lay before Parliament a report on progress made against the strategy.
(4) The progress report must consider—
(a) the extent to which the strategy has been implemented;
(b) the impact on the criminal case backlog, including any measures by which that impact has been assessed; and
(c) any further legislative or budgetary provisions to ensure the effectiveness of remote proceedings.
(5) For the purposes of this section, ‘remote proceedings’ means any proceedings in which one or more participants attend by way of live video or audio link.”—(Jess Brown-Fuller.)
This new clause requires the Lord Chancellor to publish a formal strategy for the use of remote proceedings to reduce the case backload in the criminal justice system.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time
Sarah Sackman
I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for this new clause on the unduly lenient sentencing scheme. The ULS scheme is an exceptional power, reserved for the most serious cases, that applies only to offences passed in the Crown court. One of the things that we have seen—this is not an unwelcome development—is its expanded use. What started as an exceptional power used in a handful of exceptional cases has grown in usage as members of the public, their representatives and others who have either experienced crime, or have loved ones who have, take up the ULS scheme in greater numbers. In 2025, the Office of the Attorney General assessed around 1,500 cases.
It is important to focus on what the ULS scheme is and what it is not. It is a legal backstop that rightly sets a hard test. Someone simply not agreeing with or taking issue with the sentence handed down to a particular offender is not, of itself, a basis for challenging it. One needs to show that there has been a gross error in the application of the sentencing guidelines, and that the sentence is manifestly inadequate given the seriousness of the offence.
I understand the points that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle is making. I would, though, draw attention to the fact that the Law Commission is currently undertaking a review of criminal appeals, which includes looking at reforms to the unduly lenient sentencing scheme. The Law Commission is due to publish its report in autumn 2026. I suggest that that is an appropriate moment to look at the operation of the scheme and at what is suggested in the new clause about its current operation as it applies in the Crown court, rather than pre-empting what that report might say and how the Government might think about the scheme’s potential extension to the magistrates court.
I cannot support the new clause at the moment, as it would in effect significantly alter the scope and operation of a power that is supposed to be exceptional. It would make the exceptional the norm. It would entail administrative burdens and goes against the grain of what was intended when the scheme was first conceived. However, I look forward to seeing the Law Commission’s work. That will be the appropriate moment to re-examine how the scheme operates and how it operates in a reformed system. I urge the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Mullan
The Minister opened her remarks by saying that the scheme applies only to certain cases in the Crown court. The point that the Opposition make is that it will no longer apply to some of the cases to which it would apply now. The Minister has given figures. If the scheme is configured in the right way, and sufficiently constrained to just pick up those cases that are moving, it should not necessarily lead to any increase in the number of cases referred, so I do not accept her argument.
I would not expect the Minister to know this—she has given a single set of figures—but I would be interested in the historical trend, and the number of applications in the preceding few years. It would be helpful if she could give those figures. I also want to make clear—I have been quite clear about this with other stuff that we have done on the ULS scheme—I think it is unusual that the scheme is available to absolutely anybody. I would be open to any expansion or modification being constrained just to victims and family members. I think that I have made that clear in relation to other reforms.
That brings me to the Minister’s point about the Law Commission. That was the answer I was given repeatedly over very many months by the Victims Minister as to why the Government would not make reforms to the scheme, yet they accepted such reforms last week as a result of pressure. If the Minister insists that that is the route forward, I ask her to write to the commission. I point out the reforms that the Minister is making, which will not have been in the terms of reference for the Law Commission. At the point at which it started that work, the reforms were not even on the operating table, so it is important that the Government write to the commission and make clear that they would welcome it expanding the matters that it is considering to include this question, which would have been novel to them at the point of that undertaking.
I have learned from our experience with the other element of the ULS that, I am afraid, one should just keep pushing and pushing on such issues, so I will put the new clause to a vote. However, I have given some points on which I ask the Minister to go away and reflect to determine whether there is a way forward that can be satisfactory to both sides of the House at some point in future proceedings.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Mullan
As I have alluded to several times, the Conservative party is considering more broadly how we tackle judicial accountability in all its different elements. It would be premature for us to settle on this new clause if, as the hon. Member for Chichester pointed out, it had to be necessarily narrow to fit in the Bill. On that basis we will not vote for it. We are not against it as an idea, but we need greater time to think about accountability and performance in the justice system in a more comprehensive way.
Sarah Sackman
I agree with the sentiment behind the new clause to ensure that we are monitoring efficiency, effectiveness and performance across our criminal courts system. However, as the shadow Justice Minister just said, the best mechanisms for holding the system to account in terms of performance and judicial accountability merit greater reflection. We are taking the time to consider the IRCC’s recommendations. The hon. Member for Chichester alluded to the history, and that there has previously been an inspectorate of court administration; that of course ceased operation under the coalition Government, who found it unnecessary at the time.
Jess Brown-Fuller
The Minister is absolutely right that it ceased operation, but the report that led to that decision was published under a Labour Government. Does she recognise that that report was actually tabled in 2009, and that it was the coalition Government that carried out the function of the report that the Labour Government put forward?
Sarah Sackman
I think the hon. Member thinks that I rose to make some really brilliant, devastating party political point. I did not; I was just rehearsing the history of how we got here. At the time, the view was taken by those who finally took the axe to the inspectorate that it did not represent value for money and was not working in an effective way. I make that point to say that, if we are going to have an inspectorate that does some of the things we want it to do, or whatever system we alight on, we all want to ensure that it represents value for money and drives better performance. Clearly, the Government of the day did not think that it did.
No inspectorate would have scope to scrutinise judicial decisions. It is also important to say—there have been improvements in this regard—that extensive operational data and metrics, which everyone is welcome to look at, provide an insight into the performance of our criminal courts, whether in terms of case timeliness, conviction rates or sentencing outcomes. That is exactly as it should be.
At this point, my focus is on driving reform, modernisation and the proper delivery of the investment that we are making, rather than on the inspection landscape, but I do not disagree with the sentiment that lies behind the hon. Member for Chichester’s new clause. Getting the mechanism right and taking our time to think about what form it should take, and how it could be properly resourced and as effective as we want it to be is something that we all want to take our time over, so I urge the hon. Member to withdraw her new clause.
Jess Brown-Fuller
In the tradition of the last five days in Committee, I will push the new clause to a vote because I would like to see greater scrutiny of the way that our court system functions.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Sarah Sackman
These clauses are in part 3 of the general provisions of the Bill. They provide the position on the commencement of measures in the Bill, the powers to make consequential, transitional and other provisions in connection with the coming into force of the provisions of the Bill, and the Bill’s territorial extent and short title.
Clause 21 is a technical clause that will allow the Secretary of State to make any further consequential amendments or legislative changes where required to implement the provisions in the Bill. Clause 22 creates a power to allow the Lord Chancellor to make “transitional or saving provisions” by regulation
“in connection with the coming into force of any provision of this Act.”
Clause 23 will allow the Secretary of State to, by regulation, amend the Sentencing Act 2020, so as to specify the cases or purpose for which the amendment or repeal made by the Bill has effect.
Clause 24 allows for regulations under statutory instrument to be made under the Bill once it becomes an Act. The Bill contains nine delegated powers; we have considered the scope and extent of those powers carefully and have taken the decision to include them only where it is necessary, in respect of particularly technical or detailed areas, or to allow flexibility for our legislation to remain up to date and be responsive to changes.
Clause 25 sets out the extent of the Bill. All measures apply to England and Wales only, save in respect of four areas: section 7; section 18(6) and subsection (7); sections 10(4) and 11(8); and part 3. Those four areas have UK-wide extent, except for sections 10(4) and 11(8), which have the same extent at the Armed Forces Act 2006, so that they extend to the UK, the Isle of Man and British overseas territories except Gibraltar.
Clause 26 states that the measures in the Bill will be commenced via regulations on the day that the Secretary of State appoints apart from clauses 21 to 25 and clause 27, which come into force on the day on which the Act is passed, and section 6 and section 20, which come into force at the end of a period of two months beginning with the day on which the Bill is passed. Finally, clause 27 states that the Bill
“may be cited as the Courts and Tribunals Act 2026”
once it becomes an Act of Parliament.
I thank all members of the Committee for the spirit in which they have engaged over the last five days. Some may know the famous line, “I fought the law and the law won.” Some may also know that I have been developing a Spotify soundtrack to get me through the Committee, inspired by some of the interventions. Everyone has not only made this stage constructive and engaging, but given the Government a lot of food for thought as we take the Bill through to the next stage. It will be all the stronger for the contributions that have been made, so I thank everyone for that.
Dr Mullan
I have just one remark to make. I draw the Committee’s attention to the submission we received from the circuit in Wales. Clause 25 is about the territorial extent of the Bill, and the circuit pointed out that it feels the Welsh system has been unfairly caught up in these reforms, which it does not think are applicable in terms of the need to reduce waiting times. It is important that the Committee makes note of the evidence that was submitted to us.
I join the Minister in thanking everybody for their time and deep concentration when listening to the exchanges throughout. I thank the Clerks who have assisted us over the many days, including during a late sitting. I thank the House staff in that regard, and I thank the Minister for the constructive manner in which she has engaged with feedback and proposals from this side of the House.
Sarah Sackman
I commend clauses 21 to 27 to the Committee. I did not specifically mention the House staff and all our wonderful Chairs. I add my thanks to everybody for their hard work. I also thank my team of officials—those watching at home and those in the room—who have worked very hard.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 22 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Contingencies Fund Advance
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I hereby give notice of the Ministry of Justice’s intention to seek an advance from the Contingencies Fund totalling £1.7 million.
This follows the introduction of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, currently going through Parliament, and which we anticipate will receive Royal Assent by autumn 2026.
Accessing the Contingencies Fund allows the Department to manage the expenditure associated with developing a digital system for the Legal Aid Agency to effectively administer the provision of legal aid under the provisions of the Bill, which will expand the scope of legal aid for inquests. This expenditure will ensure that we are able to implement the legal aid provisions of the Bill as quickly as possible following Royal Assent. The expenditure will also mean that we develop this system in a way that ensures the continuing recovery and effective operation of existing legal aid digital systems and protects work under way to deliver transformed digital systems for legal aid.
Parliamentary approval for resource of £1.7 million for this new service will be sought in a main estimate for Ministry of Justice. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £1.7 million will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund. The cash advance will then be repaid upon receiving Royal Assent of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.
[HCWS1543]