Whiplash Reform Programme: Post-Implementation Review and Call for Evidence
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I would like to inform the House that today we are launching a post-implementation review of the whiplash reform programme.
The review will assess the measures introduced in part 1 of the Civil Liability Act 2018. This includes the statutory definition of a whiplash injury, the fixed tariff of damages for whiplash injuries where the duration of the injury, or injuries, does not exceed two years, and the ban on seeking or offering to settle a whiplash claim without medical evidence.
The review will also consider the supporting secondary legislative change to increase the small claims track limit from £1,000 to £5,000 for road traffic accident-related personal injury claims. The impact and effectiveness of the industry owned and operated official injury claim service, introduced to help claimants affected by the reforms, will also be assessed.
To inform the review, we are launching a stakeholder call for evidence today to gather expert opinion, data and evidence on the impact and effectiveness of the whiplash reforms. This call for evidence will run for eight weeks and will close on 22 December 2025.
The responses to the call for evidence will provide vital insight into the effectiveness of the measures in achieving their intended aims. They will be considered alongside data provided by operational partners and other Government Departments to inform the final assessment of the reforms.
We plan to publish the post-implementation review of the WRP in spring 2026.
[HCWS1002]
Civil Justice Council Review of Litigation Funding
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) for securing a debate on this very important subject. It gives me an opportunity to cover three of my favourite themes: consumer protection, access to justice and growth, especially as it is delivered by the very successful legal services sector in this country.
We are here to discuss the Civil Justice Council’s review of litigation funding, which was published in June. As others have said, litigation funding refers to the mechanism by which litigation is privately funded in England and Wales. Third-party funding is where a party unconnected to a dispute, most often a financial institution, funds the cost of the legal action in return for a share of any damages awarded. As others have observed, this performs two functions: a social function and an economic function. Third-party funding is an essential tool in ensuring access to justice for many. It enables those who would not otherwise be able to afford to litigate—ordinary people, the small businesses referred to— to assert their rights before a court of law, against often far better resourced opponents, often large corporations and institutions.
Without third-party funding, as others have noted, the sub-postmasters would not have been able to bring their landmark civil claim against the Post Office. Those individuals without the financial means or legal clout to bring a claim themselves, were able to secure compensation for their losses as a result of third-party litigation funding. Such funding has also been used to support equal pay cases, environmental challenges, consumer claims against multinational companies regarding data breaches, and the other sorts of cases mentioned today.
As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) notes, this also makes a huge economic contribution. Along with the quality and calibre of our judiciary and legal services, third-party funding is an important factor in attracting international business to England and Wales as a jurisdiction of choice. That is because third-party funding is also used in high-value commercial cases, where there is a significant financial imbalance or where parties do not wish to use limited capital resources on legal proceedings.
It is important for the House to recognise that third-party funding plays a critical role in supporting the attractiveness of our jurisdiction as a global hub for commercial litigation and arbitration. Legal services contributed £42 billion to the economy last year. I am happy to be their greatest champion, but it is fair to say that the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in the PACCAR case has created a degree of uncertainty for funders and litigants alike.
As we have heard, the case concerned litigation funding agreements—LFAs. The Supreme Court held that third-party litigation funding agreements were damages-based agreements. The ruling rendered many such LFAs unenforceable, by bringing them into the scope of the regulatory regime for damages-based agreements. As others have noted, that has created a degree of uncertainty. There is a concern and very real risk that funders are beginning to pivot away from London, England and Wales to look at other jurisdictions, such as New York, Paris and Singapore, more favourably. In short, that is not good for UK plc.
The PACCAR judgment and the report of the Civil Justice Council that followed present an opportunity for the sort of debate we are having. What would it look like to reverse PACCAR? Do we want to go back to exactly what the regime looked like before? Can we evolve an even better regime, which provides the right regulatory balance, ensuring access to justice, and that damages-based agreements work for client and funder alike? How do we develop that? For that reason, the Government have taken time to ask the CJC to conclude its work, and we are considering carefully how to achieve that balance.
Third-party funding is currently subject only to self-regulation via the Association of Litigation Funders’ code of conduct. I welcome and echo the invitation by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon to those who are not currently subject to the code’s ethical and operational standards to seize the opportunity to bring themselves within what is currently a voluntary regime.
Despite litigation funding’s importance to effective access to justice, not all feel that current third-party funding arrangements always work in the client’s best interest, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) pointed out. Some have questioned funders’ role and level of control in legal proceedings. Those weaknesses in the pre-PACCAR regime are ones we recognise and want to take time to consider, so that we can ensure that third-party funding works for all.
In the light of the judgments and those concerns, the Civil Justice Council, an advisory body chaired by the Master of the Rolls, has conducted a thorough and learned review. It looks at this issue and the wider ecosystem for third-party litigation funding and its regulation. The scope of the review was to set out the current position of litigation funding and third-party litigation funding, and to consider access to justice, effectiveness and a host of regulatory options. Specifically, the review considered whether the current arrangements for third-party funding deliver the effective access to justice that we all want to see. We are incredibly grateful for the report.
We are now taking the time, as I said, to consider the report and its recommendations very carefully. I am sure that hon. Members here today will appreciate that it is essential to take this detailed and considered approach to what is a technical area but one that is fundamental to the human aspects of access to justice. We must ensure that the right balance is struck to ensure fair and effective access to justice, while enabling economic growth, which is, as so many others have said, the primary mission of this Government. We are aware that many are eagerly awaiting the Government’s response, and I look forward to announcing our way forward in due course. The stakes are high: access to justice, consumer protection and economic growth. We have to get this right.
I will say one more thing in response to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon on retrospectivity. I think it is highly unlikely, given the general rule-of-law principle against retrospectivity, that we would look to have that, but as I said, we must get this right; we have to get the balance right. We want an improved regime that works for the funders and for their clients and consumers.
Question put and agreed to.
Lasting Power of Attorney
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for continuing to raise awareness on this extremely important subject.
While I cannot speak to the individual cases that my hon. Friend raises, I send my deepest sympathies to those individuals impacted by the behaviours and abuse he describes, which were directed at them by people who had been selected to protect them and trusted with lasting power of attorney. I recognise the personal and financial impact on those affected people, and the impacts that are more widely felt by families.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the risk of abusers misusing lasting powers of attorney, and he highlighted the Office of the Public Guardian’s important role in investigating such concerns when they arise. His strong, ongoing commitment to raising awareness of those issues is welcome. As many hon. Members will know, he tabled a ten-minute rule Bill on this subject at the end of last year. That Bill has not yet reached Second Reading, but I know that he continues to engage across the mental capacity sector to raise awareness of it. As he noted, we met and discussed the Bill and his work in this space, and I welcome that engagement. I know that he has also engaged directly with the Office of the Public Guardian so that they can work together. Today’s debate is another demonstration of his dedication to the issue.
For context, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides the legal framework for supporting individuals who may lack capacity to make specific decisions. It ensures that any decisions made on a donor’s behalf are in their best interests, and that their rights and autonomy are respected. A lasting power of attorney is a legal document that allows a person—the donor—to appoint one or more trusted persons to make decisions on their behalf if they lose mental capacity. In that sense, at its best, it is a source of empowerment for individuals.
As my hon. Friend rightly points out, we need to set the very real issue of financial and economic abuse in context. The evidence demonstrates that the incidence of such abuse is thankfully relatively rare. At the end of 2024-25, the Office of the Public Guardian had 9.3 million lasting powers of attorney on its register. A total of 11,300 concerns were received by the Office of the Public Guardian during 2024-25. Some 96% of those concerns were responded to within five working days. Of those concerns, 3,800 cases led to a full investigation by the OPG, and 24% of completed investigations resulted in court action.
That does not for one second diminish the significance of the impact of abuse in individual cases, but it tells us that cases of abuse are rare in the context of a powerful and empowering tool for many. We want the LPA to be accessible, affordable and empowering. Indeed, I was advised by my officials that we should all take one out—obviously, through the proper processes and with the proper safeguards. It is important to set this discussion, which centres on the role that banks and financial institutions play, in the context of the existing regime and its safeguards.
LPAs must be registered with the Office of the Public Guardian before they can be used, and there are safeguards in place to protect against abuse. A lasting power of attorney must contain a certificate, signed by a person with relevant skill and expertise or by someone who has known the donor for at least two years. That person confirms that the donor understands the LPA, and that no fraud or undue pressure was applied in the making of it. That confirmation is an important protection against the coercion and abuse that we have been discussing. There is also an existing statutory right for attorneys and persons named in the LPA to object to its registration if they have concerns about how the LPA has been made. Once the LPA is registered, anyone—any third party—can raise an objection about how it is being used for the Office of the Public Guardian to consider. Those are the concerns that I spoke about, which in 3,800 cases last year led to an investigation and, in many cases, to court enforcement.
As I have said, the abuse of LPAs can have serious financial and personal consequences. The OPG plays an important role in identifying and responding to such cases. It investigates concerns raised about an attorney’s actions. It has powers to request information from individuals and organisations such as banks, care providers and medical professionals. It can ask attorneys to explain their decisions and to provide records. If the investigation reveals serious concerns, the Office of the Public Guardian can apply to the Court of Protection to suspend, restrict or remove an attorney.
The Court of Protection plays a crucial role in protecting individuals from the abuse or misuse of powers under a lasting power of attorney. It can order the revocation or suspension of LPAs or the removal or replacement of attorneys if it determines that the attorney is acting contrary to the donor’s best interest. If a donor has lost capacity when a lasting power of attorney is revoked and there is no other attorney to act, the Court of Protection can step in and appoint a deputy to manage the donor’s affairs. It can also issue orders to protect the donor, such as freezing bank accounts or prohibiting certain actions by attorneys. If an attorney’s behaviour raises concerns but does not breach the criminal law, the OPG can still order remedial actions.
The point I seek to make is that we have a regime that contains a sequence of safeguards designed to guard against the very abuse that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East raises. It is also important that we scrutinise and hold the Office of the Public Guardian to account. That is the job of the Ministry of Justice, so I take very seriously the cases that my hon. Friend has raised, particularly where there are suggestions that the Office of the Public Guardian has not been as proactive as it might have been. That ongoing performance review of the OPG is critical.
I want to look ahead to the future. I am not for one second seeking to minimise the severity of what my hon. Friend described, nor seeking to suggest that there is not room for improvement or that we cannot strengthen those safeguards, because that will be a critical part of modernising the lasting power of attorney. As others have mentioned, such powers are only going to become more critical in an ageing society with growing numbers of people losing mental capacity through conditions such as Alzheimer’s or dementia.
As a Government, however, we are committed to going further and modernising the service to increase the safeguards in the lasting power of attorney process and to improve access to them. The Powers of Attorney Act 2023 introduced several provisions to enable a modernised system. To combat fraud and abuse, the Act will facilitate the introduction of further identity checks for parties making an LPA. The Act also lays the groundwork for reforms to the objection process so that any third party—typically organisations already involved with vulnerable adults, such as local authorities or the police—can object to an LPA being registered. Those reforms, which are in train, are designed to make the LPA system more secure, providing greater protection for individuals appointing attorneys to manage their affairs.
I am conscious of time but I will say something quickly about banks. My hon. Friend will understand that the Treasury leads on the regulation of the banking sector and on safeguards for vulnerable consumers, including those with LPAs. I am not a Treasury Minister but I want to reassure my hon. Friend that the Government work closely with the Financial Conduct Authority, which is the independent regulator, on vulnerable customers, including vulnerable donors of LPAs. In 2023, the FCA introduced the consumer duty. Banks, of course, are also subject to the financial abuse code, the Equality Act 2010—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Work of the County Court: Government Response
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andy Slaughter
First, I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman in his place. I thank him for his interest in the subject and for his question, to which my response is yes. I hope our work is useful—the Government have said it is—within the jurisdiction of England and Wales, but, equally, many of the same points apply to Northern Ireland and, indeed, to Scotland. I do not know whether the Minister is going to intervene on the two points we have heard from my colleagues or on the point from the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure she has heard his point and will make sure that the work is shared. In any event, I undertake to ask my secretariat to ensure it is communicated.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I understand that am allowed to ask a question, so I will frame this as one. As the Minister with responsibility for the courts, I am tremendously grateful to the work of the Justice Committee. The report on the county court and the lens that the Committee has placed on our civil jurisdiction is incredibly welcome because, as the Committee says, the focus that the Department places on criminal justice cannot be allowed to divert from the important reform programme that we need in the county court, for all the reasons the Committee has stated.
With the helpful lens that the report places on the county court and the recommendations that the Government have taken on board in mind, and although I would be first to acknowledge that we have a long journey to travel, does my hon. Friend agree that the latest civil justice statistics—on delays in small claims coming down; on delays in fast, intermediate and multi-track coming down by almost seven weeks; on the greater use of mediation in small claims; and on a new electronic document-processing mechanism, moving away from the frustrating paper-based process—are all steps in the right direction that take on board the thrust of his report? Does he agree that that represents some progress towards where we need to get to?
Andy Slaughter
I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the fact that the Government have accepted the vast majority of the recommendations, as I have already put on the record. Without making this too cosy, it gives me confidence that my hon. and learned Friend, as the Courts Minister, is seized of this issue and understands its seriousness. That came across in the evidence she gave to the Committee, and she has the background and skills to ensure that change happens. That gives us a lot of confidence.
On my hon. and learned Friend’s specific point, yes, I concede that there are some early indicators of improvements. We would like to see that continue over the years to come. We are very conscious of and aware that—this is obviously no fault of this Minister or this Government—there has been a very long process of decline, which means the climb out will be quite slow. We want steady progress along the way. As the Minister says, the report identifies many problems, but the digitalisation one is crucial. I hope we can soon see the new programme for that, because that is how the courts will become efficient, usable and customer friendly. I know it was tried in good faith under the reform programme, but we have to be honest and say that that has largely failed. The ball is now in the Minister’s court to try to succeed.
Sentencing Bill
Sarah Sackman ExcerptsTuesday 21st October 2025
(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sentencing Bill 2024-26 View all Sentencing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 21 October 2025 - (21 Oct 2025)
Esther McVey
I am deeply dismayed by what the Minister had to say. This Bill will make the streets of our country less safe. It will both let thousands of criminals out of prison and stop thousands of criminals going to prison. It will have a devastating impact on society. If the Minister is honest and is being truthful about this being an emergency—[Interruption.] I apologise —not “truthful”. If he is being accurate, and the reason really is that there is an emergency because of a lack of prison places, why has he not accepted my new clause 62? That sunset clause would allow two years for three further prisons, initiated by the Conservative Government, to come on line. He has not done so because, as I think we have revealed or exposed, this Government are soft on crime, and they are on the side of the criminal, not the victim.
Esther McVey
“Shocking” actually is the word for this Bill.
As the Minister did not offer any way forward and has not agreed to a sunset clause, I will push my amendment 46 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Criminal Courts: Independent Review
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing a debate on this crucial subject, and for the typical expertise and measured, analytical tone that he brings to it. I thought, until the speech of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), that something of a consensus had broken out among us. To quote the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam, “something must be done about it”—I think we can all agree on that.
In the opening words of part 1 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review, he tells us that
“Criminal justice is in crisis.”
Indeed, it is. This Government inherited a record and rising courts backlog. As of June 2025, the open Crown court caseload stood at over 79,000 cases and it is rising. Other hon. Members have spoken to the human impact of that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for raising her constituent’s case. It is a graphic illustration of the impact of the Crown court backlog bequeathed to us by the previous Government, and particularly the impact of the appalling delays on victims.
The backlog not only places a psychological strain on victims, disrupting their ability to function, work and maintain relationships; it corrodes justice, because many of those victims—and indeed witnesses—pull out of the process, meaning that trials become ineffective. As the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam said, it also has an impact on defendants—those who are accused of a crime—as well as on our prisons, and on all those who serve within the system. It creates increasingly perverse incentives to exploit the delays and ultimately undermines the public’s confidence in justice. As many hon. Members have said, justice delayed is justice denied.
I reject the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that this Government have sat idly by. Far from it. We inherited a crisis, in both our prisons and our courts, and we have gripped that crisis. It is a fact that, as of today, the Government have added record, historic numbers of sitting days for our courts: 5,000 sitting days more than the number allocated by the previous Government. As other hon. Members have pointed out, we have invested in the workforce crucial to running our criminal courts, and in our solicitors, with an additional £92 million in legal aid on top of a £24 million investment in our duty solicitors. We also, of course, commissioned Sir Brian Leveson, one of our greatest jurists, to undertake his review. If the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle had bothered to read beyond the first couple of paragraphs of the 388-page report—
Sarah Sackman
I will conclude my point, then give way.
Sir Brian tells us that “greater financial investment”—which by the way, the Government have already begun to make—
“on its own, without systemic reform, cannot solve this crisis.”
That is a premise that the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam set out in his remarks, and it is absolutely right. We cannot sit our way out of this crisis. Of course, additional sitting days are part of the solution but, as Sir Brian Leveson and his team have told us, greater financial investment—namely sitting days on their own, without systemic reform—cannot solve the crisis. The Government will heed that lesson.
Dr Mullan
Just for information, I have read the whole report and it does not do the Minister justice, given her usual, sensible approach, to suggest that the fact I and many other hon. Members, including some in her own party, do not agree with her means that we have not read the report.
Sarah Sackman
I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member has read the report. I was not seeking to politicise the discussion. It sounded like, in many respects—other than the issue of jury trials, to which I will turn in due course—there had been an outbreak of consensus that something needed to be done. I want to draw attention to the central premise of Sir Brian Leveson’s report: that, in and of itself, greater financial investment—which of course is a necessary ingredient—will be insufficient to dig our way out of this crisis.
Grip is needed, and it is grip that the Government are showing. Three strands are required. One is investment. That is a question of the number of sitting days. As I said, we are setting record numbers of sitting days. That requires investment in our workforce and, as other hon. Members have pointed out, investment in the infrastructure of justice—investment in the court estate.
Sarah Sackman
I will give way in a moment; allow me to finish this point.
The second strand is modernisation. While we await part 2 of Brian Leveson’s report, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is undertaking modernisation and efficiency measures. The adoption of technology and the increased use of video hearings, which I witnessed on a visit to Kingston Crown court last week, are enabling us to realise some of those productivity benefits, but we need to go further and faster. I look forward to seeing what Sir Brian recommends in the second part of his review. We need investment and modernisation, but also, as I said, fundamental, once-in-a-generation structural reform to ensure that we progress cases quickly and more proportionately.
A number of hon. Members have outlined the variety of ways in Sir Brian’s holistic package in which we may reduce delays in the Crown court, retaining more cases in lower courts—where 90% of criminal cases are now heard without a jury—and also looking at how we might divert demand away from the system in the first place through making greater use of out-of-court disposals. There is also a proposal for a new bench division in the Crown court jurisdiction.
I understand and take heed of the contributions of a number of hon. Members—my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) and for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi), and the hon. Members for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), for Bexhill and Battle and for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). All of them rightly expressed an admiration for jury trials and a concern that they remain a cornerstone of our legal culture and British justice. I can reassure hon. Members that the jury trial will remain a cornerstone of British justice for the most serious crimes.
The essay question, as it were, that we have set ourselves and Sir Brian is: how do we deal with more cases more quickly and proportionately, so that we can squarely look the victim my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred to in the eye and say, “We did everything within our gift to reduce the delays”? Timeliness is an essential ingredient of justice. We can all agree that the state’s obligation is to deliver a fair trial. It is not a right to a jury trial; it is a right to a fair trial, and timeliness is a key ingredient in that.
Sir Ashley Fox
Has the Minister’s Department done any analysis of how much time would be saved by adopting Sir Brian’s proposals on jury trials, and if so, what was the result?
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Before the Minister answers, please bear in mind that I will be looking to bring in Jeremy Wright at 5.58 pm.
Sarah Sackman
I certainly will, Mr Efford.
Sir Brian Leveson proposed the Crown court bench division idea based on consultation with experts, members of the profession and the judiciary. He makes the point that the deliberation of 12 members of a jury is less efficient than the deliberation of an individual judge who has heard the evidence, because it involves dealing with one person. As I understand it, the modelling analysis undertaken to support Sir Brian’s report suggests a time saving in the region of 20% to 30%. Before such a proposal could be adopted, we would need to test that and understand whether that finding is robust, but as the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam said, it stands to reason. In comparative criminal jurisdictions that have either one judge or a bench of three, cases are processed and progressed faster than under the current, jury trial system.
Ultimately, what we are looking to achieve is to ensure a fair trial for every person who comes into the criminal process. That is what we must guarantee, and we support Sir Brian’s overarching principles for reform. Plainly, we have to carefully consider each and every one of those proposals and all 388 pages before we provide our response in due course.
Sir Jeremy Wright
As the Minister says, she will have to consider each of Sir Brian’s proposals, although she will know that he says that they are to be taken as a “package” and not with a “pick-n-mix” approach. Is that something that the Government accept? Will they take the view that it is either all of Sir Brian’s recommendations or none of them, or not?
Sarah Sackman
As the right hon. and learned Member laid out, and as Sir Brian laid out, it is a highly complex system with lots of moving parts. The overall objective is to bear down on the backlog and reduce these delays. We must consider the totality of Sir Brian’s recommendations in careful detail and establish whether they do enough to achieve that overall objective. If we think they do not achieve that objective, it will be necessary to consider other ways to reduce the backlog.
We will put forward a holistic package, but I will not comment at this stage on whether it will include the entirety of these recommendations. That is something we will have to consider very carefully. Ultimately, as I said, our objective is to deliver swifter justice for victims and bear down on the backlog. How we achieve that has to be led by the evidence, and this is an important component of that, which is why I answered the hon. Member for Bridgwater in the way that I did.
Ayoub Khan
The Minister rightly points out that we need investment, modernisation and structural reform, but one of the biggest elephants in the room is prosecution and defence barristers. We have seen a very low take-up of that profession because graduates do not feel that the income, which can be below the national minimum wage, is sufficient. We have also seen a lot of people leave the profession, so although we can have all these sitting days, we simply do not have enough counsel in Crown court to deal with trials. What does the Minister have to say about that?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member is absolutely right. As I said, the workforce is key—they are delivering a vital, frontline public service. We need to invest not just in the barristers, but in the rest of the staff who run our courts every single day, and that is why we have made a record investment in criminal legal aid.
The hon. Member is right: when others speak about empty courtrooms and sitting days, we have to look at the capacity of the whole system. It is not simply a question of adding judicial time; it is about making sure that the system has enough capacity—enough court staff, solicitors, prosecutors and defence lawyers—to meet the demand coming in. We must make it an investment that ensures that this is an attractive profession and one that can meet the public’s needs.
Sarah Sackman
I am content to give way, but I am conscious of time, so this may have to be the last intervention.
Tessa Munt
I want the Minister to respond to the point about experts who will not or cannot work to legal aid rates and the legal funding that is not granted in time, which causes such a long delay when defence solicitors cannot get the access they need to experts.
Sarah Sackman
I am happy to follow up with the hon. Member on that.
In short, this Government believe that once-in-a-generation reform is necessary to address the crisis in our courts. Everyone agrees that something needs to be done, and we will do what it takes, but we also know that we need to get it right. That is why we are taking the time to carefully consider Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations and why I welcome today’s debate. I welcome the views and insights of hon. Members across the House, as we consider necessary reforms to save our justice system.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
For years, our court buildings under the last Government were left to crumble and decay. This Government have boosted capital funding from £120 million last year to over £148 million for this year. From Reading to Blackpool, we are building new courts and restoring old ones.
Becky Gittins
Prestatyn justice centre and its hard-working staff provide a vital service to my constituents, but on a recent visit it was clear that the building needs investment. Can the Minister update the House on what the Government are doing to repair and modernise our court estate, and will she look at what can be done to support our facility in Prestatyn?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is right that the Prestatyn justice centre is a valuable facility for her community. We have a number of projects in the pipeline for Wales. Obviously we must prioritise those court buildings that are most in need and where there is most disrepair so that we can bring them back into use, but I am happy for her to write to me about that particular case.
Cat Smith
Since 2019 my constituents in Lancaster have had to look at a ring of steel fencing around the Lancaster courthouse in our city centre as it awaits maintenance work to make it more sightly. The fencing has been there since 2019, so how much longer will my constituents have to wait for this maintenance work?
Sarah Sackman
I understand that people in Lancaster have been using the Crown court in nearby Preston, which is a more modern and accessible facility. We are undertaking a consultation about the future of Lancaster Crown court, but I am happy to write to my hon. Friend in more detail about the timeline.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the Minister agree that access to justice is very important, particularly in rural areas, where sometimes witnesses or those offering family support have to travel to court appearances? Is it not vital to maximise accessibility for such people?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member is absolutely right. When we talk about access to justice, that must mean access to justice in every single respect, and there is no more obvious demonstration of that than accessibility to the door of the court. That is why we undertake continuous review of our court estate to ensure that it is physically accessible to all users.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I am deeply troubled by this case, and of course, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend. It is hard to think of a more graphic illustration of what we mean when we say that justice delayed is justice denied, and it is exactly why this Government are gripping the backlog in our courts, with record sitting days, increased sentencing powers for magistrates and by proposing once-in-a-generation, bold reform of our criminal courts.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member raises a very important point. We know that the success rate of appeals is high and the delays are severe in the SEND tribunal, which has a huge impact on children and families. We are close to the maximum number of sitting days across all our jurisdictions, to bear down on those delays, but I will certainly take his point on board as we look to reform the SEND system.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Sarah Sackman
The sorts of delays that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent is experiencing are unacceptable. The consensus is that the delays are unacceptable and that we have to do something big and bold about them. This is a complex system, which is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson, with his expertise, to tell us how best we go about that, but we will have to get behind once-in-a-generation reform. We are gripping the issue now—we are making record investment in criminal legal aid and sitting days—but we will need reform as well.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his announcement on the Hillsborough law. For decades, the families have carried the weight of injustice, and Governments have failed to act. Today, the Hillsborough law will be laid before this House, but it must not be another false start. Will the Deputy Prime Minister promise me that this Bill will be the Hillsborough law, and that it will emerge stronger and not weaker from Parliament and, finally, deliver justice for the 97?
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Sarah Sackman
I was pleased to meet Andrew Turner and the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on this important issue. We have to get the balance right between protecting vulnerable adults from financial abuse while at the same time ensuring that they can access assets that are theirs. It is complicated and requires cross-Government work, but I assure the hon. Lady that the impetus is there.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Does the new Secretary of State for Justice recognise sharia law and sharia courts in the United Kingdom—yes or no?
Sarah Sackman
Sharia law forms no part of the law of England and Wales, but where people choose to put themselves before those councils—in common with Christian, Jewish and other courts of faith—that is part of religious tolerance which is an important British value.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to officers at Harlow police station? During recess, I went on a ride-along and saw their professionalism and dedication at first hand.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I am sure the Lord Chancellor has read Baroness Harman’s independent review of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the Bar and on the bench, which was published last week. Its troubling findings are primarily for the Bar itself and for the judiciary to address, but do the Government support the report’s recommendations and what can they do to ensure that they are implemented?
Sarah Sackman
In typical fashion, Baroness Harman has conducted a thorough review into our professions and the judiciary. The judiciary and the Bar are one of the prides of this country, but where there are unacceptable practices and behaviours, it is right that we shine a light on them and demand that we do much better.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As Ministers will know, some rogue builders take thousands of pounds from people, wreck their homes and leave them while they go on to do the same to other victims, yet victims are told that no crime has been committed. Will the ministerial team look at the notion of fraud when a pattern of such behaviour can be evidenced?
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
For six years, Lancaster courthouse has been surrounded by temporary fencing as it awaits maintenance. How much longer will my constituents have to wait?
Sarah Sackman
I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to address her point and to give her the details that she requires.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The new Minister stated earlier that the Government have created 2,405 new prison places, but 1,468 of those are at HMP Millsike, which is part of the new prisons programme that was announced by the previous Conservative Government. The 10,000 additional prison places estate expansion programme—including the houseblocks and refurbishments programme, and the category D programme—has been downgraded from amber to red in the delivery confidence assessment, due to the programme’s key supplier entering administration. What steps is the Justice Secretary taking to put prison construction back on track?
Justice
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(2 months ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
What Sir Brian’s comprehensive report demonstrates is the terrible state that our once envied criminal justice system was left in by the shadow Lord Chancellor and his colleagues. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree with Sir Brian that digging ourselves out of the hole in which they left us will require more investment, greater efficiency and structural change? Is that the debt that we owe to victims of crime in particular, to ensure that they get justice? It is up to this Government to put right the wrongs that have been done over the past 14 years.
Sarah Sackman
As ever, my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee, gives a considered response and he is absolutely right. There needs to be a recognition of the scale of the problem and two things are required: investment and reform. When hon. Members read the report, they will see that Sir Brian is very clear that we need investment. This Government are already beginning to make that investment, through the additional Crown court sitting days that we have laid on this year; running the system at system max; additional funding for legal aid lawyers and criminal legal aid; and £92 million to keep the sector going, on both the defence and the prosecutorial sides. We are making that investment but, critically, as Sir Brian makes absolutely clear, that alone will not be enough…
[Official Report, 9 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 951.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the hon. and learned Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman):
Sarah Sackman
As ever, my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee, gives a considered response and he is absolutely right. There needs to be a recognition of the scale of the problem and two things are required: investment and reform. When hon. Members read the report, they will see that Sir Brian is very clear that we need investment. This Government are already beginning to make that investment, through the additional Crown court sitting days that we have laid on this year; running the system at system max; additional funding for legal aid lawyers and criminal legal aid; and £92 million to keep the sector going. We are making that investment but, critically, as Sir Brian makes absolutely clear, that alone will not be enough…
SW v. UK Judgment: Remedial Order
Sarah Sackman Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) has today made the following statement:
I would like to inform the House that I am laying a draft proposal for a remedial order to amend section 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to allow an award of damages in a new set of circumstances. This is to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in SW v. UK—application no. 87/18.
The applicant in this case, SW, was a social worker who was called as a professional witness in childcare proceedings in the family court. The family court judge made adverse findings about SW in his judgment and directed that his statements be sent to SW’s employer, as well as to other local authorities where she had worked and relevant professional bodies, without giving SW an opportunity to respond. SW was dismissed and suffered various health issues as a result.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the relevant findings on the basis that, if left standing, they would breach SW’s rights under article 8—right to respect for private and family life—of the European convention on human rights. SW was advised she would be unable to obtain compensation under the HRA due to section 9(3) of the Act, which prevents the award of damages in respect of judicial acts done in good faith except in very limited circumstances, which do not include a breach of article 8 ECHR. The ECtHR subsequently ruled that article 13 of the ECHR—right to an effective remedy—read together with article 8, had been violated because SW did not have access to an effective remedy at the national level capable of addressing the substance of her article 8 complaint and by which she could obtain appropriate relief. The ECtHR also held that the applicant’s article 8 rights had been violated. The ECtHR awarded a sum in damages, which has been paid.
The UK is obliged under article 46 of the ECHR to implement this judgment, which includes resolving the circumstances that led to the violation. In order to address the violation of article 13 of the ECHR, legislative change is required as the violation was the result of the statutory bar on the award of damages under section 9(3) of the HRA.
Subject to approval by both Houses, the order would make a targeted amendment to the HRA which would have the effect that:
in proceedings in respect of a judicial act done in good faith;
where the judicial act is incompatible with article 8 on the grounds, or on grounds including the ground, that it was done in such a procedurally defective way as to amount to a breach of the requirements of procedural fairness under that article;
a financial remedy could be awarded to the person to compensate for the breach of article 8. We are satisfied that damages would be available to individuals in situations similar to that of SW and would therefore satisfy the requirements of the judgment.
The Government consider that there are compelling reasons to amend the HRA via remedial order. We consider that the nature of the article 13 breach, and our obligation to implement the SW judgment, contribute to there being compelling reasons for making the necessary legislative change without further delay via remedial order. The alternative approach to a remedial order would be to make the amendment by way of primary legislation. However, we consider that there is little prospect of finding suitable primary legislation to make an amendment in the near future.
This draft proposal for a remedial order is being laid under the non-urgent procedure. It will be laid for a period of 60 days during which time representations may be made. The Joint Committee on Human Rights will scrutinise the remedial order and report on it to the House. Following that, the draft order, with any revisions the Government wish to make, will be laid for a further 60 days before being considered and voted on by both Houses.
[HCWS846]
Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]
Sarah Sackman ExcerptsWednesday 16th July 2025
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 67-I Marshalled list for Report - (28 Apr 2025)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is a pivotal step in the evolution of our legal system—one that ensures that the law remains relevant and pre-eminent in the digital age. As we set out in our plan for change, this Government are fully committed to providing investors and businesses with stability and certainty. This Bill will help to provide that certainty for people and businesses who own and transact with digital assets. This will help drive economic growth by encouraging innovation, attracting investment and reinforcing the UK’s position as a global hub for digital finances and technology.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree with me that although the Bill is small, it is very much mighty? It is important that we get the Bill on the statute book because we want this country to be ahead of the game on these issues.
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is right. We want the UK to remain the pre-eminent jurisdiction of choice for legal services, as it currently is. This evolution of our law will enable it to remain a global hub for digital finance and tech. Overall it is a Bill that reflects our legal heritage, embraces technological innovation and prepares our nation for the future.
To appreciate the significance of the Bill, we must begin with the foundations of property law in England and Wales. For centuries, our legal system has categorised personal property as two distinct types: first, things in possession—tangible items that can be physically held or possessed, such as a book, jewellery or gold; and secondly, things in action—intangible rights that can only be claimed or enforced through legal action, such as debts, shares or contractual rights. These categories have served us well for hundreds of years, providing clarity in ownership and facilitating commerce. They have helped to create legal certainty in matters ranging from succession and insolvency to trust structures and collateral arrangements.
The digital revolution introduced a new class of assets—digital assets—that do not fit neatly into either of the traditional categories. As things stand, we look to 19th-century case law, which sets out that a thing can only be property if it fits into the two traditional categories of things in action and things in possession. The unique characteristics of digital assets, like crypto tokens, challenge the boundaries of these legal categories.
Unlike physical objects, digital assets cannot be held in one’s hand. Unlike debts or contractual rights, digital assets have an independent existence in the world that is not dependent on their recognition by a legal system. Yet certain digital assets possess the characteristics that the common law recognises as making them suitable to attract property rights. For example, certain digital assets, like crypto tokens, are rivalrous, meaning their use by one person prevents simultaneous use by others. By contrast to crypto tokens, some digital things, like Word documents, are not rivalrous and so are not recognised by the common law as being capable of attracting property rights. For example, if I were to send you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a Word document, I retain a copy, but if I transfer a crypto token, I no longer possess it. This is due to the underlying blockchain technology that ensures immutability, scarcity and non-duplicability—features that make certain digital assets capable of attracting personal property rights even if they are not a thing in possession or a thing in action.
Recent case law has begun to recognise that certain digital assets can attract personal property rights. However, these decisions have not come forward in precedent-setting courts, and thus the legal landscape remains uncertain. This ambiguity risks stifling innovation, as innovators are unsure what protections they have or whether they will be able to monetise their creation. It also puts off investors from investing in crypto tokens in favour of more traditional and predictable forms of investment. If we do not act, we risk our global competitors getting ahead and putting in place the kind of certainty in their own legal systems that will divert investment away from this country.
Recognising the urgency of this issue, in 2020, under the previous Government, the Ministry of Justice commissioned the Law Commission to review the legal framework surrounding crypto tokens and other digital assets. The commission’s 2023 report was unequivocal: certain digital assets should be recognised as capable of attracting property rights, and legislation was needed to reflect this. The Government have responded decisively. The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is the result—a concise yet powerful piece of legislation that affirms our commitment to legal clarity, economic growth and technological leadership.
The Bill contains a single operative clause. It recognises that a thing, including a thing that is digital or electronic, is not prevented from attracting personal property rights merely because it is not a thing in possession nor a thing in action. The Bill allows the courts to develop a further category of personal property through our common law.
Importantly, the Bill does not attempt to define which digital assets may qualify, nor does it prescribe the legal consequences of falling within this category. These matters are rightly left to the common law, which, with its flexibility and nuance, is best suited to assess each asset on its characteristics. This is in accordance with long-established common-law tests for property. This approach reflects the strength of our tradition. It capitalises on the adaptability and flexibility of the common law by empowering the courts to apply established legal tests to emerging technologies. This ensures that our legal system remains responsive, relevant and resilient.
We stand today at the intersection of law and innovation, where centuries of legal tradition meet the boundless potential of the digital age. The Bill is not just legal reform: it is an important step for our law and for the global digital economy, because digital assets are here to stay. From crypto tokens to voluntary carbon credits, these assets are reshaping how we transact, invest and interact—and yet, until now, our private law has struggled to keep pace. This Bill changes that.
First and foremost, the Bill provides legal certainty. It confirms that certain digital assets can be recognised as personal property. This is a fundamental shift. It means that individuals and businesses can now rely on clear legal rights and protections when dealing with things such as crypto tokens. That is because certain digital assets can now attract the same legal protection as other forms of property, which means that owners of things such as crypto tokens can enforce their rights if the asset is stolen. Whether it is theft, insolvency or inheritance, the law will now stand ready to protect those property rights.
By clarifying the legal status of digital assets, the Bill reduces ambiguity and streamlines litigation. That is because the courts will no longer have to spend time debating whether further categories exist or trying to force digital assets into the traditional categories. That clarity will save time, reduce costs and ensure fairer outcomes for all parties involved.
As I have said, the Bill also supports our ambition to be a centre of innovation and growth. It encourages fintech start-ups, scale-ups and global enterprises to choose English and Welsh or Northern Irish law for their transactions, knowing that these legal systems are equipped to handle the complexities of digital assets. The Bill thus unlocks practical economic benefits. It assists in allowing digital assets to be included in estates for inheritance and claimed by creditors in insolvency. These capabilities will fuel innovation, support new financial products and drive economic growth.
Crucially, the Bill does not attempt rigidly to define every type of digital asset. Instead, as I have said, it allows the common law to evolve, giving our courts the flexibility to adapt to technologies that have not yet even been imagined. That is one of the hallmarks of a progressive, forward-thinking legal system such as ours.
This Bill attracted significant cross-party support in the other place. For example, it was described by Lord Holmes as
“a short Bill, but one with significant impact for the UK, and indeed beyond our shores”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1695.]
It was also described as a Bill that
“sends a signal to all those involved in digital assets”
that
“London and the United Kingdom is an excellent place”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 2025; Vol. 1696, c. 845.]
to do business.
In the same vein, Lord Sandhurst noted that the Bill was “small but perfectly formed” and that it will
“make an important contribution to the development of the law...and assist judges and litigants in ensuring that necessary protection is given to activities and things in the digital sphere...which might otherwise fail to be protected”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1696.]
Those are not just words of praise: they are affirmations of the Bill’s importance, clarity and potential to shape the global legal and economic landscape. One noble Lord remarked on Third Reading that “the world is watching”, and rightly so.
We have a proud tradition of legal excellence and a thriving fintech ecosystem. With trillions of pounds in global economic activity expected to be transacted via digital assets by the end of the decade, we must ensure that our legal infrastructure is not only fit for purpose, but fit for the future. This Bill is a critical step in realising that potential.
Of course, the Bill underwent much scrutiny in the House of Lords, and two amendments were made to it. The first extended the territorial scope of the Bill to include Northern Ireland. We are glad that our laws can be aligned in this area and that the benefits of this Bill will be felt more widely. The second amendment was to the Bill’s long title. That was to ensure consistency between the title and the Bill’s operative clause. I am certain that we now have the best possible version of this Bill before us.
The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is a testament to the strength and adaptability of our legal tradition. It reflects our commitment to innovation, our respect for the rule of law and our ambition to lead on the global stage. It was described in the Lords as
“future facing, future-proofing, growth enabling ground-breaking and good for innovation, investment, citizen, consumer and the country”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 April 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1297.]
I could not agree more. It is a Bill for the future—a future in which digital assets play a central role in our economy, our society and our lives. By passing this Bill, we are not only clarifying the law, but shaping that future. Let us seize this opportunity and send a clear message to the world that we are ready, willing and able to lead in the digital age.
Sarah Sackman
With the leave of the House, let me say how grateful I am to those who have contributed to today’s debate, in a rare expression of consensus. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster). The quality of the discussion, both in this House and in the other place, reflects the significance of the Bill that is before us. As I have said, it is the product of rigorous analysis and wide consultation. I pay tribute to the Law Commission for its landmark report, and to the many practitioners, academics, businesses and organisations that have engaged so constructively throughout the process.
At its heart, the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is about ensuring that our legal system keeps pace with technological change. It is a clear, confident step into the future, one that reaffirms the UK’s place as a global leader in legal innovation, financial services and digital commerce, and it is a central part of this Government’s plan for change and for growth. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]: Programme
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Christian Wakeford.)
Question agreed to.