Restriction of Jury Trials

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the accuracy of data used to justify the restriction of jury trials in relation to rape victim attrition rates and magistrates court capacity.

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

This Government inherited an emergency in our criminal courts. Record and rising caseloads are leaving victims and many accused who are seeking to clear their name facing agonising delays, while some defendants game the system in the hope that their accusers simply give up on justice. We inherited a system in which, quite truly, justice delayed is justice denied. That is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review of the criminal courts. He presented us with his report, and we considered it carefully.

On Tuesday, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Government’s proposals in the light of that report, following many of the recommendations. In announcing part of our plan to tackle that emergency, he centred victims. He commented that victims of rape are “pulling out” of trials and told LBC that

“60 per cent are pulling out of cases”

before they come to trial. That statement is accurate. It is unacceptable that around 60% of victims who report rape drop out of the criminal system.

After speaking to victims, campaign organisations and those who represent those victims and support them, we know that, for many, the fact that their trial may not come to court for several years is a key factor in their deciding to withdraw from the process or perhaps not even to report the case at all. The system was not designed for a scenario in which victims face such delays for justice. No one in this House thinks that the system is anything other than broken, which means that we are failing the British public.

On the second part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, the vast majority of cases—the less serious but still important everyday cases, which comprise around 90% of all criminal trials—are already heard in our magistrates courts, where cases continue to be dealt with swiftly and robustly. Our magistrates hear around 1.3 million cases a year, and it is not unusual to have an open caseload of more than 360,000 cases, as is currently the case in our magistrates courts. That ensures that there is around six months’ worth of work ready to be heard. We know that our magistrates courts deal with equivalent cases—those trials for either-way cases that can be heard in either the magistrates court or the Crown court—four times faster. We are working to bring in new and diverse magistrates over the next 12 months, and we will continue to recruit at high levels in future years.

Ultimately, we must ensure that the Crown court has the capacity to deal with those who commit the most serious crimes, so that victims do not have to face those agonising delays and do not withdraw before their case even gets to court. Justice is simply not being served in that situation, and the Government will not watch idly while the system continues to fail those victims. It is for that reason that we are bringing forward our bold proposals and reforms, coupled with record investment—to ensure that victims and the wider British public are served and so that we can put to bed once and for all justice delayed being justice denied.

[Robert Jenrick]

The Government are slashing jury trials under false pretences. Last week, the Justice Secretary suggested that 60% of those who report being raped are now pulling out of cases because of court delays, but Home Office statistics show that this year, only 9% of rape cases were abandoned after a charge was brought. Although that is not good enough, the fact is that the figure is down, and the number of victim-based prosecutions is near its peak. In some parts of the country, the backlog is far lower, and rape cases are rightly being prioritised. The Justice Secretary’s plans will do next to nothing to cut backlogs for rape victims, but his claims are certain to further erode women’s confidence in the justice system.

That was not the only claim that did not stack up. The Justice Secretary said that he will divert cases to the magistrates courts because they

“do not currently have a backlog”—[Official Report, 2 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 806.]

but as of September, there is a backlog—or open caseload, as the Minister now calls it—of 361,000 cases, up 25% on this Government’s watch. He claimed that scrapping juries will cut trial times by 20%, but Sir Brian Leveson’s own review found that figure to be “highly uncertain”, stating that “further detailed analysis” was required.

There are still reams of unanswered questions. The Justice Secretary will not let the Crown courts sit around the clock, when today, 63 courtrooms sit completely empty. He will not rule out applying these changes to those who are already in the court backlog, and he will not publish modelling showing that victims of rape will wait less time, or indeed any modelling whatsoever. Unless the Minister can answer those questions today, we can only conclude that the Government simply do not know. If they want to make a major change to our constitution—something that we have enjoyed for 800 years—they should do so on the basis of facts, not baseless claims. The plan is already unravelling, as did the last such attempt 20 years ago. I say to the Minister that it is not too late to avoid a humiliating defeat.

[Sarah Sackman]

As I said a moment ago, not a single person who has encountered the system—not the barristers, the prosecutors, the judiciary, the court staff, the victims or the jurors; no one whom I have met—thinks it is working as it should. The shadow Justice Secretary has made a startling defence of the status quo while victims—not just women and girls but of all backgrounds—continue to watch delays creep up and up. Some 80,000 cases are currently in our Crown court backlog, and behind each and every one of those cases is an individual human story—someone waiting to clear their name.

We inherited a broken system. We did not do what the previous Government did, which was stick their head in the sand and hope that the problem would go away, with no solutions, under-investing for years while undermining our justice system. We were not prepared to do the same, which was why it was important to ask an independent review made up of Sir Brian Leveson—one of our leading judges—academics and data scientists to look at the evidence from both this country and comparators from across the world, to consult and to produce a set of proposals for reform that will fix the system. In the meantime, the Government have been gripping the crisis. We have made record investment in sitting days, increased the sentencing powers of magistrates courts, and invested in legal aid and the capacity of our legal community.

No responsible Government worthy of the name would take receipt of an independent review that is carefully considered, evidence-based and informed by experts and say, “Do you know what? We’ll just ignore that.” Responsible government shows leadership, which is why last week, we announced our proposals to increase magistrates courts’ sentencing powers and remove the right of defendants to insist on a jury trial when their case can be reasonably, proportionately and swiftly dealt with in a magistrates court. We followed Sir Brian’s recommendation to establish a Crown court bench division to deal with cases more swiftly. His report says that in his view and that of his expert team, doing so will provide time savings of at least 20%. On that basis, through investment, modernisation and systemic reform taken together, we will begin to see the backlog come down. That is Government offering evidence-based, expert-led solutions while all we hear from the Opposition is what cannot be done, letting down victims, letting down the public and ultimately undermining faith in one of the most important institutions in this country—our justice system.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

There is no reason why the Government should not consider mode of trial as part of their reform of the criminal courts, but they would find more support if they could better evidence the effects of the proposed changes to jury trial. To what extent will they reduce the backlog? What proportion and types of cases will no longer be eligible for jury trial? If courts are to be swifter and have greater sentencing powers, what effect will that have on the prison population?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Justice Committee for his reflection that mode of trial is worth looking at. Of course, the Government will provide an impact assessment when we bring forward the legislation necessary to accompany these reforms, but I suggest that we do have an evidence base, as provided to us by the independent review of the criminal courts. We also have the very real evidence base that the offences we are talking about are not summary-only, which are already dealt with in the magistrates court, nor indictable-only offences, which will always have a jury trial in our Crown court, but triable either way offences. At the moment, defendants can opt either for a magistrates trial or for a Crown court trial. What we know is that where defendants opt for a magistrates trial, those are being heard four times faster on average than those heard in the Crown court. That is a pretty strong evidence base, coupled with that of the IRCC. Of course we will need to present the impact assessment of the package that we are bringing forward, but there is no doubt that the Government are taking action on an evidential basis, provided through an independent review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats agree that under the current system victims and survivors of rape are being failed and far too few see justice served. However, for those victims who do decide to proceed through the justice system, fewer than 10% withdraw after a charge has been made, so the Deputy Prime Minister’s standing in the Chamber and using an assessment of the data to justify his reasoning for removing jury trials does not hold up to scrutiny.

It seems that a number of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Back Benchers, including the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), agree with the Liberal Democrats that the delays that plague our system will not be addressed by reducing jury trials, with the Government neither diagnosing the cause of the crisis nor providing the solutions to the record backlog. How do the Government justify restricting jury trials when backlog issues are caused by court mismanagement and broken private contracts rather than the jury system, as identified and confirmed by those working in the system from all sides? Will the Minister confirm which stakeholders, including victim support organisations and legal professionals, have been consulted on the reforms? What feedback has she received?

[Sarah Sackman]

I will answer the hon. Member’s last question first. All the bodies that she referred to—victim support, victims’ organisations, the legal community, the Bar Council and the Law Society—have engaged over many months, first with the independent review of criminal courts led by Sir Brian Leveson, and indeed now with the Ministry of Justice. That engagement is happening all the time.

On those who represent victims, the incoming Victims’ Commissioner has said that the system is broken and there is need for bold reform. The bold reform recommended by Sir Brian Leveson’s review is precisely the proportionate reform—radical, yes; and necessary, yes—that we are going to pursue.

On the hon. Member’s comment about victims and the significant figure of 60% of rape victims pulling out of cases, there are many reasons that victims pull out. It is difficult to know exactly what is going on in a victim’s head at any one time, but we all know how lengthy the delays are in our courts, and everyone is aware how retraumatising the court process can be. We know from Rape Crisis, for example, that one in three sexual offence trials is the subject of adjournment, so there is not just delay but victims thinking they have a trial date only for that to be put off. No one can say that that is defensible. For many, the fact that their case might not come to court for years is key to their withdrawing from the process, at whatever stage, so it is material to the context. That is why action needs to be taken.

As the Crown Prosecution Service data discussed at the Justice Committee has brought forward, one striking statistic shows the need for action: there were more than 4,000 cases that could have been heard in the magistrates court, but our current system privileges the defendant’s right to insist on a jury trial with the greater length of time that that takes. As a result, the person who has stolen a bottle of whisky or a bunch of flowers—a low-value item—has every right to insist on a jury trial, and is then stuck in the same queue as serious crimes such as rape, murder and kidnapping. That is exactly how this works. And that is exactly why, on Sir Brian’s expert recommendation, we are seeking to remove such cases from the queue and reassign them to where they can be better and more swiftly dealt with in the system, so that we can come to the most serious cases more swiftly.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I have had a number of cases, including two recently. When the Opposition were in power, a woman came to me with her case, which was of historical child sexual abuse; her trial was being adjourned repeatedly, and there was a risk that the perpetrator would die before the case was heard. I now have two cases of children awaiting child sexual abuse cases that have had repeated adjournments. Can the Minister reassure me that the Government’s proposals might help to progress those cases, which are impacting lives?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am very sorry to hear about my hon. Friend’s cases, which graphically highlight precisely why reform is needed and the grave crisis in our criminal justice system, which, as Sir Brian has told us, is on the brink of collapse. We need a holistic approach: reform, significant investment and modernisation. On the earlier question about efficiencies, do we need to improve the time that it takes to bring prisoners from prison to court? Yes, we do. Do we need to improve things such as listing, and look at whether they can be done more efficiently? Do we need to look at productivity in our courts? Absolutely. That is why we have asked the independent review of the criminal courts to conduct part two of its review, and it is why we are looking at these issues very intently with the MOJ. There is no silver bullet, and her constituents’ case illustrates the mountain that we have to climb. Such stories motivate me to work every day to get these reforms through and deliver swifter justice for victims.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

My maths teacher always required us to show our workings. Last week, the Secretary of State told us that only 3% of prosecutions proceed to jury trials. How can marginally reducing such a small proportion produce the savings that have been identified? Will the Minister publish the modelling?

[Sarah Sackman]

We have the IRCC—Sir Brian Leveson’s review. Over 388 pages of careful analysis, he sets out how his package of reforms will begin to bear down on the backlog. As I have said, an impact assessment will of course be provided in the ordinary way, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman and assure the rest of the House that unless we were confident that the package of reform and investment that we are bringing forward was capable of bringing down the backlog, we would not be pursuing it. Of course, that is exactly what we are aiming at: to see the backlog coming down by the end of this Parliament, so that we can deliver swifter justice for victims.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does the Minister recall that the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was chastised by the Office for Statistics Regulation when he was Housing Secretary? Does she further agree, therefore, that we will not take lessons from him?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

I was not here when the right hon. Member for Newark was failing to show his working out. What I have observed, however, both in my professional life before I came to this House and since I have been the Courts Minister, is how the previous Government presided over an absolute collapse in criminal justice. The so-called party of law and order allowed the prisons to run boiling hot, with backlogs spiralling out of control, and caused a collapse in confidence in our courts system, not only in the legal community, but in the victim community. Unlike his Government, we will do the serious work of looking at where the evidence takes us. We identify the problem and do not stand idly by. We get out there and make the argument for how we will fix it.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The logic of the Minister’s argument seems to be that the Justice Secretary was repeatedly wrong in the past to defend jury trials, that many of her colleagues are wrong to have concerns, and that her own Government were wrong not to mention it at all in the Labour party manifesto. She has repeatedly refused to say whether she would publish modelling and referred to the impact assessment. Can she clarify this: has the work in the Department been done on the impact assessment and she simply will not publish it, or has it not done that work, in which case the claims she is making are without evidence?

[Sarah Sackman]

If the right hon. Member had attended earlier debates, he would know that I have been clear that the state’s obligation is to guarantee everybody who comes before the court a fair trial. The essence of a fair trial is a swift trial—not one that might be two years away. It is not a guarantee of a jury trial, because 90% of cases in this country already take place without a jury trial. I have also made it clear that we believe in jury trials. I do not believe in jury trials that are delayed for a couple of years, where witnesses and victims pull out of the system, but I do believe in jury trials as a cornerstone of British justice. As I have said, the quantitative and qualitative analyses have been happening not just within Sir Brian’s team, but within the Ministry of Justice. We will be publishing an impact assessment at the requisite time.

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased, if not a little surprised, to see how keen the Conservatives have been to talk about issues of criminal justice in recent weeks, considering they showed next to no interest when they were in government and I was working in the prison system. I believe that the last Government stated that they would bring the Crown court backlog back to 53,000 by March 2025. Can the Minister therefore outline what the backlog was when we took office in July 2024? That figure is incredibly important when we are looking at why we need to take the bold action that has been announced by the Government in the past week.

[Sarah Sackman]

As my hon. Friend knows, we inherited record and rising backlogs. As I have said, we have a mountain to climb. We are trying to turn around an oil tanker, and we are not going to do that simply by sitting our way out of the problem. That is what Sir Brian Leveson concludes in his report. Of course, we need additional sitting days, and we are already sitting over 5,000 more days than we were when we took over. Sir Brian concludes that that alone will be insufficient to turn the tide on the backlog, and that is why we need system reform coupled with the investment. That will do the job to bring down the backlogs to sustainable levels.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I have some sympathy for the Minister. We all know that the Tories fiddled, leaving our criminal justice system to burn. As the Law Society president noted earlier this year, we are still not using our courts efficiently, despite what the Minister says. What steps have been taken to increase court sitting days and make better use of our under-utilised courtrooms?

[Sarah Sackman]

First, I pay tribute not just to our judges, but our court staff and our hard-working prosecutors and defence lawyers, because we know that judges in the Crown court are hearing almost 30% more cases than they were pre-covid. In that sense, the system is working harder. As I have just indicated, we have added more sitting days. We have added more than 5,000 more sitting days than were being sat when we took over in government, and I want us to go further. We need to match the system reform with investment, and I hope that we will be able to come back to the House at the conclusion of the concordat process, which needs to take its course, and assure the House that we are sitting at maximum system capacity.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is horrific that victims of rape and sexual assault are waiting years for justice, and we should never forget, in these conversations or decisions, the toll that that process takes on a victim’s life. Can the Minister please confirm that victims will be kept at the heart of the justice system, and that this Government will deliver timely justice for survivors?

[Sarah Sackman]

As she so often does, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. We have in focus, at the heart of all that we are doing, the goal of delivering swifter justice for victims. Last week the Deputy Prime Minister announced a package of £550 million to be put towards victim support and keeping victims engaged in the process, which, as it takes longer and longer, is harder to do. Ultimately, the best thing that we can do for victims is deliver on the promise of bringing down the backlog so that they do not have to face these agonising waits to see justice done. If victims pull out—and, in these cases, the victim is often the only witness to the crime—the worst aspect is that it is not even a question of “justice delayed is justice denied”; justice simply is not served at all.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I think we would all agree that it is a tragedy when any rape victim withdraws from the criminal justice system, but I do not buy the faux outrage from the shadow Secretary of State. I was the chief executive of a rape crisis centre when his party was in government, and every single day I heard victims talk about the delays in the system causing them more trauma, about the police’s poor interviewing techniques and about the lack of understanding in the criminal justice system of the effects of the trauma that they had been through on that Government’s watch, and nothing was improving. We know that rape trials will not be affected by this decision on jury trials, so I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister was wrong to use that as a justification for changing the jury trial process, but have the Government given any consideration, or will they be giving any consideration, to a specialist court system to deal with rape and sexual violence offences?

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the hon. Lady for the work that she did before coming to the House. I respect her experience, and it is not clear that experience of that kind and range is shared by all Members, including those who are so quick to criticise the attempts to reform what is a failing system. As she has said, the best thing that we can achieve for victims of sexual offences—not just rape, but other sexual offences as well—is reducing the backlogs. We know from charities such as Rape Crisis that some 17% of cases in the backlog relate to sexual offences. If we can get hold of this problem—if we can get a real grip on it across the piece, from the magistrates all the way to the Crown—that, more than anything else, will deliver swifter justice for the victims whom the hon. Lady once supported.

[Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)]

Jury trials allow ordinary citizens to participate in the justice system—which many groups simply do not trust—ensuring community representation and transparency. Can the Minister explain how citizen involvement can be continued, so that we do not see additional miscarriages of justice as a result of influence from personal bias or external pressures that can potentially lead to unfair outcomes?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend has asked a very important question. Equality before the law is, of course, a fundamental principle, but so is the need for all our communities to have confidence in our justice system. One of the worst symptoms of the broken system that we have today is the fact that so few people now have that confidence.

Let me say first to my hon. Friend that we are preserving jury trial for the most serious cases, and secondly that our proposals represent a vote of confidence in our magistracy, which is increasingly diverse and needs to be more diverse still. In London, more than 30% of magistrates are drawn from the communities that they are serving and come from black and minority ethnic communities. In the midlands, where I know my hon. Friend has a great deal of experience, the numbers are getting higher and higher, at 15% or 16%, and we want more still. This is how we continue to include that very important democratic and community component in our justice system, so that communities such as hers can continue to have confidence in it.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am afraid that the Minister’s treatment of the 60% figure only tends to confirm my belief that one is better off with the common sense of 12 ordinary people than with one legal professional. [Laughter.] Even she is smiling—good for her. Can she look again at this point? Yes, it is disastrous if 60% of women who allege rape drop the case before it proceeds to a conclusion, but if only 9% drop the case after the alleged criminal has been charged, the overwhelming reason for their dropping the case is not the length of the trial by jury, but the slowness between the reporting of the allegation and the criminal being charged. Will she accept that, in this case, she is looking at the wrong target?

[Sarah Sackman]

I smile because I know the spirit in which the question is asked. I know that it is asked in good faith, but I also say this: as well as being a lawyer, I am also a Member of Parliament and I am also a woman. The question that was asked earlier was put very well: a single victim of whatever crime—rape being one of the most agonising that we can imagine—is one too many pulling out of the system. We do not know exactly what is going through every victim’s head, and it is right to say that the 60% figure was accurate on its own terms. We do not know exactly why people might pull out of the system, but we do know that everyone is aware that the system is broken. Even when they come to consider whether to report a crime, they are aware of what that might entail, knowing the delays, the agony and the bureaucracy that lie ahead. Quite honestly, if something were to happen to me or a loved one today and I was advising them or asking myself, “Would I want to go through with that, knowing what I do about the delays?” I would have to think long and hard about it.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

On Friday, I met senior detectives in Bradford who investigate and bring prosecutions for historical cases of child sexual exploitation and abuse, including group-based abuse. They do all they can to support victims to get justice—in fact, West Yorkshire police were commended by Baroness Casey for its work—but it was clear to me that court delays add to the trauma experienced by victims and survivors who bravely come forward. That is true for those I have spoken to. How will these reforms speed up justice for victims of rape, serious sexual offences and vile grooming gangs?

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for all her tireless work for victims in her community who have been seriously impacted by some of the crimes that she outlines. My job is to take a look at the whole system and how it is functioning for all victims, for those who are accused and for all participants in the system who are currently being let down. The package of measures that was announced last week includes an increase in sitting powers, and the removal of the defendant’s right to insist on a jury in favour of having cases triaged by the experts—namely, the court itself. With the establishment of a bench division, which Sir Brian advises, cases could be heard at least 20% faster, and we are taking cases such as fraud out of the list so that they can be heard by judges alone. We believe that, taken together, the package’s measures can deliver swifter justice for victims, including those in my hon. Friend’s own community.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Members on both sides of the House know how important these changes are, and getting them right is absolutely vital. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) asked a specific question as to whether the Department has done an impact assessment. Could the Minister clarify whether that impact assessment has been done? If so, will it be immediately published?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

The right hon. Gentleman is right: we should have a robust debate about the best way forward to fix what is undeniably a broken system. As a Department, we have several sources of evidence and assessment, not least the work that was done by the Leveson review. We will bring forward the impact assessment at the appropriate time, and the House will be able to scrutinise it then.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

There is capacity for almost 2,000 more court sitting days that are not being used for rape or other trials at the moment. Why is the Justice Secretary not prioritising funding those days to help reduce the backlog, rather than trying to scrap jury trials?

[Sarah Sackman]

We are looking, where we can, to invest as much as possible, but I remind the hon. Member that, when we talk about investment in sitting days, we must look at system capacity. That requires not just judicial time, but sufficient numbers of barristers—both defence and prosecution—and as the previous Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) said, we cannot simply 3D print those. We have to invest in the professionals, and that is exactly what we announced last week, with £92 million in legal aid for criminal solicitors and an additional £34 million for barristers. I should also mention match funding for criminal law pupillages to develop the talent pipeline. All of that increases the system capacity, so that when we add on sitting days, it is not just a judge sitting there waiting for a barrister to turn up, which sometimes does not happen and leads to the trial being adjourned, but we have enough system capacity to run at the maximal and most productive level possible.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

In Shropshire and wider West Mercia, victims of rape and other serious offences are being told to wait for their jury trials into 2027, 2028 and even later. Meanwhile, defendants of some other offences are opting for jury trials, the magistrates having already accepted jurisdiction. Is it not time that we back, trust and empower our magistrates and district judges up and down this country?

[Sarah Sackman]

Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, when I came to visit the justice centre in Telford with him we spoke a lot about the role that magistrates play, and I want to pay huge tribute to them. The proposals we brought forward last week are, as his question suggests, a huge vote of confidence in our magistrates and in our magistrates courts system to hear cases swiftly and robustly, and we should back them.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on both her passion and her ability to get so many words into Hansard in her responses on an urgent question. However, one bit of detail that we are missing—and she is now being asked about this for the fifth time—is an impact assessment. She has said again that the impact assessment will be brought forward at the appropriate time. The question was: has it been written already and she is keeping hold of it, or has it not been written but will be brought forward at the appropriate time? I would appreciate clarity on that, with a simple yes or no.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Member can get hold of Hansard and read my previous answer, which is that there will be an impact assessment at the requisite moment.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I find it heartbreaking to hear that there are victims of domestic violence, rape and sexual violence who feel that they are tackling a system that is absolutely broken. From a piece of casework I have dealt with, I can tell the House about a young lady, the victim of domestic violence, who had to wait so long for justice to be served that she actually returned to the perpetrator. To me, that is not only terrifying, but obviously it had a huge impact on her family. Can I ask the Minister, working with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), to promise me that she will do everything she possibly can to ensure that victims of domestic violence, sexual abuse and rape get the justice they deserve as soon as they can?

[Sarah Sackman]

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the Under-Secretary of State and I are working incredibly hard. This is central to our Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls, and we have to look at how not just the delays in our criminal justice system but the processes in our courts are often retraumatising women and girls. We are resolute in our efforts to tackle exactly what he has described.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The Government’s proposals on jury trials are causing concern and consternation in my constituency, and my mailbag is quite full of people’s messages opposing the Government’s proposals. Just so we understand where the Secretary of State is on this, could the Minister please explain to us what he is doing right now such that he could not come and answer this urgent question himself?

[Sarah Sackman]

At the moment, the Secretary of State is giving a very important speech launching the Government’s anti-corruption strategy.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that announcement has been made first to the House.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answers. Rape victims must be paramount in all that happens. Rape and sexual assault trials are already lengthy and very emotional for victims. Juries signal a public perception of justice, and highlight the importance of the community and the average person. What assessment has been made of the impact that judge-only trials can have on the victims of rape, and what steps will be taken to ensure that judge-only trials do not feel less empowering, because this step could increase victim attrition with victims feeling that they do not have the support of the public?

[Sarah Sackman]

Let me make it very clear that for the offence of rape there will always be a jury trial. That was made clear in our proposals last week.

[Mr Speaker]

It is very helpful to get through the questions and the Minister has done very well. Justice does matter and I think all of us represent victims of crime. The more quickly we can get through, the happier we will be. As I say, Chorley magistrates court would love to be reopened in order to help.

Draft Judicial Appointments Commission (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 General Committees

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Judicial Appointments Commission (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John.

The draft statutory instrument amends the Judicial Appointments Commission Regulations 2013, which outline the composition of the Judicial Appointments Commission’s board of commissioners and the eligibility criteria for the commissioners. I will refer to the Judicial Appointments Commission as the JAC.

The 2013 regulations are being updated to strengthen the JAC’s capacity and to ensure its continued effectiveness in judicial recruitment. The amendments in this draft statutory instrument will change the total number of JAC commissioners from 15 to 16 by increasing the number of persons practising or employed as lawyers, referred to as professional commissioners, from two to three. It also expands the eligibility criteria for the senior tribunal commissioner by including a wider range of senior salaried tribunal officers.

As the draft statutory instrument relates to the composition of the JAC board, it may be helpful to outline briefly the role of the JAC and its board. The JAC is the independent body established under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to select candidates for judicial office in England and Wales, and for some tribunals with UK-wide powers.

The JAC is governed by an independent board of commissioners appointed by His Majesty the King on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor. There are currently 15 commissioners, including the lay chairman; the other 14 are drawn from the judiciary, the legal professions, non-legally qualified judicial office holders and the public. Twelve are recruited and appointed through open competition, while three senior judicial members, including the senior tribunal commissioner, are selected by the Judges’ Council or the Tribunals Judges’ Council.

A key objective of the board is to ensure that the JAC is upholding its statutory functions and duties, which include ensuring that judicial appointments are made solely on merit, through fair and open competition, and with regard to diversity and good character. Commissioners oversee the selection processes, review recruitment strategies, and make final recommendations for judicial appointments to the appointing authority.

The proposed amendments relate to the number of commissioners and the eligibility criteria for the senior tribunal commissioner. I will address each in turn. On the number of commissioners, as noted, under the existing statutory provisions there are 15 commissioners, including the lay chair. That includes two professional commissioners, who must hold different qualifications, being a barrister, a solicitor or a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives or CILEX. Currently, as only two of the legal professions can be represented at any one time, there is a barrister commissioner and a solicitor commissioner. The draft instrument increases the number of commissioners to 16 by adding a third professional commissioner and retaining the requirement that they be from different professions.

The purpose of that is twofold. First, it will strengthen the JAC’s capacity to efficiently manage high levels of judicial recruitment. Secondly, it will ensure all three main legal professions—barrister, solicitor and CILEX fellow—are represented simultaneously on the board. Creating a more certain route for the appointment of a CILEX fellow will support the JAC in its duty to promote diversity in judicial appointments. The approach will bring an additional sector perspective to the board and a commissioner to lead on outreach in the field. That is important because CILEX membership is generally more diverse on two characteristics than the other legal professions: 78% of CILEX fellows are women; and, as CILEX provides a non-graduate route to become a lawyer, its members are from more diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.

Under the statutory provisions for eligibility to be the senior tribunal commissioner, this role is open to upper tribunal judges, chamber presidents of the first-tier tribunal, chamber presidents of the upper tribunal, and presidents of employment tribunals for England and Wales, and Scotland. That means that not all senior salaried members within the unified tribunal structure are eligible. To address the inconsistency, an amendment expands eligibility to include all salaried members of the upper tribunal, certain judges of the employment appeal tribunal and deputy chamber presidents of the first-tier tribunal and deputy chamber presidents of the upper tribunal. The extent of this statutory instrument is UK-wide, as is its territorial application.

I will turn now to the consultation that we have undertaken on these amendments. The 2013 regulations were the result of public consultation completed in 2012. A further public consultation for these amendments was not considered necessary, given that the changes increase the number of commissioners, strengthening the JAC’s capacity for judicial recruitment, and address anomalies in the senior tribunal commissioner eligibility criteria. We formally consulted the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales, the JAC chair, the Bar Council, the Law Society, CILEX, the Legal Services Board, the Senior President of Tribunals, the Lady Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and the Lord President of Scotland. All were supportive of the changes.

I assure the Committee that the amendments set out in this statutory instrument are necessary to strengthen the JAC’s capacity, provider greater equality of opportunity for those applying to be commissioners, and support the JAC’s commitment to encouraging judicial diversity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. He will know that the JAC was created under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to be an independent body to ensure that judicial appointments are made solely on merit, thereby preserving the judiciary’s quality, impartiality and, crucially, independence from political influence. It is disappointing to hear the shadow Minister talk about two-tier justice and the sort of model that would lead to the politicisation of our judiciary, which I do not think anyone on the Committee would want to see. We can see where that would lead.

It is ironic, perhaps, to talk about how we restore public trust in what is actually one of the prides of this country—an independent judiciary that makes its judgments without fear or favour. It is one of the reasons why our legal services industry is so successful, because people can count on the independence of our judiciary and courts, whether in commercial, family, crime or civil law. Indeed, to try to inject political influence into that process would be inimical to the rule of law. Unfortunately, the Conservative party cares little about that, and is quite prepared not just to lambast judges but to undermine their reputation and the confidence that the public can have in them. That is regrettable. We stand by the independence of the JAC. We stand by an independent body that ensures that appointments are made solely on merit and free from political influence. It is unsurprising, therefore, that these modest but important changes have the support of our independent judiciary. I think that tells us everything we need to know about them. With that, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Judicial Appointments Commission (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 General Committees

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. He will know that the JAC was created under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to be an independent body to ensure that judicial appointments are made solely on merit, thereby preserving the judiciary’s quality, impartiality and, crucially, independence from political influence. It is disappointing to hear the shadow Minister talk about two-tier justice and the sort of model that would lead to the politicisation of our judiciary, which I do not think anyone on the Committee would want to see. We can see where that would lead.

It is ironic, perhaps, to talk about how we restore public trust in what is actually one of the prides of this country—an independent judiciary that makes its judgments without fear or favour. It is one of the reasons why our legal services industry is so successful, because people can count on the independence of our judiciary and courts, whether in commercial, family, crime or civil law. Indeed, to try to inject political influence into that process would be inimical to the rule of law. Unfortunately, the Conservative party cares little about that, and is quite prepared not just to lambast judges but to undermine their reputation and the confidence that the public can have in them. That is regrettable. We stand by the independence of the JAC. We stand by an independent body that ensures that appointments are made solely on merit and free from political influence. It is unsurprising, therefore, that these modest but important changes have the support of our independent judiciary. I think that tells us everything we need to know about them. With that, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Criminal Legal Aid Solicitor Fees Consultation: Government Response

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

Today I am laying before Parliament the Government’s response to the consultation “Criminal Legal Aid: proposals for solicitor fee scheme reform”.

Criminal legal aid lawyers play a crucial role in our justice system, taking on some of the most complex cases that go through our courts and ensuring the most vulnerable people in society can access justice. The consultation invited responses to fee scheme proposals that would allocate an additional £92 million per annum investment once fully implemented.

The consultation paper was published on 9 May 2025, with proposals that covered work carried out by legal aid providers at police stations, in magistrates’ courts, in the Crown Court, and in prisons.

After considering the responses, we have decided to implement the majority of the proposals put forward. These involve harmonising police station fees, a 10% increase to magistrates’ courts fees—including youth court fees—and a 24% increase to fees for work done in prisons. In line with our initial proposals, we will also increase some litigators’ graduated fee scheme trial basic fees for the lowest paid offences and will introduce a fixed ratio between guilty plea, cracked trial and trial basic fees.

As a result of some of the responses we received during the consultation period, we will be making some changes to our final proposals, so that we can ensure these measures support providers as effectively as possible. We have amended the escape fee threshold in the police station fee scheme to enable more cases to qualify for the fee, and we will additionally uplift fees for all solicitors’ appeals work by 10%.

This significant investment, once fully implemented, means that criminal legal aid solicitors will have received a 24% overall uplift in funding since the criminal legal aid independent review. This investment will support a stronger and more sustainable legal aid sector—one that is fit for the future and retains the brightest and the best practitioners. It is part of this Government’s plan for change to ensure justice is done and our streets are safe.

We announced these fee uplifts in December 2024, before the Legal Aid Agency was subject to a cyber security incident in mid-2025. The LAA has swiftly responded with comprehensive measures designed to maintain access to justice and protect provider cash flow during system disruption. Throughout this disruption, we remain committed to delivering these important uplifts for the sector. We are pleased that we remain on track to deliver on our commitment to invest in the legal aid system.

We intend to bring forward statutory instruments to amend the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 to reflect the changes and fee increases. Our intention is that the first statutory instrument will come into force from 22 December 2025. This will cover the crime lower fee increases set out in our response, relating to work in police stations, magistrates’ courts, prisons and for some appeals work. A second statutory instrument will be laid as soon as the required changes to uplift fees can be delivered through Legal Aid Agency digital systems. This will cover the crime higher fee increases set out in our response, relating to the LGFS and remaining areas of appeals work.

As well as our investment in criminal legal aid, the Government are also today announcing implementation of our fee uplifts for immigration and housing controlled work in civil legal aid confirmed earlier in the year.

[HCWS1110]

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

5. What steps he is taking to increase access to legal aid for people in rural areas.

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

Legal aid can be a lifeline and should be available to those who need it, wherever they happen to live. This Government have made substantial new investment in legal aid—both in criminal legal aid, with an additional £92 million a year, and in civil legal aid, where we are investing an additional £20 million a year.

[Ben Maguire]

I thank the Minister for that response. Would she please join me in congratulating Coodes Solicitors, which provides a weekly pro bono surgery to my constituents in Bodmin? Firms such as Coodes face, in its own words, so much unnecessary bureaucracy and hoops to jump through when providing legal aid. As the Minister highlights, I understand that the Government have made some progress towards making the financial investment in the system that is needed, but is she aware of the incredible burden of this needless bureaucracy and will she please commit to simplifying public funding contracts?

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I commend all lawyers who provide pro bono support to their clients, which is incredibly commendable. However, it is ultimately a sticking-plaster and no substitute for a well-functioning legal aid system. That is why, as well as increasing fees, we are investing in the transformation of the IT digital platform to enable providers to cut through some of that red tape.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

6. What steps his Department is taking to help increase access to justice for people from all social backgrounds.

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

This Government are committed to access to justice, and that involves supporting people from every social background to uphold their rights. As I said earlier, we are investing in civil legal aid. We have introduced the greatest expansion in a decade of legal aid through the Hillsborough law, and we continue to provide financial support for law centres and Citizens Advice so that people—wherever they come from, whatever their background—can access legal support.

[Ian Lavery]

The Labour Government’s investment in legal aid and legal services is hugely welcome. However, expert analysis has shown categorically that young people from more deprived backgrounds find it extremely difficult to access justice. Many people from constituencies such as mine are very much unaware of what might be available to them when they most need it. Can the Minister assure me that everything possible is being done to ensure that our people are acutely aware of what is available to them to access the justice they so rightly deserve and, in many cases, they urgently require?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. If people do not know their rights, they cannot enforce their rights, so raising awareness is incredibly important. It is important that we expand access to legal support where people are living their lives, and the online service where people, especially young people, can access digital legal advice is a vital component of that.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I was interested to hear the Minister’s answers to the previous question, but true access to justice must include those still imprisoned under legal tests since ruled wrong, including many young people from marginalised communities convicted under joint enterprise. Will the Government consider adopting the review mechanism in my amendment to the Sentencing Bill, which would create a statutory process for a review of convictions so that they, too, can access justice?

[Sarah Sackman]

The review of criminal law in this area is incredibly delicate, and we need to look at it in line with common law and case law, but we are keeping it under review.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

7. What steps he is taking to tackle backlogs in the courts.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

22. What steps he is taking to help tackle court backlogs.

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

Behind the backlogs in our courts, and behind each and every one of those case statistics, there is a human story, and there is no doubt that the delays in our criminal courts are taking their toll on victims and all participants in the criminal justice system. However, we are gripping the situation by investing in a greater number of Crown court sitting days, making additional investment in criminal legal aid and commissioning the review from Sir Brian Leveson. What is required is a once-in-a-generation reform of our criminal justice system, and we will be providing our response to that review in due course.

[Helen Morgan]

I thank the Minister for her answer. The situation she describes is similar to one that I am about to describe. A constituent of mine got in touch about a case of historical sexual abuse, which they bravely reported in 2018. After years of waiting, a trial date was set for this May, only for it to be put back again until July 2027—nine years after first reporting the case. I am sure, Mr Speaker, you can imagine the toll that has taken on my constituent’s mental health and wellbeing. I urge the Minister to progress at speed with her reform of the Courts Service and, in particular, address the problems in Shropshire where there are significant issues with the Crown court and magistrates court service.

[Sarah Sackman]

I am incredibly sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent’s experience and I reiterate my sympathies. She articulates, with that case, precisely why it is vital that we pursue reform. Timeliness is an essential ingredient of fairness and the state’s obligation is to deliver fair trials. That is why we will do whatever it takes to bear down on the backlog as we bring forward our response to Sir Brian Leveson’s review.

[Luke Murphy]

I thank the Minister for her answer. I have heard, from several constituents who are victims of domestic abuse, how the delays in the family court that were inherited from the previous Government, particularly for financial settlement orders, have compounded the traumatic experience and included ongoing financial harm and detriment. Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to reduce those delays and, in particular, to support victims of domestic abuse through our courts system?

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are committed to improving timeliness not just in criminal courts but in family courts too, and to providing better support to victims of domestic abuse, who we know make up many of the participants in that litigation. The Pathfinder model is working. It resolves cases faster and offers specialist domestic abuse support. We have expanded the Pathfinder model to five additional court areas and we are continuing that expansion into 2026. He will be happy to know that that includes Hampshire, where I understand his constituency is based.

[Mr Speaker]

That could also help with the reopening of Chorley court, Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

15. What steps his Department is taking to provide adequate funding for the courts system.

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

This Government inherited a justice system on its knees, starved for years of adequate funding, but we are fixing the foundations. We are investing in our buildings, in our people and in a record number of sitting days—sitting at or close to maximum judicial capacity in every jurisdiction. That is how we are fixing the courts system.

[Vikki Slade]

I was fortunate to visit Poole magistrates court last week; indeed, it is interesting to hear mention of the state of buildings, because they were appalling. I was most concerned when the district judge and court manager explained to me that there is no shortage of magistrates or court space and that the shortage is one of legal advisers in the system. They explained that the funding for one extra legal adviser would allow them to progress 500 cases a year, but they simply cannot retain them. What is the Minister doing to review that role and make sure that we can get those smaller cases through quickly?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Lady is right that our court staff are the backbone of our courts system and they make it tick every day. It is an absolute pleasure, as the Courts Minister, to visit courts like the one she described. I recently visited Snaresbrook Crown court and it was a pleasure to meet staff there. As she says, legal advisers are critical to the functioning of the magistrates court, and that is why we are investing an additional £5.2 million in addressing the retention challenges that she describes.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. and learned Friend is right to commend court staff and to highlight the significant issues in the courts system. In my time on the Public Accounts Committee, we uncovered problems with the buildings, the IT systems and the Probation Service—the whole system was in real difficulty. How long does she think it will take this Government to clear up the mess that the last Government left?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have a mountain to climb, and we cannot fix the foundations overnight. This Government are committed to restoring the public’s confidence in the justice system. That is why, through the spending review, we have committed an additional £450 million to the courts system. That means, as I said, investing in our buildings and in our people to restore the public’s confidence in our system.

[Mr Speaker]

Reopen Chorley to help you!

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

16. Whether he plans to bring forward legislative proposals on litigation funding agreements.

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his commitment on this issue? We had an incredibly constructive debate in Westminster Hall recently on the topic of third-party litigation funding. Litigation funding is what enabled Alan Bates and the sub-postmasters to fund their landmark legal action against the Post Office. It plays a critical role in access to justice and a vital role in contributing to our economy. For that reason, I am carefully considering, alongside colleagues, our response to the Civil Justice Council’s review to ensure that we get our reforms right.

[Sir Julian Smith]

I thank the Minister for that answer and for the constructive debate a week or so ago. May I press her on timing—as she said, this is important for consumers, businesses and the legal sector—and test her on the opportunities for early dispute resolution, which were mentioned in the CJC report and which I would encourage the Government to look at seriously?

[Sarah Sackman]

As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the report is incredibly detailed and contains a whole host of recommendations. It is important that we go through that very carefully. We have all seen the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court judgment in the PACCAR case. We are looking at what the appropriate response would be. If we are going to effectively reverse the effect of that judgment, then we want to build back better and get the reforms right so that we can achieve the access to justice and the economic benefit that he so rightly says he is committed to.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

T4. Following on from that, still less than 3% of rape cases result in a charge. It takes 400 days for resolution—painful delays for the victims. We have talked about this for so long, so often. What are the barriers to change?

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

The hon. Member raises a really important point. We need investment, structural reform and modernisation—that is, the adoption of technology. That is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct his detailed review. We have got part 1, which suggests to us that structural reform. We are awaiting part 2, which should arrive by the end of the year, which will direct us as to how we can drive efficiency and get swifter justice for all victims, but in particular those of serious sexual offences.

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

Sasha Marsden was 16 years old when she was murdered, raped and then set on fire by David Minto. Sasha’s sister, Katie—who is my constituent and who joins us today—is campaigning for victims’ families to have fairer access to sentencing appeals. Despite the need for closure in sentencing, perpetrators are given multiple appeal opportunities, while victims’ families have just one chance. What will the Government do to ensure that victims’ families do not have fewer rights than perpetrators in this process?

Whiplash Reform Programme: Post-Implementation Review and Call for Evidence

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Written Statements

[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

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[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

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[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

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[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 Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

Shocking!

[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.