Andy Slaughter MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I also mentioned the national oversight mechanism. Whether the Minister thinks it requires legislation or can be done by Government action, does she support having something that is shared, publicised and known about so that we are not constantly repeating things and we know where inquiries have got to? Will she do that in tandem with the Bill, if it is not part of the Bill?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a couple of things are missing from this otherwise excellent Bill? The first is an acknowledgment of the role that the media played in covering up many of the wrongs that happened, and the second is a national oversight mechanism which would ensure that when recommendations are made, they are carried out.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. As she said, the chief inspector of prisons has found that rehabilitation in prisons is not working. This Bill presents an opportunity for a sea change in how that works, as well as in reoffending when people leave prison. As a member of the Select Committee, she will know that we will soon produce a major report on rehabilitation. It is essential that purposeful activity becomes the norm in prisons, and not the exception.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Minister on his Bill, which can undo the damage done to the prison system over the past 14 years of neglect and mismanagement, but while he is clearly in listening mode, let me say that it is capable of improvement. I tabled a number of amendments that were designed to improve the Bill in Committee last week. I will write to him to remind him what they are, but will he look at those proposals, which were made in good faith, to see whether changes can be made in the other place?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Although commercial organisations may well be able to run community schemes, it is clear that the ambition of voluntary organisations is rehabilitation and the prevention of reoffending, and that really must be the goal of community sentencing, which is at the heart of the Bill.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Prisoner Release Checks · Hansard source

  More

  Given the pressure on prison front desks and the complexity of rules for release, this was an accident waiting to happen. One thing that might bring down the number of releases in error is the digitising of prisoner records. On visits to prisons, Justice Committee members are often horrified to find staff relying on handwritten files. While some parts of the justice system are entertaining artificial intelligence, why are our prisons still run on pen and paper systems?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  May I congratulate my hon. Friend on piloting the Bill through the House? It is an excellent piece of legislation that will make a real difference to victims. But, as she said, it is just a start. Will she and the Department rededicate themselves to bringing down that Crown court backlog? Speedy justice is what victims want.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Work of the County Court: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Work of the County Court: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Work of the County Court: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  A fundamental review was attempted under the last Government, which involved closing many county courts around the country. We were told that the money released from the sale of those courts would go either into the maintenance of the rest of the estate or, more probably, into the reform programme, and so lead to digitalisation of the system. We have seen all the court closures but not the improvement in service that was supposed to result, so unfortunately here we are. I used the Master of the Rolls figure of 23% for the amount of digitalisation that has occurred. It is key to a 21st-century system of civil justice, and that is why I am glad that the Government have looked at the future for digitalisation. I hope they will tell us that there is a clear and realistic path to achieving that, because it is where we need to go. It is ridiculous to be running a paper-based system in the 21st century. It is inefficient, it is costly and it is not providing justice.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Work of the County Court: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for me to make a statement on the Government’s response to the fourth report of the Justice Committee, “Work of the County Court”. Two independent reviews into the criminal justice system, those of David Gauke on sentencing and Sir Brian Leveson on the criminal courts, identified the crises in our prisons and criminal courts, and suggested solutions for the Government to address, including in legislation. The Committee welcomes the reviews, but there is an absence of an equivalent review into civil justice. Our report called for a root-and-branch review of the county court, including a sustainable plan for reducing the systemic delays and inefficiencies we found. We are disappointed that the Government have rejected that recommendation, although pleased that they have adopted almost all the other recommendations in the report and that their rationale for rejecting an independent review is that our report sets out a detailed blueprint for action. The 17 recommendations that the Government have accepted focus on the most pressing issues facing the court. The county court is the principal forum for delivering civil justice in England and Wales. It is where millions of our constituents, and businesses large and small, encounter the justice system, but, as our inquiry found, it is a system in crisis. I echo the Minister’s thanks to all who contributed to our inquiry and report; the many people and organisations that submitted written evidence and gave oral evidence; and those who contributed to our roundtable and welcomed us on our visits. I also pay tribute to my predecessor as Chair, Sir Bob Neill KC, the former Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, under whose leadership the inquiry began in October 2023. Following the Dissolution of Parliament and the general election, the current Committee agreed to continue this important piece of work and press the Department on the performance of the county court. The county court hears a vast array of cases, from the recovery of personal and corporate debt to landlords’ recovery of property and personal injury claims. In 2024, it heard more than 1.7 million claims. However, the average time for a small claims case to reach trial now exceeds 50 weeks, and for more complex claims the delay is even longer—more than 79 weeks. The evidence we received was deeply concerning. The length of delays is resulting in cases being settled at an undervalue. Despite the county court being a single unified court, the length of delay depends on a court user’s postcode. We found that such regional differences are severe and result in a postcode lottery. Courts in London and the south-east are some of the worst affected, with examples of cases being delayed by more than two years. The Civil Justice Council told us that when all courts were ranked by their average delay, four fifths of the worst performers were in London and the south-east. In its response, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service notes that it publishes regional data that can be analysed by court, but we did not find any evidence of HMCTS sharing areas of good practice based on this data or of curiosity as to why any differences across England and Wales are occurring. Our overarching conclusion was stark: the county court is a dysfunctional operation that fails to adequately deliver civil justice across England and Wales. The issues in London and the south-east typify issues faced across the county court. Behind the weeks of delays is a picture of insufficient judicial capacity, high staff turnover and inadequate training to support court users effectively. We found that the civil judiciary is no longer an attractive profession, and we were told of the poor working conditions and administrative burdens that the role now requires. Both the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls agreed that there was an overdependence on fee-paid judiciary to plug the gaps of insufficient judicial recruitment. We also heard that court staff are overstretched and poorly paid, with high turnover and use of agency staff undermining the efficiency of an already strained system. Court users felt unsupported by staff who could not provide updates on cases, while the centralised phone lines and inboxes were often left unanswered. That is simply not good enough. Those issues are symptoms of a wider delay. We put it to the Department that such symptoms must be addressed urgently if meaningful change was to be achieved. We recommended that any future review must include an in-depth assessment of staff recruitment and retention, including workload, capacity and regional disparities. We also recommended that the review look at the judicial offer. We are pleased the Government have accepted those recommendations. As part of our inquiry, we visited Northampton county court, the Civil National Business Centre and the central London county court. What was particularly shocking was the poor condition of all those buildings. Our report highlighted the deteriorating physical state of the county court premises, with reports of asbestos, broken heating, leaking roofs and rat and insect infestations. The significant disrepair of the estate impacts staff morale and disrupts court operations, causing yet further delays. There are also problems with accessibility for those with disabilities. I take this opportunity to thank the court staff across England and Wales for their commendable efforts to operate an already crumbling system in such conditions. In August 2023, £220 million of capital investment was announced, to be spent solely on the court estate across both criminal and civil jurisdictions. We are pleased that the Government have agreed to provide the Committee with a breakdown of how that funding was spent and how much, if any, was directed to the county court estate. We are also pleased to hear of recent capital projects at Taunton, Barnet and Norwich. It remains clear, however, that these projects and previous funding fall well short of what is needed to address years of chronic under-investment across the court estate. I turn to other areas of funding. Legal aid was originally introduced to ensure access to justice. Through successive reforms, its scope has been reduced, leading to an increase in litigants in person. Self-represented parties usually do not have a legal background and struggle with procedural rules and court practice. In 2019, the Ministry of Justice recognised that litigants in person continued to require greater support in navigating court procedure, but little has changed. The Committee has embarked on a major review of access to justice, but in the absence of more funding for representation, more must be done to help litigants in person navigate the system. In 2016, HMCTS launched a £1 billion project called the reform programme. It aimed to modernise the court and tribunal systems and transform them through digitisation. However, the project was continually modified and reduced by HMCTS and its timetable extended four times. It finally concluded in March this year. The reform programme was meant to bring end-to-end digitisation to the county court. By March 2025, it had achieved that in only 23% of cases. In practice, the reform programme delivered only two services solely for use in the county court: the damages claims portal and the online civil money claims service, both of which have faced heavy criticism. We heard of the dual running between new and old systems, a failure to take on feedback from practitioners and the continued and successive reliance on paper, adding unnecessary costs to the taxpayer and leaving an analogue system in a digital age. We concluded that the reform programme was ultimately over-ambitious and under-delivered. The majority of the civil justice projects were de-scoped, culminating in a fragmented digital system. We recommended that HMCTS review all de-scoped work and prioritise its digitisation to bring a true end-to-end digital service to the county court. We are pleased that, in their response, the Government confirmed that such a review has taken place. A digital county court would offer the opportunity to integrate artificial intelligence early on. We welcome the Government’s AI action plan for justice and commitment to AI in encouraging mediation, which aligns with our own conclusions and recommendations. Our report concludes that the county court is the Cinderella of the justice system, beset by delays, a crumbling estate and a failed attempt at digital reform. The Government response fails to reassure us that the MOJ has a concrete plan to improve civil justice comparable to Sir Brian Leveson’s and David Gauke’s reviews into the prisons and the criminal courts. In the absence of an equivalent independent review, we hope our report can provide a blueprint to reduce the systemic delays and inefficiencies that plague the system. The county court is where justice is most often sought by our constituents. It must not be allowed to fail them.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Work of the County Court: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  As I think I set out in the statement, there are problems all along the line. There are problems with representation. There are problems with access. There are problems with systems remaining on paper when they should have been put online long ago. It might therefore be thought that the physical state of the buildings is a lower priority. In reality, it is not, because it affects recruitment and the efficiency of the court, and it means that, over a period of time, courts become toxic places to work. That is why I went out of my way to praise the court staff, because they are doing an excellent job in very difficult circumstances. None of us wants to work in a sick building. I hope that the Government will address this, and that we will find out how much capital money is going to the county court. The Minister may be able to tell us that to today. Certainly, the problem has to be tackled. That is true in the magistrates and Crown courts as well, but particularly in the county courts.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Heathrow: National Airports Review · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Secretary of State confirm that this is not a done deal? As part of the ANPS review process, will there be a full and independent analysis of the economic costs and benefits, the environmental effects, and demand in London and the south-east, given airport expansion elsewhere? As she says, the world has changed since 2018. Can my constituents, who will be seriously detrimentally affected by any further expansion of Heathrow, be assured that the Government have their best interests at heart?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It means that I will listen very carefully, not only to what the hon. Member says but to what the Government say. I know that the Government are unlikely to accept new clause 19, because they have made their position on resentencing clear. Nevertheless, I wanted to set out that that is the best option, but I am just about to talk about other options, which might be more practical and which I urge on the Minister today. The Justice Committee remains of the view that a resentencing exercise is the best and most comprehensive way to reduce the number of IPP prisoners in prison. Knowing, however, that the Government are yet to be persuaded of the merits of resentencing on the balance of risk, I have also tabled new clause 20, which would allow a prisoner whose licence has not been terminated by the Parole Board two or three years after their first release to make an annual application for termination to the Parole Board. This would increase the opportunities for the licences of IPP prisoners to be terminated, and would reduce the amount of time those prisoners have to wait in limbo between Parole Board hearings. In contrast to resentencing, this more modest amendment would enhance the process for IPP licence terminations. IPP terminations have been the single most effective measure in permanently reducing the stain of the IPP sentence. Some 28% of IPP sentences have been terminated by the Parole Board, ending the shadow of the sentence by cancelling it and removing the risk of recall for those who have been deemed safe by the Parole Board or complied with their licence for two years.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted that my friend is still taking a strong interest in these matters and remains on the Justice Committee, even though he no longer has his Front-Bench responsibilities—we know that he has other responsibilities that he wishes to take on. I entirely agree with him; it is a point that we have made in Committee, and I hope the Minister has listened to it. I am sure that the words “commercial confidentiality” were used at some point, but this is not about commercial confidentiality; it is about us knowing how well electronic tagging is working, which is a very serious matter in the criminal justice system. That is very well illustrated by the level of fines imposed. I have tabled two new clauses, new clauses 19 and 20, regarding prisoners who are subject to imprisonment for public protection sentences. It has been 12 years since the last IPP sentence was handed down, yet around 2,500 people are still serving IPP sentences in prison. It is now widely acknowledged that the nature of those sentences has severe consequences for those who are serving them and for their loved ones. New clause 19 would implement the recommendation of the previous Justice Committee’s 2022 report that there should be a resentencing exercise for all IPP-sentenced individuals, and that a time-limited expert committee that includes a member of the judiciary should be established to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do agree with that, and in a moment I will talk about a new clause that deals specifically with tagging. I am rattling through my speech because I have a lot to get through, but what I am specifically talking about in relation to domestic abuse is simply the need for there to be due process. That is something that I think we all want to see. Amendments 30 and 31 would ensure that the requirements of clause 6, which are important in allowing police and probation services to track perpetrators of domestic abuse, are carried out in a manner that is as thorough and fair as possible. My next amendment, amendment 32, relates to clause 35, which amends the sentencing code to allow for the publication of the photographs and names of offenders serving community sentences. The explanatory notes say very little about this clause, but the justification in the memorandum on human rights suggests that the Government believe that this measure will have a deterrent effect on criminals, although there is little evidence for that assertion. The measure engages the article 8 right to private and family life for the individual, their victims and their family. Some concerns have been raised about how this measure can be operated safety in the modern social media age, in which photographs and names can be readily and quickly shared. My amendment would prevent clause 35 from being brought into force until the Secretary of State has issued a code of practice to providers of probation services about how to take and publish photographs lawfully in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998 and data protection legislation. Before issuing a code of practice, the Secretary of State must consult providers of probation services, lay a draft before Parliament, and obtain the approval of both Houses. That would ensure proper parliamentary oversight of this measure.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As I did at the start of my speech on Second Reading, I put on record the continuing crisis in our prisons. The prison population currently stands at 87,427, with usable operational capacity being 89,286. Prison population projections estimate that the population could rise to more than 100,000 by March 2029. That is an indictment of the previous Government and it gives the lie to their mantra that this Bill is soft on crime; we will have record numbers of people in prison. This Bill is a necessity, and we must make a virtue of that necessity. I welcome the principles of the Bill and the reforms suggested in it. They are essential, both to reduce the prison population and to improve the way in which the justice system deals with punishment, rehabilitation and public safety. The measures in the Bill that derive from David Gauke’s independent sentencing review include varying suspended sentences and short custodial sentences, adopting the earned progression model for release, and changes to recall and licence. All have their risks, so the purpose of the amendments that I and other members of the Justice Committee have tabled—to which I now turn—is to reduce those risks and make practical improvements to the Bill. I have also tabled two new clauses relating to imprisonment for public protection prisoners, who are not currently considered by the Bill—in my view, wrongly. The first amendment I have tabled is amendment 29 to clause 3, which relates to income reduction orders, or IROs. These will act as financial penalties for offenders, who will forfeit a percentage of their disposable income as a form of punishment and reparation. My amendment would change the definition of monthly income for the purposes of an IRO so that any amount of money that is required to be paid or deducted from an offender’s monthly income because of other enactments, such as child support maintenance payments or an attachment of earnings order, is not counted. This will ensure that IROs do not impact on an offender’s ability to pay outstanding debts or, in the case of child support maintenance, to meet their obligation to support their children and family members in the community. My second set of amendments relates to clause 6, which introduces a statutory requirement for courts to make a formal finding of domestic abuse where relevant during sentencing. My amendments 30 and 31 introduce two procedural safeguards before a court can record that an offence involved domestic abuse. First, the court must have indicated that it appears that the offence may have involved domestic abuse. Secondly, the court must have given the offender and the prosecutor an opportunity to adduce evidence and make representations before coming to the view that an offence involved domestic abuse.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We have to do something about recall and do it now. The number of prisoners on recall has more than doubled over the seven-year period from March 2018 to 2025. It was 6,000 then and it is now 13,500. That is a significant part of the prison population.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am not going to give way again, because I am taking too much time. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a difficult process to manage. That is why this Bill was presented on the same day that fixed-term recall 48 came into operation. FTR 48 is the recent provision mandating fixed-term recalls of 28 days in determinate cases of less than 48 months. The new 56-day recall model recommended in the Bill replicates FTR 48, with the exception that the default recall period is extended from 28 to 56 days. Prior to this new provision being laid, there has been no opportunity for the efficacy and impact of this model to be evaluated. New clause 21 would allow that evaluation to take place. I think I am trying to do the same as what he is saying, which is to ensure we look carefully and evaluate the effect. We are into new territory here, and there may be unintended consequences. The sentencing review received numerous reports that offenders are recalled for breaches, such as their tag running out of power or a failure to keep in touch, and that breach and recall processes are overly punitive and often felt to be unfair. As the Bill stands, the legal test for recall remains unchanged. As more offenders will be released at an earlier date and the use of electronic tagging will increase, there is a greater risk that people may be recalled when there are minor problems with the tag or housing issues. Tightening the legal test for recalls would confine their use to instances where there is evidence of consistent non-compliance, or a specific and imminent risk of harm, as recommended by the review. Without amendment, there is a real risk that the prison capacity crisis will not be adequately addressed, and we could even see an increase in recalls, albeit for shorter periods. A tighter test would guard against unintended consequences from the overuse of 56-day recalls. Amendment 34 to clause 24 introduces the right for those being made subject to licence conditions to make representations as to their necessity and proportionality. That could be an important safeguard, given the suite of new conditions in the Bill that enable a wide range of restrictions to be imposed in the community. Without safeguards, the use of these conditions could lead to increased recalls and increased pressure on the probation and prison systems. Giving offenders an entitlement to make representations about licensing conditions would assist in alerting the authorities to any unintended consequences, such as where conditions might impact on resettlement or other outcomes, including access to employment or healthcare. I am coming towards the end, but not just yet. The last of my amendments is amendment 35 to clause 24, which concerns restriction zones. Amendment 35 would introduce a requirement for the Parole Board to have oversight of new restriction zones for offenders on licence. A restriction zone is, by its nature, highly restrictive and could impact on almost every aspect of an offender’s life, including their ability to work, receive medical care and see family. Any application to leave the zone places an administrative burden on the authorities. The amendment would introduce judicial oversight by the Parole Board of the extension of restriction zones. That oversight could act as an important safeguard before such restrictions are imposed, and may also provide an opportunity for victims to have a voice in setting out the potential impact on them before an independent body. This is the first time that provision has been made to restrict offenders to a certain geographical area when released on licence without a requirement for judicial oversight or due process. The proposed restriction is akin to control orders, now replaced with terrorist prevention and investigation measures, but without the requirement for a gateway offence or judicial oversight. Finally, I have put my name to amendment 36, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox). It would provide an important clarification of the powers of the court to impose a community sentence as an alternative to a suspended prison sentence, in circumstances where that may offer a more effective prospect of avoiding future offending or breach of licence conditions. It would likely be especially beneficial in keeping women out of prison. To conclude, I repeat my support for the Bill and the Government’s approach to sentencing, which are the biggest changes in 30 years. I thank the organisations working with IPP prisoners, many of whom are relatives and friends of those incarcerated, including United Group for Reform of IPP and the IPP Committee in Action. I also thank the justice unions parliamentary group, the Prison Reform Trust, the Law Society and Justice, among others, for their briefing and assistance with proposing changes to the Bill. I hope the Minister will consider the amendments that we have tabled as ways to improve the Bill’s content and bring clarity where it is needed. I hope that he will respond to them in winding up and may even agree to adopt some of them. We survive on hope.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have quite a lot to say about recall, which I will come to in a moment, but I have reflected on this question. Licence is an established part of the criminal justice system, as indeed is probation. Almost every prisoner, other than a handful of the most serious criminals, comes out of prison at some stage. The issue of public safety when people are released from prison is one that this Bill is trying to address. We may disagree on the means to that objective, but I am sure we agree on the objective itself. I also tabled new clause 18, which relates to the provision of information to Parliament regarding offenders who are subject to electronic tagging and the operation of the tagging contract. The success of the measures in this Bill will rely heavily on the use of electronic monitoring, primarily through the use of tags. The Justice Committee has continually raised concerns about the performance of Serco, the Government’s current tagging provider. As a reminder, on 7 May, the Prisons Minister revealed to us that at that point, Serco had received financial penalties for poor performance every month since it took on the electronic monitoring contract on 1 May 2024. Ministers have assured us that Serco’s performance is beginning to improve. New clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report each calendar year on the use of electronic monitoring requirements. That report must include the number of electronic monitoring requirements imposed each year, the rate of compliance, and the cost of administering those requirements each year. The report must be laid before Parliament. This would improve transparency and allow parliamentarians to assess for themselves how successfully Serco or other providers are administering tagging contracts.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement · Hansard source

  More

  The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), and other relevant Select Committee Chairs, including me, have met the Director of Public Prosecutions and sent him a detailed series of follow-up questions. The Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), has convened an inquiry and is likely to call a number of relevant witnesses, including Government Ministers. The Minister mentioned that the ISC will be looking at this matter. Can he assure the House that the Government will co-operate fully with those inquiries and responses, and that that is the best way to take these matters forward in a thorough and timely fashion?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Criminal Courts: Independent Review · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate. As he says, the changes being proposed to the way in which the criminal courts operate are very significant, and it is right that we have the opportunity to debate them here. My contribution was to move the time of the Justice Committee to allow its members to take part today, and we therefore see a well-attended debate. The latest figures show that the current open caseload for criminal cases in the Crown courts now stands at 78,329—more than double the 38,070 cases recorded in December 2019. If no action is taken, that number is projected to increase to between 99,000 and 114,000 by the end of March 2029. In response, the previous Lord Chancellor, on 12 December 2024, announced that she had asked Sir Brian Leveson to review the criminal courts to consider how to accelerate the hearing of cases. The “Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part I”, the subject of this debate, was published on 9 July 2025. The second part of the review will focus on the efficiency of the criminal justice system, and is due to be published later this year. The first part of the review proposes 45 recommendations. Sir Brian stresses that the package needs to be looked at as a whole and “should not be approached as providing a ‘pick-n-mix’ series of options.” In the interests of time, I will mention only the most radical and controversial of those proposals. First, the review recommends an expansion in the use of out-of-court resolutions, noting that their use has fallen by 35% since 2015, from 328,000 to 212,000. Secondly, the review recommends removing the right to elect a Crown court trial for offences with a maximum sentence length of two years. It states that those offences form an obvious grouping, as they have been categorised by Parliament as the least serious of the either-way offences. The review identifies a pool of additional offences for removal of the right to elect, based on the average custodial sentence length they typically involve. It also recommends reclassifying some offences as summary only—in effect, removing the defendant’s right to elect and ensuring that such offences could be tried only in the magistrates court. The review proposes to select offences for reclassification based on whether the average custodial sentence length falls well within the magistrates’ sentencing power limit of 12 months. That requires—this picks up a point the right hon. and learned Gentleman made—reducing the maximum sentence for these offences to 12 months to align with the new maximum sentencing power for the magistrates court. Thirdly, the review proposes the introduction of a dedicated Crown court bench division, comprising a Crown court judge and two magistrates, ensuring the retention of community participation, in the absence of a jury. Magistrates would have equal decision-making authority on evidence and sentencing, with matters of law reserved to the judge. The Crown court bench division would encompass the same sentencing powers as the Crown court, negating the need to commit cases for sentence. For either-way offences, allocation to the CCBD would be determined at the plea and trial preparation hearing, with cases likely to attract sentences of three years or less anticipated to be heard in this division. Responding to the review, Mark Beattie, chair of the Magistrates’ Association, noted that an extra 6,000 magistrates would be required to ensure that the CCBD runs successfully alongside maintaining capacity in the magistrates court. Fourthly, the review provides recommendations to incentivise early resolutions in the Crown court: increasing the maximum reduction for early guilty pleas from 33% to 40%; making it mandatory for judges to offer advance sentence indications, allowing defendants greater clarity and confidence in entering a plea early; and establishing a pilot scheme to test whether delaying the pre-trial hearing allows better-informed plea decisions. Appearing before the Justice Committee in December 2024, the Director of Public Prosecutions stated that 70% of cases going through the Crown court eventually end up with guilty pleas, but in only 36% of cases are guilty pleas entered at the first substantive hearing. Fifthly and finally of the points that I want to address, the review recommends that serious and complex fraud cases should be tried by a judge alone, with eligible cases defined by hidden dishonesty or complexity outside the understanding of the general public. The combined effect of the reforms would be to curtail a defendant’s right to trial by jury, and that has generated adverse comments from the legal profession and some commentators. These are very significant changes to the way the criminal courts operate. As to whether the review’s proposals would achieve their aim of speeding the trial process, it models three recommendations: the introduction of the Crown court bench division, the reclassification of some offences and the removal of the right to elect. Other recommendations made by the review in part 1 were not modelled, and any impact of those would be in addition to those savings. In combination, and with savings measured in Crown court sitting days, the modelled proposals suggest savings of 9,000 Crown court sitting days per annum through the diversion of cases to the magistrates court or the Crown court bench division. Given that the Leveson review is the Ministry of Justice’s main play to reduce the Crown court backlog, it seems inevitable that it will go forward, and go forward as a package, as Sir Brian requests. Whether it will achieve its targets, and whether it will have the adverse effects on the administration of criminal justice predicted by the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association in their briefings for this debate, we will find out. What is certain is that, by expressing the need to apply to the criminal justice system many of the innovations that have been proposed and rejected over the past several decades, it draws into sharp focus the parlous state of our criminal courts in 2025. Many of the proposals in Sir Brian’s report are not new; they have been debated and, on the whole, rejected over several decades. The question really—for the Government, but also for all of us—is whether, given the lamentable failure of the Crown courts at present to deal with cases in a timely manner and to see justice delivered, those are sacrifices worth making now.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have made it clear that they regret the fact that this case is not going ahead. The Minister rightly says that the CPS acts independently when making charging decisions, but will he go further than regret and say that, as a matter of law and evidence, this prosecution should have gone ahead and that the issue of innocence or guilt should have been determined by a judge and jury?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member is not easily confused. I will turn to exactly that point later, but in brief it is both, and there is a contradiction in it being both. There is going to be a massive expansion in prison places, and there are going to be more people in prison. However, at the same time, partly to reduce the need for even more prisons to be built and partly because there are alternatives to custody, there will be people leaving prison as well. It is a difficult trick to pull off, I appreciate, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is up to the task. The Sentencing Bill shifts the focus from custodial sentences to dealing with offenders in the community. It is paramount, therefore, that probation services are adequately funded to manage the substantial increase in workload and that supporting resources, such as electronic monitoring, are available and reliable. There are several measures in the Bill that will increase the pressure on probation services. These include a statutory presumption to suspend custodial sentences of 12 months or less; an extension of the availability of suspended sentences to three years rather than two; and new community orders, including those that ban offenders from public events and drinking establishments, prohibit offenders from driving and impose restriction zones on them. In the 2023-24 annual report and accounts for the Prison and Probation Service, the overall annual leaving rate for Probation Service staff was over 10%. His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation said: “High workloads and a lack of support are critical factors in driving practitioners away from their roles”. A report leaked to the BBC estimated that there is currently a shortfall of around 10,000 probation staff, which is four or five times the number being recruited. I welcome the extra £700 million pledged during the spending review period to assist the Probation Service in dealing with the increased pressures. It will be vital in filling the shortfall and increasing staff retention. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acknowledged that in response to me during Justice questions today. The success of the measures in the Bill relies heavily on the use of electronic monitoring, primarily through the use of tags. The Justice Committee has continually raised its concerns about the performance of Serco, the Government’s current tagging provider. In correspondence with the Committee dated 7 May this year, the Prisons Minister revealed to us the shocking fact that Serco had received financial penalties for poor performance every month since it took on the electronic monitoring contract a year earlier. In oral evidence given to the Committee, Ministers have recognised that Serco’s performance has been unacceptable and that stronger punishments for Serco are possible, should it continue to fail. Those should include possible debarment and exclusion from bidding for public contracts. Indeed, some of us wondered how Serco was ever awarded that contract by the previous Government after the appalling fraud it committed during its previous tenure as contractor. Ministers have reassured us that Serco’s performance is beginning to improve. It is difficult to see how the Government can continue to have faith in Serco, but it is also evident that they cannot easily shift to another contractor as there appears to be no viable alternative.