Andy Slaughter MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  That was a bit off-subject, so I will confine my comments to saying that, as usual, we are all disappointed by the official Opposition. We will leave it at that. Fortunately, the Justice Committee has been involved in scrutinising some of the legislation being carried over—namely, the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which I believe has now been reborn as the courts modernisation Bill, and the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, by which I mean the Hillsborough Bill; I hope the House is keeping up with these nomenclatures. I will deal with those Bills before outlining what else the Committee is doing. First, on the courts modernisation Bill, the Justice Committee has been engaging closely with the Government’s proposals for reform of the Crown court, holding evidence sessions and collecting written evidence to gather views. We have heard from Sir Brian Leveson, whose independent review of the criminal courts formed the basis for the proposed changes, and from a wide range of practitioners, including barristers, solicitors, magistrates, retired judges and victims’ representatives. The Government declined to allow the Committee to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny, so we have conducted our own on behalf of the House, and next week we will publish a major report of our findings. The passage of the Bill through the Commons has been rapid, and there has been little opportunity for scrutiny of its contents by Members and indeed the wider public, despite the profound constitutional implications.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  What an abrupt end that was. What a cliff-hanger! I want to speak briefly about the justice measures in the King’s Speech. Important Bills are being introduced or carried over, and it is disappointing that the Opposition did not nominate justice and home affairs for a full day’s debate, even more so because today those in the other place are debating those very same subjects, which are indeed important.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  It is a bit early, but all right.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for her intervention, and the answer is that there is a balance. We all want the Government to press on with all the wonderful things that they intend to do, which are in the King’s Speech, but that must be mitigated by the guiding hand of experienced practitioners, such as my hon. Friend, in their Select Committee roles. I hope that our report on the courts modernisation Bill will make a significant contribution to Members’ understanding and analysis of its provisions, and aid their scrutiny and deliberations. I also hope that Ministers will take on board the issues that we will raise. Secondly, I welcome back the Hillsborough Bill, which is the result of years of committed campaigning led by the families, victims and survivors of the Hillsborough disaster and other public tragedies. I spoke on Second Reading to highlight the areas of the Bill where I thought further clarity was required, including the application of the duty of candour to subcontractors, not just those with a direct contractual relationship; the scope of the exemption from the offence of “misleading the public” for acts done for the “purposes of journalism”; and how the expansion of legal aid will be funded. I am pleased to see that the Government have now published their proposals for the last of those. When the Bill’s remaining stages take place, I intend to table amendments to require the Government to consider the merits of a national oversight mechanism—an independent body tasked with collating, analysing and following up the conclusions and recommendations made in the course of inquests and inquiries. I will also add my support to amendments relating to the role of the Independent Public Advocate and its information-gathering powers, and to the extension of the duty of candour to subcontractors, who are used by the vast majority of service provides, including Fujitsu during the Horizon scandal. I look forward to the Bill returning so that these issues can be considered in more detail. The national oversight mechanism, championed by the charity Inquest, is getting considerable traction. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Liaison Committee are discussing what may be the best method of ensuring that the recommendations of inquiries are implemented, and the Justice Committee also has an interest in this matter. We are also exploring the wider issue of how information from inquests can be collated and presented to prevent future deaths, whether or not there is a formal prevention of future deaths report. To that end, I am tabling amendments to the Bill that would establish a national coronial database. Thirdly, I turn to the immigration and asylum Bill. The Justice Committee has been engaging with the Government’s proposal, since it was made last August, for a new independent appeals body to speed up decision making on asylum appeal cases, which is to be implemented via the Bill. In February, we visited the Taylor House tribunal hearing centre in London and spoke to senior judges to try to understand the causes of the current high appeal backlog. From speaking to them, it was clear that the failures in the current system, which have led to high appeal backlogs, are operational. They include: a shortage of administrative officers to check validity and collect papers; a shortage of court lawyers to issue directions and prepare cases for hearing; inadequate legal aid provision, causing essential legal and evidential groundwork to be performed far too late or not at all; poor or absent Home Office representation at hearings; and failure to comply with tribunal directions on both sides. Replacing judges with adjudicators will not solve those problems. Operational investment in the tribunal infrastructure is clearly required. The Committee will endeavour to shine a light on that as the Bill goes through the House, but our initial thoughts are that replacing or supplementing judicial decision making by the first-tier tribunal with Home Office administrators will complicate rather than speed up the process, and simply move contentious cases to the upper tribunal or administrative court. In addition to scrutinising that significant legislation over the coming months, the Justice Committee will be concluding and reporting on its inquiries on the rehabilitation and resettlement of offenders and access to justice, and progressing its inquiry on children and young adults in the secure estate. It was good news earlier to see the Government launch the White Paper on youth justice. The Committee will be holding individual sessions with senior office holders, including the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Lord Chancellor. We will expand our work on tribunals by launching an inquiry on delays in employment tribunals, which currently have a backlog of over half a million active claims. We will also want to scrutinise the impact of the reforms contained in the Sentencing Act 2026 both on the prison population and the Probation Service, and on offender rehabilitation and public safety. There are omissions from the Gracious Speech that are a matter for regret. Despite broad consensus, there is no measure to reverse the Supreme Court’s ruling in PACCAR. The Committee heard in its access to justice inquiry how that is adversely affecting litigation funding. There is also no proposal for anti-SLAPP—strategic lawsuits against public participation—legislation, despite substantial evidence of the use of litigation to stifle free speech, nor is there anything to help the victims of press harassment. It is disappointing that calls to introduce a legal right to consular assistance for British nationals arbitrarily detained or abused by foreign Governments have been ignored, and that proposals mooted to reform the position of cohabiting couples are absent. None the less, this is a substantial King’s Speech with a full programme that includes full, wholesale reform of leasehold and commonhold, social housing renewal, closer ties with the EU, and nationalisation of the steel industry. It is to be commended and supported in all those aspects, which are firmly based on sound Labour principles. Who can argue with that?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Hammersmith Bridge · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Alec, not least because you have allowed me the privilege of speaking although I was a couple of minutes late. I was chairing the Justice Committee, but I did not want to miss this debate. Fortunately, I can be reasonably brief because my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and my friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) have covered most of the bases on this issue; I will not repeat what they said. I welcome the Minister to his place. I will say something complimentary about him in a moment, which will perhaps convince him to spend some money on the bridge. I will also take the unusual step of welcoming the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who knows as much about this as any of us, because he was the deputy leader and then leader of the opposition in Hammersmith and Fulham—we all know where the bodies are buried, even at the high water mark. Hammersmith bridge is a unique structure. Before people start shouting “Albert bridge”, I will come on to why that is different in a moment. Hammersmith is a beautiful bridge across the Thames—I am prejudiced, but I would say it is the most beautiful—but it has unique challenges. Whether through bomb damage or the corrosion of the materials that make it up, the bridge has reached a state of catastrophic failure. At one stage, it had to be closed in its entirety, even to pedestrian and cycle traffic. That is fortunately not the case now, but I think it is accepted on all sides—people sometimes say, “Oh this could be done cheaply”, by which they mean for a few million pounds, but it cannot—that restoring Hammersmith bridge to its former tolerances would require the replacement of most of the elements of the bridge. It would effectively be a new bridge, albeit looking like the old one. That has particular, unique implications. It is right that this Minister and this Government have taken a far more proactive view than the previous Government—they could not take a less proactive view than the previous Government, who did not answer my letters for three years. The taskforce has met since this Government came in, and it has defined the issues and pointed the way to next steps. In my view, there are three issues. One is: let us define clearly what the costs are. There is the clear preferred option, which is the Foster and COWI scheme; it is very expensive, but other schemes are less efficient and more expensive. What will the cost of that be and what are the opportunities for funding it? My hon. Friend the Member for Putney mentioned the application to the structures fund, and I welcome what the Minister said about that. I notice that the guidelines for grant funding were published last week, so I do not imagine that an application has gone in yet, though I am sure that one will go in quite shortly. It is still an extremely expensive project. In addition to the costs and sources of funds, there is the thorny issue of traffic loading. I have seen many different figures for traffic displacement to other bridges, including Putney and Wandsworth bridges and Chiswick bridge, which is also in my constituency. There are serious concerns about that, but we must have sets of figures that we can all rely on—I hope the Minister will say that he now has those figures—because otherwise it is pointless if we are going to not agree on those matters. Those are the essential ingredients, from my point of view. The taskforce met last year. To be full and frank, it is also right to acknowledge that there is a strong lobby against opening the bridge to motor traffic. I know that from my inbox. I have always said that the presumption should be that the bridge goes back to its previous tolerances, which requires a major reconstruction. This has gone on so long that we need certainty and an answer now. The other thing—I am grateful to the hon. Members who spoke about this—is the acknowledgment of where Hammersmith council is in all this. I think it is right to say that the council has spent over £50 million on preventing the collapse of the bridge, restoring it to make it a walking and cycling bridge and continuing to maintain it. To put that into perspective, that is half the sum spent on repair and maintenance for all bridges over the Thames in the decade between 2010 and 2020. That local authority, like most local authorities these days, is cash strapped. It prides itself on running a very tight ship, has the third lowest council tax in the country and provides extremely innovative—and, in some cases, unique—services, such as free social care and free breakfast clubs in all its schools. Those are the priorities that its electorate set out for it, and, I think, will again when it is re-elected in two weeks’ time. I did not believe it was feasible to add the £50 million in there. Hammersmith and Fulham council deserves a huge amount of credit for that, but the idea that it will make another substantive contribution towards the bridge is for the birds. The money is just not there. If we are saying that, we are saying the bridge will never reopen. We need a little bit of honesty here. The comparison was made with Albert bridge. It is very unfortunate that another bridge needs repair. Yes, it is another Victorian suspension bridge with some, shall we say, challenging materials, such as its cast iron structure. But there the similarities end, even though, or partly because, Kensington and Chelsea council is only a minority shareholder, if I can put it that way, but more so because, although Albert bridge will take at least a year and cost £8.5 million on the current estimate—and I am sure that that will grow—Hammersmith council has already spent six times that just on the maintenance of Hammersmith bridge at its current standards. Let us try to move this forward. I do not want to say anything more today other than that a conclusion has to be reached as a matter of urgency. Decisions have to be made. Not everyone will be happy with those decisions one way or the other, but so long as they are made based on a sound mathematical basis and classic surveys, the finances are there and we are not just wishing for money that does not exist, and we have a secure model for replacement of the bridge, we can go forward in that way. At the moment, we have the worst of all worlds: nothing is happening while everybody is putting forward their own version of reality or events. Whatever side of the coin they are on, my constituents want that to end.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet me and members of the safer knives group, which brings together experts on the type of knives most commonly used in knife crime. Does she agree that restricting sales of pointed knives, and moving to rounded-tip versions for kitchen use, could limit the number and type of injuries caused, especially in domestic and impulsive violence, potentially reducing death and serious injuries?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to talk about this very important matter under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I suspect there will be quite a degree of agreement across the House. The first thing that struck me was a quote from some evidence that the Prison Officers’ Association submitted to the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee last year: “prisons are inherently violent institutions to live and work in because they are places where large numbers of often violent criminals are forced to stay against their will”. That may seem rather obvious, but if it is true, and I think it is, then we need to take every step to minimise the levels and seriousness of violence. This would not be tolerated in any other profession or environment, and it should not be tolerated in prisons. I pay tribute to the courage and fortitude of all our prison officers, who have to put up not just with assaults, but with risk and vulnerability every day—10,000 assaults a year, or 30, including three serious assaults, a day. That is not acceptable. As the Chair of the Justice Committee, I routinely receive the chief inspector’s reports, as well as urgent notifications when there are particular problems, and I will refer to two that I received in the past few days. One relates to HMP Woodhill, of which the chief inspector says: “The prison was not safe. Rates of violence were very high and at the time of this inspection, only Swaleside (also subject to a UN) had a higher rate of violence among similar prisons. The rate of serious assaults on staff was the highest in the long-term high secure estate and around a third of all violent incidents involved the use of weapons. Unsurprisingly, 61% of prisoners said they had felt unsafe at some point.” On Swaleside, the other prison referred to there, the chief inspector states: “Our inspection of Swaleside, a category B training prison on the Isle of Sheppey, revealed a prison in disarray, with the lowest scores in my five years as chief inspector…levels of violence were some of the highest of any prison in England and Wales and assaults on staff, many of which were serious, had more than doubled since our last inspection in 2023. Much of the violence had been driven by the large amounts of drugs being brought into the prison by drones. Drug debts and gang rivalry were often the cause of assaults, and many prisoners were routinely making and carrying weapons.” I appreciate that that rather dystopian description is not typical of every prison in the country, and certainly not of every prisoner. However, if that is the level of harm, then we have to give proper protections to prison officers, including body armour. In principle, I support that, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for securing this debate just before we pack up for the Easter recess. I am glad, as he is, to see so many people here, because it is a vital issue.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work that he and other Members present do in supporting the POA and making sure that its voice is heard. It is often the case with prisons that out of sight is out of mind. Both because of the conditions in prisons, which are deplorable in many cases, and in particular for the welfare of staff, it is important that we speak loudly on this subject. The basic principle of this debate is absolutely right and should be followed through, but I have three qualifications to make. First, I believe—we will no doubt hear this from the Minister—that the Government have done a substantial amount more to address this issue. Body armour was first available in particularly dangerous institutions and is now available in all high-category prisons. That is a huge improvement, which has been acknowledged on all sides, including by the staff. It is in the lower-category prisons where it is not routinely available. That may be where we are moving to, but I want to acknowledge what has been done so far because it is a significant development. Both the current and previous Lord Chancellors have been clear on their intention to give the upmost protection to staff. Secondly, if there is a danger that, through the widespread, customary, routine use of body armour, we will get into a mode of accepting levels of violence. Violence should never be acceptable in our prisons. Yes, the first priority is to keep staff safe, but beyond that, we have to do something about the appalling conditions in prisons. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned mental health; we could equally talk about the chronic levels of drug addiction, organised crime and overcrowding, and the conditions in prisons, all of which create an environment in which violence thrives. That is what I worry about. The Prison Reform Trust has said: “The real drivers of prison violence—unsafe conditions, lack of purposeful activity, and poor mental health—can only be addressed through improved safety, decency, and respect. That means better staff training, supporting leadership development, and the political will to invest in prison conditions and reduce demand for drugs.” I hope that view will be echoed on all sides. Rolling out body armour across the entire prison estate may be the right thing to do, and it may be that what has been done so far needs to be improved upon, but it should not hide the systemic, dangerous problems and conditions in our prisons, which are the result of decades of neglect, overcrowding and failure to provide decent standards for prisoners and for staff, who have an incredibly difficult job.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Court and Tribunal Transcripts · Hansard source

  More

  I almost wanted to have a bet on who would mention AI first in this debate. AI is always said to be the solution, but for once it might be. Everything that the hon. Member is saying about the system of transcripts—that it is anachronistic, lacking in transparency, costly and baroque—is absolutely right. We must move towards greater transparency. Magistrates courts currently do not have recording at all, although they will have to after the Courts and Tribunals Bill is passed. The solution has to be to do this work stage by stage, and AI will be very important in that process.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  At her annual press conference this week, the Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr, said: “I have grave security concerns if there are going to be judge-alone trials.” Does the Solicitor General share those concerns, and what are the Government doing about it?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I have noticed there is a lot of debate on the role of juries at the moment—nothing gets past me. It might be a better informed debate if the researchers and jurors could talk about what happens in the jury room. The Law Commission recommends decriminalising that so it cannot be a criminal offence. Will the Government do that in the Courts and Tribunals Bill?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I know that Members from all parts of the House support the Government’s aim to halve violence against women and girls. The metric on which that is based, the crime survey for England, deals with those aged 16 and over, but girls under 16 are also substantially at risk. How will they be included in the recording and monitoring process to ensure that their needs are also addressed?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Grenfell Tower fire was a momentous as well as a tragic event. It fundamentally changed the way we look at fire safety, social housing and the emergency services. Most of all, it changed the lives of many people—not just those who lost their lives or were injured and traumatised, but their family, their community and people across a much wider swathe of west London. Indeed, there were ramifications across the whole country and beyond. I pay tribute to all the Front Benchers for supporting this Bill, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for showing his usual sober but committed attitude towards his constituents and to ensuring that the wrongs of Grenfell are righted. Nine years on, and there is still no justice for the Grenfell families, but that reckoning must come. My constituency neighbours Kensington, where Grenfell is located, and many of my constituents live in high-rise blocks only a few moments’ walk from Grenfell Tower. I am conscious of the fact that so much more needs to be done on fire safety. The all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue has done a very good job in keeping this issue alive, but it is quite clear from what we saw only a few days ago in Glasgow that the danger from fire is great. New risks also appear: Grenfell was an electrical fire, like many fires are, but we increasingly have the danger of lithium batteries—explosive devices that anyone can take into their own home, but which can wreak havoc. This debate is specifically about the memorial, so let me say a few words about that. It should obviously be the memorial committee, the survivors and the community who determine exactly what form the memorial takes. However, I want to take up one of the points made by my hon. Friend, which is that we must not allow people to forget what happened at Grenfell. Yes, I think we all appreciate that the tower had to come down, but over the last nine years, anybody who lives in that part of London, who travels past it on the tube or who drives past it will have been very much aware of its symbolism and the reality of it, with the green heart on the side of the building. It is slowly shrinking and disappearing, but we must not allow the memory of Grenfell to shrink or disappear. I note that the height of Grenfell Tower is almost identical to the height of the Monument that was built to commemorate the great fire of London. More than 350 years on, that is still not just a very visible symbol, but a reminder of the resilience of the city, as well as something that commemorates those who lost their lives. I would like to think that, even as the years and centuries go past, we will not forget the people who died in Grenfell—and died needlessly in that way. Those of us who from time to time join the silent walks that regularly take place will know that the community will not forget, but it is important that none of us forgets. The reason for that is that memorials are more than just tributes and monuments in themselves; they are about ensuring that justice takes place, but also that we do not repeat any of these disasters. The Secretary of State said recently that 70% of the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry will be implemented by the end of this year and that all will be by the end of this Parliament, and that over 90% of public buildings with dangerous cladding have had it removed. Clearly, there is some way to go, even if that represents substantial progress, but it is absolutely vital—I again draw attention to what a couple of Members have said about public inquiries, coroners’ reports and prevention of future deaths reports—to ensure that the lessons are learned and implemented. The call has gone up around the Hillsborough Bill and more generally for a national oversight mechanism. There is already a register of prevention of future deaths reports, but there is nothing to ensure that those recommendations are implemented. There are also gaps in the system when the coroners courts—frankly, I do not believe they are fit for purpose in the 21st century—do not follow through. There is a certain randomness to when a prevention of future deaths report is ordered, and to how it is monitored. The consequence is that events such as Grenfell happen because events such as Lakanal were not paid attention to and heeded. That is an extraordinary indictment of all of us here, because we pass the laws that regulate how those processes work. Yes, we need to look at escape and emergency, and yes, we need to look at design and construction projects, at construction itself and at regulation—there are many lessons to be learned—but we have to stop treating social housing and social housing tenants as second class, and we have to ensure that all the lessons of Grenfell are learned. I believe that that will happen only if—on the back of this Bill, the Hillsborough Bill and the growing calls for a national oversight mechanism—we ensure that we follow through on the recommendations of all public inquiries. We think carefully about whether to set them up and spend millions on them, but when it comes to ensuring that the outcomes are followed through, we are found wanting. If that can be the lesson of Grenfell, we can all feel that something has been achieved out of the tragedy, but most importantly, that we are stopping such tragic and terrible events happening again.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Not yet; I am conscious of the time. The removal of the right to elect for either way offences in clause 1 is the single most significant measure in reducing the caseload of the Crown court, with the Bill’s impact assessment indicating that that change will see 16,000 fewer sitting days in the Crown court each year. In clause 6, the Government propose to increase the maximum sentencing power of the magistrates court to 18 months. We are told that will save a further 8,000 sitting days in the Crown court. Taken together, those two measures—ending election and extending magistrates’ powers—represent a sizeable shift of the caseload out of the Crown court and into the magistrates court. That will deliver on the main objective of these reforms, which is to ensure the capacity of the Crown court to try the most serious criminal cases in a fair and timely manner. There has been less scrutiny on how magistrates will cope with their new responsibilities; I will deal with that in a moment. Clauses 3 to 5—the provisions that have attracted the most debate—will establish the Crown court bench division to enable cases with a likely sentence of three years or less to be tried on indictment without a jury. Clause 4 will allow trial by judge alone for some complex and lengthy cases. Compared to the other measures in part 1 of the Bill, those will have a less significant effect on the backlog, but a still substantial 5,000 Crown court days will be saved. I accept the Government’s argument that there is a strong case for modernising how the Crown court operates. Some improvement will be achieved through adopting the measures on efficiency set out in part 2 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review, or the additional resources promised under the concordat with the Lady Chief Justice that will remove restrictions on court sitting days, but those are unlikely to be enough on their own. Given the crisis that the criminal courts are facing, I am willing to support the creation of the Crown court bench division and the other measures in part 1 of the Bill. I do not accept the case made by some that the proposals represent the end for jury trial and that the Bill should be opposed on that basis. Of the 3% of criminal cases that currently go before a jury, about a third—some 4,000—of the less serious of those offences, such as possession of class A drugs, car theft, affray and large-scale waste dumping, will now go before a judge alone. I do not believe that undermines the jury system, although it will undoubtedly change how some cases are tried. Therefore, arrangements for judge-only trials in the Crown court need to be carefully reviewed once they are in force to test whether they deliver the time saving promised without undermining the right to a fair trial. I turn to my reservations on the proposals. I am concerned that magistrates courts will not be able to cope with the increase in caseload envisaged by the Bill. The work of the magistrates court is delivered by a range of dedicated public servants: magistrates, district judges, legal advisers, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff, probation, the Crown Prosecution Service and legal aid lawyers. However, we know that recruiting and retaining many of those key personnel are long-standing problems. The Lord Chancellor wrote to the Justice Committee last week and told us that the Ministry of Justice hopes to recruit thousands of magistrates and hundreds of legal advisers and district judges over the next year or two. I am concerned that those are very ambitious targets, and that even if the recruitment bear fruit, they will not meet the challenge of diverting 24,000 days of complex hearings from the Crown court each year while dealing with the existing problems in the magistrates court, which has its own backlog. Clause 7, which seeks to reform appeals from the magistrates court, will require electronic recording of proceedings. That strikes me as a significant change. The impact assessment is not clear about how much that will cost, but I doubt whether it can be delivered either quickly or cheaply. Another area of concern is the process for allocating cases for judge-only trials. Prosecution and defence lawyers will wish to make written and oral submissions, and some may seek to challenge decisions on allocation by judicial review. To those concerns should be added the differing eligibility for legal aid in the Crown and magistrates courts and concerns that the loss of a lay presence in determining innocence or guilt risks losing diversity and adding unconscious bias.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly the point that I somewhat briefly alluded to; I am glad that my hon. Friend outlined it in more detail. The Government really must address that before the Bill concludes its passage through this House and the other place. In relation to both restriction of jury trials and the decision not to accept Sir Brian’s recommendation that a judge should sit with lay magistrates in the Crown court bench division, the point has been made that the lay element is being limited too far. I could say a lot more, but I am conscious of the time. Many details need to be worked out. I see why the Government are giving themselves until March 2028 to implement the Bill’s proposals. As the Bill progresses, I hope that the Government will listen to Members of this House and the other place and to those with an interest in the criminal justice system—from lawyers to victims—on how it can be clarified and improved. The Justice Committee has held evidence sessions and been in detailed correspondence with the Lord Chancellor, the Courts Minister and Sir Brian for several months. Our current call for evidence closes tomorrow, and on 17 March we will hold a further evidence session. I do not have time to cover the other important but less controversial parts of the Bill, but I would like to recognise the Law Commission, which has done the hard work on the proposals on evidence in sexual offence prosecutions that lies behind clauses 8 to 12. I also pay tribute to the campaigners who worked tirelessly for the removal of the presumption of parental involvement. Those measures will help to ensure that some of the most vulnerable in our society are protected by our courts. Finally, I know that the Lady Chief Justice will be pleased that the Government have found a legislative vehicle to bring the leadership of tribunals within the wider courts structure. That is a good thing. Overall, this is a necessary package of reforms. I look forward to working with the Government to improve it as it progresses through Parliament.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The number of outstanding cases in the Crown court is 79,619. The outgoing Conservative Government promised to reduce the backlog; it should have been 53,000 by April last year. Their abject failures led the present Government to ask one of the country’s most foremost experts on the criminal courts, Sir Brian Leveson, to propose comprehensive court reforms—reforms without precedent in half a century. Sir Brian produced his review in two parts, totalling over 1,000 pages and 180 recommendations. The Bill legislates where legislation is necessary to implement parts of Sir Brian’s review. Given the current dire situation, with many victims waiting two or more years for their cases to be resolved and defendants spending far too long in custodial remand, the Government are right to propose structural change; otherwise, they would be endorsing perpetual delay.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Court Reporting Data · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pity that the shadow Minister is reducing this issue to one of his conspiracy theories, because I know that the Minister is an advocate of open justice, and the Government are doing a lot on open justice by televising the family courts, publishing transcripts and other means. Courtsdesk gave evidence to the Select Committee in its 2022 inquiry into open justice, and it is, I think, the only centralised source of information for journalists. It is an important tool, because court reporting and local journalism have suffered greatly over the past years. We do need a service of this kind, so when can the Minister tell us what will replace it? In the meantime, will she continue to talk to Courtsdesk, notwithstanding what she has said today, to ensure that the information can be provided for journalists in a legitimate and legal way?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  Given what Minister said about adherence to international law, will he just put on the record why the Government have not responded to the advisory opinion of the ICJ for over 18 months now? Is it because the consequence of that response is that there would have to be sanctions against settlements, which are illegal under international law?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  Now we have Sir Brian Leveson’s full review, it is clear that very few of the 180 recommendations relate to jury trials. The most controversial is really the use of a single judge in the new Crown court bench division. Given that that provision will likely not contribute very much to reducing the backlog, does the Solicitor General think that we should look again at that—maybe at the length of sentence that is dealt with by that particular provision?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Water Bills · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister have plans to introduce a national social tariff? It was not in the recent White Paper, but Independent Age, which is a national charity based in my constituency, estimates that such a tariff could lift up to half a million pensioner households out of water poverty entirely.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Changes to Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  There is a lot of focus on replacing juries with a single judge in some criminal trials, but the Government also intend to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers, so that they can give sentences of up to 18 or 24 months, which is beyond what Sir Brian Leveson suggests. Is it the Government’s intention that district judges sitting alone will be able to sentence offenders to up to 24 months?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State will shortly make a statement on violence in separation centres. I apologise that I will not be here for it as the Select Committee has a long-planned court visit, but I will read Sir Jonathan Hall KC’s report carefully. Will the Secretary of State also look at violence on the youth estate and the 44% year-on-year increase in assaults on staff by children? What are the Government doing about that?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Prison Capacity: Annual Statement · Hansard source

  More

  The prison population is comprised in significant part of cohorts of prisoners who, for a variety of reasons, should not be there in current numbers. That includes prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection, foreign national offenders, remand prisoners and, according to press reports today, record numbers of recalled offenders, only around 20% of whom have committed new offences. What more can the Government do to reduce the numbers in prison without any threat to public safety? Should the annual statement not also include statistics on rehabilitation, as the Justice Committee called for in its recent report? In the long term, stopping reoffending is the surest method of controlling prison numbers, so will the Minister comment on the hugely disappointing news in his response to our report that core education in prisons—one of the keys to rehabilitation —is being cut by an average of 20% to 25%?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Water White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  Last night, a 30-inch water main burst at Holland Park roundabout on the boundary of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). Homes and cars were flooded to a depth of 3 feet, and since the water was diverted away from the burst, thousands of residents across west London have had little or no fresh water, schools are closed and traffic is in chaos. This and hundreds of smaller bursts in the recent cold weather are the legacy of Thames Water’s failure over not years but decades. Can I thank the Minister for her statement? For my constituents, effective inspection and regulation cannot come soon enough.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise that I was not here for the Minister’s opening speech; I was chairing the Justice Committee. I do not think that matters, though, because I agree with him on the amendments. They strengthen the Bill considerably. They bring more openness and transparency, and we welcome all the recommendations here, whether in relation to the Sentencing Council, to the prison capacity report, to the transcripts through the amendments in lieu, or to IPP prisoners. They are all welcome improvements on the Bill. We think that they need to go further in some areas, particularly in relation to IPP prisoners, but this is a good step along the way.