Jess Brown-Fuller MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jun 2026 · Access to Dental Services: West Sussex · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about his local ICB. The underspend issue has plagued the dentistry contract over many years. The ICB for Sussex did manage to commission more urgent dental care using its underspend, meaning that it had very little to give back to the Treasury. That was absolutely the right thing to do; I commend my hon. Friend for recognising that that is an opportunity that Cornwall ICB could take. However, the Sussex ICB invested in urgent dental care while not addressing the problem that we have in routine dental care. Residents in Chichester cannot access routine dental care in their own city and are forced to travel considerable distances. That takes time out of people’s lives, costs money, and creates additional risks. Imagine someone making that 140-mile round trip for a routine appointment, only to discover that they require an emergency procedure. They would be miles away from their home and family, and might not be capable of driving themselves home afterwards. That is completely unacceptable in today’s society. To make matters worse, a number of individuals told me that they had been removed from their surgery’s patient list, particularly during the pandemic when they did not want to be in close contact with others. They had no notification that that was happening. Others were informed out of the blue that their surgery was switching to private care and that, unless they paid, they would need to seek treatment elsewhere. Given the costs involved, as reflected in the national figures, many simply choose to go without care altogether. On top of that, individuals who have been lucky enough to secure an NHS place often face enormous waiting times for treatment. Jade shared her experience of being placed on a waiting list for routine root canal treatment and then being ignored for months. At 28-weeks pregnant, she suddenly found herself in excruciating pain and required emergency surgery. As we know, that costs the taxpayer a lot more than if the issue is addressed before it becomes an emergency. Another mother contacted me to say that three years ago her son developed an abscess over Christmas. They were unable to secure emergency treatment so they joined a waiting list at three separate practices. They still have not secured an appointment. Those examples all point to a broken system in Chichester and across the country—one that is failing my constituents and worsening health outcomes. In the long run, it is also making the country poorer: the failure to invest in preventive care means that individuals require more serious and expensive treatment further down the line. This has to end. That view is shared by the dentists I spoke to ahead of today’s debate. A key issue raised by them and many across the profession is the state of the NHS dental contract. The British Dental Association identified it as a major factor driving NHS dentists into the private sector. The current settlement has been widely criticised since its inception back in 2006. The Health and Social Care Committee published a report in 2023 calling for an urgent overhaul of the system, and the Labour party promised to renegotiate the contract in its manifesto. One former dental nurse who contacted me described the contracts as being like “tying dentists’ hands behind their backs.” That is hardly practical if they are trying to perform a root canal procedure. The contracts are failing patients because the number of patients a dentist can see on the NHS is limited according to the units of dental activity that they have been commissioned to deliver. The nurse I spoke to suggested patients are being referred to hospitals for routine procedures because contractual arrangements prevent practices from carrying them out themselves and being renumerated. The Government promised to reform the contracts, but they have been slow to address problems that are widely recognised across the sector. The consultation that the Government announced in April must lead to a contract that is genuinely patient-focused, with greater flexibility in commissioning. When it was announced, the Government committed to bringing out the consultation before the summer, but the official line has changed slightly to “in due course”. I share the concern raised by campaigners that any further delay will mean that a new system will not be implemented before the end of this Parliament. Will the Minister commit to bringing out the consultation before the summer and to a firm deadline for when formal contract renegotiations will begin? Frankly, we cannot afford any further delays. Another issue is costs. Lab costs went up 9% last year, but NHS contract holders got just a 3.55% uplift—add to that the hikes in national insurance contributions, which have exacerbated an already dismal situation. The British Dental Association believes that an average NHS dentist is losing £25 per routine dental check. Without support and changes to the contracts, many practices will continue to be pushed into the private sector, as we have already seen happen to many. In West Sussex, the number of dentists with NHS activity has dropped by 13% since 2019. I imagine that that figure is actually an underestimation, because a practice can offer just one NHS appointment a year and still feature on the list of NHS providers. Local dentists are also concerned that the merger of the Surrey and Sussex ICBs, alongside a 50% reduction in ICB running costs, could undermine the local commissioning expertise and local relationships with providers. Can the Minister today provide any reassurance that, at a time of significant change within our ICBs, they will be given the resource to maintain and improve relationships with contract providers? The Government talk a good game on dentistry, but they are tinkering around the edges and leaving major issues such as the contracts so far unresolved. They quietly dropped their manifesto pledge of delivering 700,000 more dental appointments, under the guise of broadening the definition of urgent dental appointments for clinical reasons. That is a sticking plaster that addresses the requirement for more urgent dental appointments, but does not address those who cannot get routine care, which in many cases would prevent them from needing the emergency care. The Liberal Democrats have long called for reforms that will address the root of the crisis. Our £750 million plan would begin to undo years of underfunding, guarantee urgent and emergency dental care for everyone who needed it, and hopefully bring an end to DIY dentistry. That would be needed to address the backlogs in emergency care. I have heard of wait times of up to 18 months at St Richard’s in Chichester for complex dental treatment such as difficult extractions. It is clear that the system is broken. Nobody is naive enough to believe that it can be addressed overnight, but the Government have had two years. All the while, residents in Chichester continue to have a lack of access to basic dental services. Dentists want to help patients, but it is not currently financially viable for many to stay in the NHS. That has to change, and I urge the Government to listen carefully to contributions from all Members in today’s debate, and take the steps that they promised in their manifesto.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Access to Dental Services: West Sussex · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his passionate advocacy for NHS dentistry in West Sussex. I am grateful to him for caring about access to NHS dentistry across the whole country. He is a fierce advocate for Strangford and makes the important point that the situation we are in is a damning indictment of the failure of the previous Government—a failure that the Prime Minister himself referred to regularly in the run-up to the general election. It was a stick that he used to beat the Conservative Government with in every televised debate, when he spoke about rotting teeth falling out of children’s mouths. We are still going backwards, dealing with problems on a scale not seen for generations, all at a time when the British Dental Association has warned that NHS dentistry is facing an existential threat. Parliament often hears the term “postcode lottery”, but I cannot think of a more applicable example than NHS dental services for residents in Chichester and West Sussex. Last week I had the opportunity to conduct a little bit of research with a staff member who has recently moved to London and needs to register with an NHS dentist. Within two miles of his new postcode in London, 10 surgeries were accepting NHS patients. Entering the postcode of my constituency office in Chichester into the NHS search tool produced a very different result: zero surgeries accepting new adult NHS patients within a 12-mile radius. There were none within the city itself, and only one surgery was accepting new patients under the age of 17. That means that residents not registered locally have to travel to other towns and cities. At the time of looking, the closest surgery was in Littlehampton in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths). That is not close to the city of Chichester. I ask the Minister what his solution would be for people attempting to register locally, people living in the area already and people moving to it after years of increased mandated development in my constituency. I would like to share with the Minister a few examples of what this means for my constituents in Chichester, who very kindly got in touch with me to share their stories. Kathryn moved with her family to the area four years ago. She still travels to Three Bridges for dental care. Christine still returns to the Isle of Wight for treatment. Marina and Denise moved to Bracklesham in 2011—15 years ago—and have never been able to register for an NHS dentist locally. Jim contacted me to say that he undertakes a 140-mile round trip just to receive routine dental care.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I would still like to press my new clause to a vote, because having a pilot we can refer to, as in the earlier two-trials model, is really important. We should be data and evidence led as a Parliament.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 7 would require the Lord Chancellor to lay before Parliament a strategy for victim-led case management in relation to criminal court proceedings. The Government have highlighted the challenges that victims face in their briefings on the Bill’s provisions in both the media and the Chamber. As we all know, it is victims who have been affected by the horrendous backlogs that we see today, and I have no doubt that the unacceptable delays will have caused victims of crime to step away or choose not to pursue the criminal justice route at all.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Me again. The new clauses would require provision for the training of the judiciary and, under new clause 30, for court staff. Each of these clauses focuses on a different area. New clause 8 focuses on discrimination against ethnic minorities, including racial bias and the impact on judicial decision making. New clause 9 requires the provision of training for the judiciary focused on violence against women and girls. New clause 10 requires the provision of training for the judiciary focused on domestic abuse. New clause 30 requires the Lord Chancellor to ensure that all members of court staff working in the criminal justice system receive mandatory and consistent training on trauma-informed practices, to improve understanding of how trauma affects victims’ experience, behaviour and engagement with court proceedings. The reasons for the new clauses—they are tabled for basically every part of justice legislation—are that there is real frustration among organisations and charities working in the criminal justice space that Parliament does not have the ability to legislate for the judiciary to have mandatory training. How do we square the circle of all those campaign organisations sounding the alarm and saying that, in order for us to make these very serious changes in moving to judge-alone trials, we must ensure that judges approach them with trauma-informed practices in mind? That was raised in the evidence session by Farah Nazeer from Women’s Aid. When we asked her, “What would you need to see in order for this Bill to give you the confidence that victims will have a better experience and women will be better supported through the criminal justice system?” she said: “One is training for the entirety of the court staff, because the stories that we hear and the experiences that we support women and children through are frankly appalling. The staff are not trauma-informed and there is no understanding of what a victim is going through. The courts are weaponised and survivors are brought back to the courts repeatedly. It is an appalling process. No policy area that you work on at Women’s Aid is a picnic, but this is the worst.” –– [ Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 27, Q53.] In the same evidence session, Claire Waxman, the Victims’ Commissioner, said: “I have made that point for years, regardless of these reforms. We have to improve and get reassurance around judicial training, including training on cultural competency, on understanding bias and prejudice and on the dynamics of abuse. We still see issues around coercive control, post-separation abuse and stalking. I need to be reassured that judges are being trained to the level that will give assurances to victims and to myself that they understand what is coming in front of them.” –– [ Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 14, Q25.] I know that there has been significant progress, and that the organisation Fair Hearing has worked closely with the judiciary to do training about violence against women and girls and to make sure that judges are trauma-informed in their practice, but it is not mandatory. One comment that stuck with me from the evidence session was from Charlotte, one of the victims who presented evidence. She noted, of her judge: “She said that, because I waited eight months to report, I was unreliable, and that I had clearly spoken to other victims of domestic abuse, so I knew what to say. Those comments really stuck by me.” –– [ Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 26, Q51.] The very concept that a judge looks at somebody who is trying to share their experiences and says, “Well, they’ve just trained for this,” is pretty appalling. It causes me to doubt that all judges are engaging in the judiciary training as effectively as they could be.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to withdraw the new clause, on the basis that the Government continue to work on the measures that they have already introduced. Let me quickly put on the record the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who has been campaigning for access to court transcripts for many years. She is delighted that we are now seeing progress. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 13 Report on the effect of the Act on public trust and participation in the criminal justice system “(1) The Lord Chancellor must commission a report on the effect of the provisions of the Act on public trust and participation in the judicial system. (2) A report under this section must— (a) include consideration of the effect of the provisions of the Act on— (i) witness participation; (ii) the effect of these reforms on public confidence and trust in the criminal justice system; (iii) the effect of these provisions on BAME engagement with and trust of the criminal justice system; (b) contain recommendations for further provision, or changes to delivery of provision under this Act, to increase the levels of each criterion set out in subparagraphs (2)(a)(i) to (2)(a)(iii). (3) Within twelve months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament— (a) a copy of a report under this section, (b) the Lord Chancellor’s response to recommendations made by that report.”— (Jess Brown-Fuller.) This new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to commission, lay, and respond to a report on the effect of the Bill on public trust in the criminal justice system. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is a worrying trend that the number of hours that are being used efficiently in Crown courts every day seems to be decreasing year on year. The Minister spoke about not wanting to necessarily set a target. I agree with her: sometimes putting an arbitrary number on something does not actually reflect the situation. The previous Government attempted to do that, setting a target in 2019 to get the backlog down to a certain number. That does not always reflect the fact that the backlog could be a caseload 30,000 of the most complex cases that will take an incredibly long time to get to. Instead, we should look at the average time that it takes to get from charge to trial, and monitor whether we can bring that number down. When I have talked about bringing that report to Parliament in new clause 5, it is not necessarily to say, “It was 80,000 and now it is 79,500,” because that does not reflect how long people are going to actually wait to have their cases heard. It is far more about the experiences of all of those people going through the system. With regard to having reports established every year, the Minister spoke passionately, as she always does, about wanting to make sure that the reforms genuinely make a difference. But the Deputy Prime Minister has said that, even with all the reforms coming in together, he does not expect to see the backlog fall before the end of the Parliament. We need to be able to look at where the data is taking us every year, track what the backlog is doing, track the sorts of cases that are getting stuck in the backlog, and then scrutinise that, so that if there are other levers that can be pulled—whether they are things that have been suggested by me or by the shadow Minister—we have the opportunity to come back and review those things. I am glad that the Minister recognises that trust in the criminal justice system is low anyway. It is not where it should be. I have said it before: the justice system is inextricably linked with how people view democracy. When trust in democracy is low, there is distrust in institutions, policing and the way our courts work. As cross-party parliamentarians, we have a duty to improve trust in all those systems. I worry that the measures in clauses 1 to 7 will not do that, but will erode trust. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The new clause is consequential on amendment 16. Amendment 16 would require the Government to pilot the removal of the right to elect trial by jury before national implementation and report to Parliament on its impact. The design of these reforms has not been tested in practice, and there are many different estimations of their impact on the backlog. The Institute for Government’s modelling suggests that that is likely to be around a 7% to 10% reduction in total time taken in the courtroom, with just 1.5% to 2.5% of that coming from the introduction of judge-only trials in the Crown court bench division. The Government’s impact assessment indicates an expected saving of 27,000 Crown court sitting days. That is based on the fact that cases heard in the bench division will reduce the time per hearing by 20%. That 20% figure is an estimate that Sir Brian Leveson uses in part 1 of his independent report of the criminal courts. He is explicit that, should the Ministry of Justice “consider pursuing this course of action, it may wish to consider undertaking further detailed analysis in order to understand the potential time-saving fully.” That figure is based on a different package of reforms. Sir Brian includes the reclassification of some offences and the removal of the right to elect for some low-level figures. The Government have used the 20% figure as a starting point, which is problematic. It is the number that informs their modelling, but there is no concrete data to prove that this would be the case. Policymaking must always be evidence-led. That imperative is even more urgent when such legislative reforms restrict fundamental rights. Time savings must be considered holistically. With no juries in the bench division, judges will have to provide a reasoned judgment for their decision. The Bill stipulates that this judgment must state the specific reasons for the conviction or acquittal. That represents a change from traditional jury trials, where juries do not provide written or spoken reasons for their verdict. The composition of these judgments will be time consuming for judges, who will have to ensure that their conclusions are legally tight. If the Government truly believe that the reforms laid out in the Bill will genuinely reduce the backlog, they should prove it before making a change to our justice system that we will never see reversed.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 17, page 30, line 10, at end insert— “(3) The Lord Chancellor must, within six months of the commencement of this section, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the resources required to give full effect to the repeal of subsection 2A in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989.— ‘(1) The report under subsection (3) must include— (a) an assessment of the level of legal aid provision necessary to ensure that parties in child arrangements proceedings are able to obtain timely and effective— (i) advice, and (ii) representation particularly where allegations of domestic abuse or safeguarding concerns are raised; (b) an evaluation of the capacity of the family courts, including— (i) the number of judges, (ii) court staff, and (iii) available hearing time, to undertake robust risk assessment and fact-finding processes in line with Practice Direction 12J; (c) plans to address any shortfalls in judicial training, including— (i) training relating to coercive control, (ii) domestic abuse dynamics, and (iii) child safeguarding. (d) proposals for investment in the family court estate and technology to ensure— (i) the repeal operates effectively, and (ii) decisions are consistently grounded in the welfare and safety of the child.’” This amendment requires the Government to set out how the family courts and legal aid system will be resourced to give full effect to the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. Clause 7 and schedule 2 will restrict the right to appeal the decision of a magistrates court to the Crown court, and will change the process that those appeals go through. Currently, a defendant has an automatic right of appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown court against either conviction or sentence; in either case, the appeal is a hearing before a judge and two magistrates. The Bill will instead introduce a requirement for an application for permission to appeal based on written grounds. A Crown court judge will decide whether to grant permission, and the appeal hearing would be heard by a single judge. Instead of a rehearing, the appeal would be only on the issues on which permission is granted. If the appeal is against conviction, the judge must allow the appeal if the conviction is unsafe. If so, the judge may order a retrial in the magistrates court. It is not unreasonable to have a conversation about the appeals process, especially as there is a small amount of evidence of the system being abused by a very small minority of defendants who believe that the appeal will be successful on the grounds that the victim or witnesses will refuse to go through the experience again. I absolutely recognise that, and we need to put essential safeguards into the criminal justice system to provide greater protection for those victims. We will be getting to the crux of that issue over the next days in Committee. However, clause 7 and schedule 2 are blunt instruments that will harm access to justice. We cannot ignore the fact that although a very small number of cases from the magistrates—less than 1%—go to appeal, more than 40% of those are successful at appeal. Given that the magistrates court will be hearing more complex cases that carry higher sentences, the measures will increase the risk of miscarriages of justice. Touching the appeals process at this point is unnecessary when it is currently sparingly used. The Criminal Bar Association has argued: “Access to justice will be harmed. Who is going to find the lawyers who have time to review transcripts of evidence and prepare grounds of appeal? Who is going to pay them for that work? What about the defendants who were ineligible for Legal Aid, because of the lower cut off for eligibility?” We discussed the eligibility cut-off in the previous clause. JUSTICE has raised similar concerns, stating that replacing the automatic right of appeal with a multi-stage permission system “is complicated and highly likely to be inefficient”, and will fail defendants who cannot navigate these processes, as laid out articulately and clearly by the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden. The current process means that appeals are heard by a judge and two magistrates. The opportunity for magistrates to sit with a Crown court judge to hear appeals is an important one, as it helps with the training of magistrates and drives up standards. Under the Bill, there are no circumstances in which lay justices would sit with professional judges. We are debating a number of amendments, some of which seek to restore the conditions we have right now—retaining the automatic right to appeal—and some that go further, although I think the shadow Minister suggested that he would not press them all to a vote. I would appreciate the Minister’s explaining whether she thinks the processes being put in place by clause 7 and schedule 2 are compatible with the principles of access to justice that she has laid out previously in Committee. I remain gravely concerned that the measures will have a huge impact on the most vulnerable in society.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 3 and its various parts outline how trials can take place without juries. The Liberal Democrats have always fundamentally opposed the move to remove the right to a trial in front of one’s peers and the introduction of single-judge trials. To be clear, we do not accept the status quo and neither does anyone who I have spoken to in the legal profession or courts. The backlogs are totally unacceptable and they are failing victims, defendants and the people working in the criminal justice system. But no one in that system thinks that the fault lies with the jury trial system. In fact, Sir Brian stated that in our recent evidence session. The decision is being made without any decisive modelling that would demonstrate that it would have the intended effect. There is also a timing issue with the proposal to restrict the use of a jury. Nationally, we have seen an intense displeasure with our democracy, and faith in politics and our political system is at an all-time low. It is fractured and deeply distrustful. When we have mistrust in our political system, it seeps into our justice system. Around six in 10 people express a fair amount or a great deal of confidence in juries delivering the right verdict compared with around four in 10 for courts and judges more generally. Clause 3 proposes something that will risk a great deal without the evidence that shows it will actually work. That is why it is so strongly opposed. The Government instead should be implementing evidence-based reforms to target inefficiencies, including but not limited to negotiating the failed prisoner escort contract, introducing victim-led intensive case management across the regions, and investing in rehabilitation to reduce reoffending. They could also explore reducing the court backlog by running two trials in a day in select courtrooms instead of one, making more efficient use of time by nearly doubling the hearing time per sitting day and accelerating the throughput of cases. They could also develop and implement a more ambitious strategy to reduce delays in rape and serious sexual offences cases, or implement their own manifesto pledge to introduce speciality RASSO courts, which we will no doubt debate at a later stage of the Bill. I am confident that the Minister will say, as she did in the evidence session, “Why is the backlog not coming down if we can make the system work better?” She put that question to Caroline Goodwin KC, Claire Davies KC and Samantha Hillas KC, saying, “I have not seen any evidence that it can be reduced absent reform from the circuits.” Caroline Goodwin came back with: “The reality is that we have not been able to do this. Because there has been a consistent cap on sitting days, judges have not been able to open up court days. They have not been able to run blitz days where they can really take hold of a case and shake it and say, ‘Right, what is going on?’ We have not had any great directives to the CPS to say, ‘When you’re charging these cases, you need to review these very thoroughly.’ Throughout this entire time, the criminal Bar and the entire justice system has been brought to its knees. So if you are saying, ‘Is there any empirical evidence that this doesn’t work on your circuit, Ms Goodwin?’, we have not been able to do it.” –– [ Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 48, Q94.] Why do we believe that we need to protect the safeguard of a jury trial while still reforming the criminal courts in other ways? The Lammy review in 2017 found that black and Chinese women were convicted at higher rates than white women in magistrate courts but not by juries. The Criminal Bar Association commissioned an independent study of criminal barristers; of the 2,029 who responded, 94% raised concerns about the lack of diversity in the Crown court bench division and 88% were against the introduction of a Crown court bench division altogether. If we take the figures in the impact assessment that the Government have provided at face value, the proposal will save 5,000 sitting days per annum. That is around 3.5% of the Crown court workload. That means that rape complainants or victims who are currently waiting years for their own trial to be heard might see their cases brought forward by about a week. On the Government’s own estimates, the changes will not start taking effect until after the next general election. It is not providing a solution to the current crisis. Indeed, the impact assessment was based on a premise that it compared “do nothing” with the effects of all of the Government’s measures proposed in the Bill, but nobody is proposing “do nothing”. Radical investment and reform is already taking place and is welcomed. The Government were right to introduce removing the cap on sitting days and encourage blitz courts in a number of courts in the different regions. That has cross-party support and will bring down the backlog by more direct means. I would also like to briefly highlight the perversity in the cut-off of three years. Let us take the case of a 20-year-old student charged with unlawful wounding, where someone’s face was gashed by a glass thrown in a bar. Under the sentencing guidelines, if they were of good character they would face imprisonment of between two and three years. That conviction would be life changing and that young defendant would not qualify for trial by jury under these proposals. Let us take exactly the same case, but involving a 40-year-old defendant with a long criminal record who has been to prison before. Because of their record, the likely sentence for the same offence would exceed three years and they would get trial by jury, whereas a young man with no convictions would not. I ask the Committee to reflect on the perversity created by changing the threshold. I conclude by reiterating that clause 3, which sets out how the Crown court should allocate a case for trial without a jury and the procedure, should not be included in the Bill, and I shall vote against its inclusion.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendment 13, which was tabled in my name, provides that magistrates’ sentencing powers cannot be increased beyond 12 months, which would keep the Bill in line with Leveson’s suggestions. The Government have failed to take into account the impact that increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers will have. Magistrates’ backlogs are increasing, and magistrates courts are not set up to take on more complex cases. The Government are also making some bold assumptions about the speed at which magistrates can clear these cases. They have their own backlog to face, which stands at 379,000 cases and increasing. That is a 17% increase on the previous year, which comes alongside a major cut to the number of magistrates over the past decade or so, from 28,000 to just over 14,000. Removing the power of defendants to elect, plus the changes in sentencing powers, will increase the workload of magistrates courts, and the system will struggle to absorb that. Magistrates will be required to deal with more complex cases despite the summary nature of their jurisdiction. Either they will be unable to handle those cases and will send them to the Crown court, or they will risk delivering poor-quality justice, which would let down victims and defendants alike. The cohort affected by this change consists by definition of defendants expected to receive a prison sentence of between one and two years. The impact assessment shows that the Government assume that each of these trials in the magistrates courts will be completed within just four hours. The impact assessment also assumes that cases involving a guilty plea will take just 30 minutes. Either the impact assessment is incorrect or these cases will not receive the scrutiny they deserve. Our other amendment, amendment 21, would make changing the general limit on custodial sentences for either-way offences in the magistrates court possible by affirmative resolution only. It is very similar to amendment 34, which the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden spoke to on behalf of her hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central. The amendment would ensure that any changes to magistrates’ sentencing powers—if amendment 13, to limit their powers, is not passed—is subject to the affirmative procedure. It would give greater parliamentary oversight, as all changes would have to pass through a Delegated Legislation Committee. Leaving that to the discretion of the Lord Chancellor is not a strong enough condition; it does not provide enough scrutiny or protection against rogue actors. The measure was also recommended by the Law Society of England and Wales. It would provide just that protection, and would ensure that Parliament would have and maintain its say in matters.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 3, page 6, line 25, at end insert— “(4A) A trial conducted without a jury will be heard by one judge and two magistrates.” This amendment implements the recommendation of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts to have cases heard in the Crown Court Bench Division by a judge and two magistrates. Sir Brian Leveson and the Minister, on the many occasions on which we have discussed this issue, have been very clear that the proposals set out in the independent review of the criminal courts were not to be treated as a pick and mix. Sir Brian was clear that it was meant to be a package of reforms, alongside stating that juries are not the cause of the backlog; I want to make sure that that is on the record. But the Government have indeed chosen to pick and mix from Sir Brian’s recommendations, because he never proposed a judge sitting alone in the Crown court bench division. He proposed including a lay element, with two magistrates sitting with the judge; the magistrates would have equal decision-making authority on matters of fact, evidence and sentencing, while the judge would retain responsibility on rulings of law. The purpose of having two was to enable them to outvote the judge on matters of fact and, importantly, to maintain public participation and legitimacy in the absence of a jury. Sir Brian referred to that in part 1 of his review. He said: “In a similar vein, the inclusion of two magistrates in the composition of the bench would also ensure that the CCBD would satisfy the expectation of” being judged by “one’s peers.” He continued: “I...will not revisit those arguments here. I do, however want to acknowledge the diversity of the current magistracy, which I believe goes some way to satisfying this expectation and would help ensure a fair and balanced representation in the CCBD.” The magistracy has done an excellent job of improving its diversity, although one could argue that there is still more work to do. A former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, has said: “It seems to me that if one is going to reduce the involvement of the general public, as members of a jury, in the relatively low-level cases that go to the Crown court, maintaining public involvement through the magistracy is a good course to follow. It also has the great advantage of simply replicating a constitution and jurisdiction that exists in the Crown court at the moment. When there is an appeal from the magistrates court against conviction or sentence, including an appeal against conviction in an either-way case, it is heard in the Crown court by a judge and two magistrates.” –– [ Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 75, Q159.] The Government cannot shirk their commitment to fair justice free from bias. If these changes are to be implemented, they should include the safeguard of two magistrates in the Crown court bench division. I would appreciate the Minister’s outlining why the Government have departed from Leveson on the point. Is it because there is a concern about finding enough magistrates to fill the roles? Is it because the magistracy will already be overwhelmed by the additional cases given to it as a result of the new sentencing powers outlined in this Bill? Or is it because the Government believe that having the lay element provides no additional safeguard in the interests of fair justice? Through the amendment, we seek to implement the recommendation of Brian Leveson’s review of the criminal courts.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Southport Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. It is truly heartbreaking to know that there were so many missed opportunities to stop the Southport attack. My thoughts today are with the bereaved families whose young daughters were so cruelly taken from them and with the many other victims who suffered unimaginable trauma that day. We owe it to them to make every attempt to prevent a senseless attack like this from ever happening again. The report lays bare that agency after agency failed to step up and take ownership of the risks that the perpetrator posed. There are monumental failures across a number of authorities, from the police, Prevent and NHS mental health services to children’s social care, youth offending services and the perpetrator’s parents. That is simply not acceptable. Will the Home Secretary confirm how soon she plans to report back on whether the Government will accept all 67 recommendations? Will she commit to providing Parliament with an update on progress every six months? Today’s report exposes serious oversights by online giants that allowed the perpetrator to collect an arsenal of weapons without effective age verification checks. Will the Home Secretary confirm whether the recently published knife crime strategy will address the ease with which knives are available for purchase online? Will it crack down on big tech companies, like Amazon, that are putting profit above protocol when it comes to the sale of dangerous items? Finally, the Liberal Democrats have long argued that Prevent is not fit for purpose. It is deeply shocking that the perpetrator was referred three times yet no further action was taken. We understand that was because he did not possess a specific ideology—well, there should be no clearer sign of a system unable to address modern threats. Will the Home Secretary today commit to a full overhaul of Prevent within this Parliament so that future warning signs are not missed? Will she also commit to bringing forward the legislation recommended by Jonathan Hall KC in the next King’s Speech?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Finally—I will be very quick—you spoke about making the system fairer, and I think that it is shared across all parties that we would like to see that. Will you be looking to address the disparity between the legal aid provision in magistrates courts and Crown courts during the passage of this Bill? Sarah Sackman: That is a really good question, and you have asked me it in the Chamber. At the moment, 97% of applications for legal aid in the magistrates context are approved. We have to fully consider the IRCC package and see what final version of this Bill, if it passes through Parliament, receives Royal Assent, and then reassess and ensure that the availability of legal aid across both magistrates and Crown courts is not a barrier to access to justice. We have a means test in criminal legal aid, and that is important. It is important that people who can afford to pay their legal fees do but, where you do not have the means, it is important that you can access legal aid to get representation, which is why the hardship mechanism that we currently have exists. That will be a really important feature of the system to ensure that legal aid provision—

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q That is helpful. What sentence can a judge sitting alone give, and are there particular cases that will be heard with a jury? Doug Downey: It is a great range. Let me answer that in reverse, if I may. The most significant matters, such as murder and treason, will default to a jury, but if the Crown agrees with the accused, they can move it to judge-alone. That generally is not the case—it generally stays where it is—but they can. For the balance of matters, such as serious sexual assaults, it is not directly based on what the consequence might be; it is a class of cases that we call hybrid and I think you call either-way cases, where an individual can make an election to move into the superior court and, by consequence, get a jury, but generally they do not do that.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Sir Richard Henriques, who we heard from earlier, said that if we were not facing such a huge backlog we would not be here at all. I may have bastardised his language slightly, but do you agree with him? Sarah Sackman: I think that I know where this is going, because I think that you will push me on this. Plainly, we are here, and the nature of the debate is shaped by the appalling backlog in our courts and the crisis we face—we all agree on that. There are 80,000 cases, and behind every one is a victim, and cases are being listed into 2030. This British justice system, which we will have huge pride in, is kind of indefensible. You have heard me say in the Chamber, and I am not going to resile from it, that there are certainly parts of this plan that I would be advocating for anyway, because I think that they will make the system fairer and more sustainable. You heard the police chief talk about the fact that demand pressures come into the picture not just because of the backlog but because of the changing nature and complexity of criminal trials. The system needs to reform itself. You heard Charlotte, one of the victims who spoke earlier, talk about the changes to the right to elect. I find it curious that Scotland, for example, does not have the right of election for a defendant. We know that it exists in Canada—we heard about that example—but it does not exist in Scotland, and there are lots of other jurisdictions where that does not exist. I find it strange that the defendant chooses the mode of trial, rather than the court triaging it. I use a healthcare analogy: if I go to A&E on a Saturday night, I do not get to insist that I get to see the specialist consultant if I can be treated appropriately by a resident health associate. It seems to me that the changes are normative and values-driven, and would be good for the system anyway. We probably would not be here at this time of night with this exact shape of debate if it was not for the crisis, but I stand by the principles that lie behind the reforms we are bringing forward.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a very simple question: what are the risks of ignoring campaigners like you when we talk about fundamentally changing the way we do jury trials? Tim Crosland: The risk is to democracy and to people’s confidence in democracy in cases that explore the boundaries between public interest, the right to protest and criminal law. We lose the essence of democratic rights if people know that they will not get a trial before their peers. It is a very profound danger. It was only in 2024 after 69-year-old retired social worker Trudi Warner had been arrested and prosecuted for holding up a sign outside London Crown court that the High Court said that juries were entitled to acquit as a matter of conscience. Her case came before the High Court, which dismissed the Government’s prosecution of her and said that jury equity is a vital principle of our democracy and she was right to uphold it. It was part of her convention rights. We lose that principle if we ignore protesters when we look at this legislation.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that intervention; I have also seen the amendment that his group has tabled, and I agree with that. Trial by jury is deeply enshrined in our conscience and constitution, and it is respected all over the world.

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

  More

  I will make some progress. If the Deputy Prime Minister and the Courts Minister believe that this is fundamentally the right thing to do practically and ideologically, why did it not feature in the Labour party manifesto? Like many Members, I take issue with the Deputy Prime Minister’s messaging around the Bill. He chose to describe defendants as “offenders”, rather than applying the principle of innocent until guilt is proven. He also described a case that carries a sentence of up to three years as akin to having a grazed knee and seeing a consultant. I think most of the public outside this building would argue that three years’ imprisonment is a life-changing sentence. If I were tried for a crime that I was arguing that I did not commit, I would like that to be in front of a jury of my peers. I believe the Government are wasting severely limited political capital on something that will not shift the dial. They stated themselves that they expect all the measures in the Bill to show just a 5% decrease in the backlog by the end of this Parliament and a return to pre-covid backlog levels only in a decade. Instead of these drastic changes, we are urging the Government to look at alternative options to reduce the Crown court backlog. We should look at measures that have been tried and tested before, such as those piloted during the pandemic to supercharge the Crown courts, when extended sitting hours allowed am and pm trials. Used in select courtrooms, that method can funnel through cases that have been stuck in the backlog for years. In the original pilots, the approach cleared 3.5 cases per courtroom each week, compared to fewer than one in courts operating standard hours. That is how we can begin to reduce the backlog without removing liberties that we should all hold as sacred. Will the Government please give consideration to the Liberal Democrat proposals, which would not only boost efficiencies in the Crown courts but would make the experience for jurors, victims and judges better, and could attract retired judges back into the system to preside over half-day cases? Another glaring flaw in the Bill is that more serious cases will be heard in the magistrates court, where there is a higher income threshold to qualify for legal aid. Many more defendants who could be accused of crimes that carry sentences of up to 24 months will be unrepresented and defending themselves. That is very likely to drag out hearings, which will lower the overall savings that the Government claim to be making with these reforms. How will the Government respond when magistrates courts start pushing cases with longer sentences back to the Crown court as they struggle to absorb the additional work, as happened with the previous reform of magistrates’ sentencing powers? The Government are also proposing to abolish the right of appeal from the magistrates court. Why does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that should be done when 42% of appeals from the magistrates court are successful? If the Government are willing to include an important clause on the presumption against parental responsibility in the Bill, why will they not extend the scope of the Bill to address the fundamental reforms needed in the broken family court system? The Government’s proposals are opposed by the Criminal Bar Association, the chair of the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Four Bars, the Secret Barrister, Judge Rob Rinder, Jo Hamilton OBE, many Labour Members and 3,200 legal professionals, who have written to the Deputy Prime Minister today. If they will not listen to all those organisations and people who have spent their lives committed to making the criminal justice system, which has been poorly managed by successive Governments, as effective as possible for victims and defendants, who will they listen to? I have a huge amount of respect for the Courts Minister and for the Deputy Prime Minister, which is why I am disappointed to be here making this speech. It is not too late for them to change course.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  West Sussex county council should never have been offered the opportunity to postpone for a second year running, effectively gifting the Conservative-controlled administration a seven-year term. Now, with democracy restored, there are just 74 days until the polls, so will West Sussex still be expected to work to the original timescale for the creation of unitary authorities and a combined authority that will sit with the mayoralty, or will that also be delayed? How much additional support will be provided to the council, and specifically to the staff at West Sussex, who are now working to a very tight schedule to deliver elections for their residents?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Transport in the South-East · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered transport in the south-east. It is a pleasure to open this debate under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the many hon. Members here who hope to raise transport concerns with the Minister. I know from my experience that transport issues take up a significant proportion of our casework and inboxes. I also thank the constituents who have been in touch with me about transport since the election, particularly in the past few days when I was preparing for this debate. How we move around our communities affects everybody. It is one of the most regular issues that comes up on doorsteps in and around Chichester. When done correctly, transport systems make people’s lives easier and support thriving local economies. When done badly, it is a noose around the neck of an area that has so much to offer. The south-east has much to be proud of with some impressive pieces of transport infrastructure, vital not only to our communities but to the nation more widely, whether it is the beautiful Ouse valley viaduct, our strategically important airports, the channel tunnel or the admittedly long overdue but now incredibly satisfying M25/A3 junction. I had the pleasure of driving through there at the weekend and enjoyed it immensely.

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

  More

  This Government inherited a justice system in a shambles after years of Conservative complacency and mismanagement. Overcrowding, administrative failures and cuts to vital services mean the Ministry of Justice too often appears to be moving from one crisis to the next as it tries to fix an entire justice system that has been broken for a long time. We in the Liberal Democrats welcome the long-term provisions the Government have made to reduce pressure on the system, such as the presumption against short sentences and investment in capacity. It is clear from today’s statement that those provisions in the Sentencing Act will have a meaningful impact on demand for prison places in coming years, but I have some questions for the Minister. The proportion of female prisoners serving less than 12 months is four times that of the male population. Given the presumption against custody introduced by the Sentencing Act, can the Minister outline what, if any, work is being undertaken to consider the capacity that may be freed up in the female prison estate? The report outlines the Government’s ambition to secure new land for the provision of future prison builds. Can the Minister outline a timeline for that, and for when prison places that are currently under construction will come online? The Minister laid out plans to increase the number of probation officers to 6,500 by 2027. The retention of officers has been a long-standing issue within the probation system, which has been compounded in recent years by the uptick in less experienced staff. Will he set out what measures the Department will take to improve retention, and whether the Government will meet the HM Prison and Probation Service staffing level of 7,114 officers by the end of this Parliament? The Minister rightly said that reducing reoffending is key to easing long-term pressure on the system. Education is central to that ambition, as it provides prisoners with the skills they need to rejoin society after their sentences end and avoid making the same mistakes again. Yet prison education is being cut, not strengthened, as the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), said. In fact, last month the independent monitoring board wrote to the Prisons Minister outlining the impact that real-terms cuts beyond inflation rates were having on education. Will the Minister before us please explain how the Government expect to deliver a rehabilitative system and reduce reoffending while prison boards are being forced to make dramatic cuts to education budgets?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Referendums · Hansard source

  More

  Our mayoral election in Sussex has been postponed until 2028, but the statutory instrument for the creation of combined authorities is still going ahead, and two elected representatives from each local authority are going to form the combined authority. That means Conservative councillors who have not had a democratic mandate since 2021 will create the combined authority; does my hon. Friend agree that that is the reason why they are holding on and delaying elections?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We in the Liberal Democrats have sympathy for the scale of the task that this Labour Government have inherited, and we are glad that they recognise the real losers here—the victims. It is an utter failure of the justice system that victims and defendants are being given court dates for the end of the decade, facing years of delay and re-traumatisation, when so many just want justice and then to move on with their lives. Here’s the rub, though: we fundamentally disagree with the Government’s approach to tackling this crisis. They are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, ignoring the actual issues and targeting a key and celebrated success. Trial by jury is deeply enshrined in our conscience and constitution, and is respected all over the world. The possibility of being tried by one’s peers—not an elite, unrepresentative group of individuals—is fundamental to a fair trial in this country. That point was recognised by the Deputy Prime Minister himself in the Lammy review. It concluded that unlike other stages of the criminal justice system, jury trials do not show statistical bias against ethnic minorities. The Deputy Prime Minister set out in extreme detail that, compared with magistrates courts, Crown courts provide an effective check on prejudice and avoid discriminatory verdicts. Twelve heads are better than one—a point proven by the increased public trust in jury trials.