Sarah Sackman MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 16 Sept 2025 · Court Estate: Restoration and Renewal · Hansard source

  More

  For years, our court buildings under the last Government were left to crumble and decay. This Government have boosted capital funding from £120 million last year to over £148 million for this year. From Reading to Blackpool, we are building new courts and restoring old ones.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Court Estate: Restoration and Renewal · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right. When we talk about access to justice, that must mean access to justice in every single respect, and there is no more obvious demonstration of that than accessibility to the door of the court. That is why we undertake continuous review of our court estate to ensure that it is physically accessible to all users.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Court Estate: Restoration and Renewal · Hansard source

  More

  I understand that people in Lancaster have been using the Crown court in nearby Preston, which is a more modern and accessible facility. We are undertaking a consultation about the future of Lancaster Crown court, but I am happy to write to my hon. Friend in more detail about the timeline.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Court Estate: Restoration and Renewal · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right that the Prestatyn justice centre is a valuable facility for her community. We have a number of projects in the pipeline for Wales. Obviously we must prioritise those court buildings that are most in need and where there is most disrepair so that we can bring them back into use, but I am happy for her to write to me about that particular case.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Sharia law forms no part of the law of England and Wales, but where people choose to put themselves before those councils—in common with Christian, Jewish and other courts of faith—that is part of religious tolerance which is an important British value.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The sorts of delays that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent is experiencing are unacceptable. The consensus is that the delays are unacceptable and that we have to do something big and bold about them. This is a complex system, which is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson, with his expertise, to tell us how best we go about that, but we will have to get behind once-in-a-generation reform. We are gripping the issue now—we are making record investment in criminal legal aid and sitting days—but we will need reform as well.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am deeply troubled by this case, and of course, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend. It is hard to think of a more graphic illustration of what we mean when we say that justice delayed is justice denied, and it is exactly why this Government are gripping the backlog in our courts, with record sitting days, increased sentencing powers for magistrates and by proposing once-in-a-generation, bold reform of our criminal courts.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member raises a very important point. We know that the success rate of appeals is high and the delays are severe in the SEND tribunal, which has a huge impact on children and families. We are close to the maximum number of sitting days across all our jurisdictions, to bear down on those delays, but I will certainly take his point on board as we look to reform the SEND system.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to address her point and to give her the details that she requires.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I was pleased to meet Andrew Turner and the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on this important issue. We have to get the balance right between protecting vulnerable adults from financial abuse while at the same time ensuring that they can access assets that are theirs. It is complicated and requires cross-Government work, but I assure the hon. Lady that the impetus is there.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In typical fashion, Baroness Harman has conducted a thorough review into our professions and the judiciary. The judiciary and the Bar are one of the prides of this country, but where there are unacceptable practices and behaviours, it is right that we shine a light on them and demand that we do much better.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right. We want the UK to remain the pre-eminent jurisdiction of choice for legal services, as it currently is. This evolution of our law will enable it to remain a global hub for digital finance and tech. Overall it is a Bill that reflects our legal heritage, embraces technological innovation and prepares our nation for the future. To appreciate the significance of the Bill, we must begin with the foundations of property law in England and Wales. For centuries, our legal system has categorised personal property as two distinct types: first, things in possession—tangible items that can be physically held or possessed, such as a book, jewellery or gold; and secondly, things in action—intangible rights that can only be claimed or enforced through legal action, such as debts, shares or contractual rights. These categories have served us well for hundreds of years, providing clarity in ownership and facilitating commerce. They have helped to create legal certainty in matters ranging from succession and insolvency to trust structures and collateral arrangements. The digital revolution introduced a new class of assets—digital assets—that do not fit neatly into either of the traditional categories. As things stand, we look to 19th-century case law, which sets out that a thing can only be property if it fits into the two traditional categories of things in action and things in possession. The unique characteristics of digital assets, like crypto tokens, challenge the boundaries of these legal categories. Unlike physical objects, digital assets cannot be held in one’s hand. Unlike debts or contractual rights, digital assets have an independent existence in the world that is not dependent on their recognition by a legal system. Yet certain digital assets possess the characteristics that the common law recognises as making them suitable to attract property rights. For example, certain digital assets, like crypto tokens, are rivalrous, meaning their use by one person prevents simultaneous use by others. By contrast to crypto tokens, some digital things, like Word documents, are not rivalrous and so are not recognised by the common law as being capable of attracting property rights. For example, if I were to send you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a Word document, I retain a copy, but if I transfer a crypto token, I no longer possess it. This is due to the underlying blockchain technology that ensures immutability, scarcity and non-duplicability—features that make certain digital assets capable of attracting personal property rights even if they are not a thing in possession or a thing in action. Recent case law has begun to recognise that certain digital assets can attract personal property rights. However, these decisions have not come forward in precedent-setting courts, and thus the legal landscape remains uncertain. This ambiguity risks stifling innovation, as innovators are unsure what protections they have or whether they will be able to monetise their creation. It also puts off investors from investing in crypto tokens in favour of more traditional and predictable forms of investment. If we do not act, we risk our global competitors getting ahead and putting in place the kind of certainty in their own legal systems that will divert investment away from this country. Recognising the urgency of this issue, in 2020, under the previous Government, the Ministry of Justice commissioned the Law Commission to review the legal framework surrounding crypto tokens and other digital assets. The commission’s 2023 report was unequivocal: certain digital assets should be recognised as capable of attracting property rights, and legislation was needed to reflect this. The Government have responded decisively. The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is the result—a concise yet powerful piece of legislation that affirms our commitment to legal clarity, economic growth and technological leadership. The Bill contains a single operative clause. It recognises that a thing, including a thing that is digital or electronic, is not prevented from attracting personal property rights merely because it is not a thing in possession nor a thing in action. The Bill allows the courts to develop a further category of personal property through our common law. Importantly, the Bill does not attempt to define which digital assets may qualify, nor does it prescribe the legal consequences of falling within this category. These matters are rightly left to the common law, which, with its flexibility and nuance, is best suited to assess each asset on its characteristics. This is in accordance with long-established common-law tests for property. This approach reflects the strength of our tradition. It capitalises on the adaptability and flexibility of the common law by empowering the courts to apply established legal tests to emerging technologies. This ensures that our legal system remains responsive, relevant and resilient. We stand today at the intersection of law and innovation, where centuries of legal tradition meet the boundless potential of the digital age. The Bill is not just legal reform: it is an important step for our law and for the global digital economy, because digital assets are here to stay. From crypto tokens to voluntary carbon credits, these assets are reshaping how we transact, invest and interact—and yet, until now, our private law has struggled to keep pace. This Bill changes that. First and foremost, the Bill provides legal certainty. It confirms that certain digital assets can be recognised as personal property. This is a fundamental shift. It means that individuals and businesses can now rely on clear legal rights and protections when dealing with things such as crypto tokens. That is because certain digital assets can now attract the same legal protection as other forms of property, which means that owners of things such as crypto tokens can enforce their rights if the asset is stolen. Whether it is theft, insolvency or inheritance, the law will now stand ready to protect those property rights. By clarifying the legal status of digital assets, the Bill reduces ambiguity and streamlines litigation. That is because the courts will no longer have to spend time debating whether further categories exist or trying to force digital assets into the traditional categories. That clarity will save time, reduce costs and ensure fairer outcomes for all parties involved. As I have said, the Bill also supports our ambition to be a centre of innovation and growth. It encourages fintech start-ups, scale-ups and global enterprises to choose English and Welsh or Northern Irish law for their transactions, knowing that these legal systems are equipped to handle the complexities of digital assets. The Bill thus unlocks practical economic benefits. It assists in allowing digital assets to be included in estates for inheritance and claimed by creditors in insolvency. These capabilities will fuel innovation, support new financial products and drive economic growth. Crucially, the Bill does not attempt rigidly to define every type of digital asset. Instead, as I have said, it allows the common law to evolve, giving our courts the flexibility to adapt to technologies that have not yet even been imagined. That is one of the hallmarks of a progressive, forward-thinking legal system such as ours. This Bill attracted significant cross-party support in the other place. For example, it was described by Lord Holmes as “a short Bill, but one with significant impact for the UK, and indeed beyond our shores”. —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1695.] It was also described as a Bill that “sends a signal to all those involved in digital assets” that “London and the United Kingdom is an excellent place” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 2025; Vol. 1696, c. 845.] to do business. In the same vein, Lord Sandhurst noted that the Bill was “small but perfectly formed” and that it will “make an important contribution to the development of the law...and assist judges and litigants in ensuring that necessary protection is given to activities and things in the digital sphere...which might otherwise fail to be protected”. —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1696.] Those are not just words of praise: they are affirmations of the Bill’s importance, clarity and potential to shape the global legal and economic landscape. One noble Lord remarked on Third Reading that “the world is watching”, and rightly so. We have a proud tradition of legal excellence and a thriving fintech ecosystem. With trillions of pounds in global economic activity expected to be transacted via digital assets by the end of the decade, we must ensure that our legal infrastructure is not only fit for purpose, but fit for the future. This Bill is a critical step in realising that potential. Of course, the Bill underwent much scrutiny in the House of Lords, and two amendments were made to it. The first extended the territorial scope of the Bill to include Northern Ireland. We are glad that our laws can be aligned in this area and that the benefits of this Bill will be felt more widely. The second amendment was to the Bill’s long title. That was to ensure consistency between the title and the Bill’s operative clause. I am certain that we now have the best possible version of this Bill before us. The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is a testament to the strength and adaptability of our legal tradition. It reflects our commitment to innovation, our respect for the rule of law and our ambition to lead on the global stage. It was described in the Lords as “future facing, future-proofing, growth enabling ground-breaking and good for innovation, investment, citizen, consumer and the country”. —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 30 April 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1297.] I could not agree more. It is a Bill for the future—a future in which digital assets play a central role in our economy, our society and our lives. By passing this Bill, we are not only clarifying the law, but shaping that future. Let us seize this opportunity and send a clear message to the world that we are ready, willing and able to lead in the digital age.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  With the leave of the House, let me say how grateful I am to those who have contributed to today’s debate, in a rare expression of consensus. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster). The quality of the discussion, both in this House and in the other place, reflects the significance of the Bill that is before us. As I have said, it is the product of rigorous analysis and wide consultation. I pay tribute to the Law Commission for its landmark report, and to the many practitioners, academics, businesses and organisations that have engaged so constructively throughout the process. At its heart, the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is about ensuring that our legal system keeps pace with technological change. It is a clear, confident step into the future, one that reaffirms the UK’s place as a global leader in legal innovation, financial services and digital commerce, and it is a central part of this Government’s plan for change and for growth. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [ Lords ]: Programme Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)), That the following provisions shall apply to the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [ Lords ]: Committal (1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House. Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading (2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement. (3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House. (4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading. Other proceedings (5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.— ( Christian Wakeford .) Question agreed to.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is a pivotal step in the evolution of our legal system—one that ensures that the law remains relevant and pre-eminent in the digital age. As we set out in our plan for change, this Government are fully committed to providing investors and businesses with stability and certainty. This Bill will help to provide that certainty for people and businesses who own and transact with digital assets. This will help drive economic growth by encouraging innovation, attracting investment and reinforcing the UK’s position as a global hub for digital finances and technology.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Local Justice Area Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Let me begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) —that was my best attempt at Welsh pronunciation; I hope I did not vandalise it—on securing this important debate on the reform of local justice areas. I agree with her that the contribution of magistrates right across the country, but in particular in north Wales, deserves greater recognition. In particular, the north Welsh magistracy is performing well, and I pay tribute to all those who make that possible. This debate is a timely opportunity to clarify the Government’s intentions to reflect on our recent consultation and to address the concerns raised, particularly those from Wales. I shall begin by setting out some context surrounding the local justice areas and the case for reform. Local justice areas were first introduced by the previous Labour Government as part of the Courts Act 2003. They replaced petty sessional divisions and were designed to define the geographical boundaries for magistrates court administration. However, the landscape of justice delivery has changed significantly over the past 20 years or so. The hard legal boundaries of local justice areas create inflexibilities in the magistrates court system, leading to delays and inefficiencies. By abolishing local justice areas and implementing a non-legislative replacement structure, we aim to improve flexibility in the system, reduce bureaucracy and allow for more freedom in the deployment of magistrates. As the House will be aware, the Government and the judiciary launched a joint consultation earlier this year on what the replacement system for local justice areas should look like. I want to be absolutely clear that that consultation was informed by two key principles: first, a commitment to local justice, of which the right hon. Member speaks; and secondly, a commitment to enhance flexibility for a modern magistracy. I am pleased to announce that we have received more than 1,400 responses from magistrates and a range of stakeholders, including legal professionals, local authorities and members of the public. I was encouraged to see the strong level of engagement with the proposals, and the feedback that we have received will shape the final outcome of the consultation. I want to stress that we are carefully considering all the responses before moving forward—we do not approach this with a closed mind. This is genuine consultation and the feedback that we have received through it will be vital in shaping the reforms. Although local justice areas as they are now—a legal administrative boundary set out in legislation—will be abolished, this does not mean an end to local justice. Localism is at the heart of the magistracy. We want to ensure that magistrates continue to feel connected to their local communities, and that local citizens continue to feel that their local magistrates serve them. At the core of our principles is a new system of so-called benches, a structure of court groups that will be used for the purposes of magistrates’ recruitment, deployment, leadership and training, following the abolition of local justice areas. Unlike local justice areas, benches would not be defined in legislation and would have soft boundaries to allow magistrates greater flexibility to sit in other courts. Such courts might actually be closer to where they currently live, but not accessible due to the current hard, legal boundary, and they might offer magistrates a broader range of cases and work than they currently engage in. Our consultation proposes to align benches broadly with the boundaries of criminal justice areas, which themselves are based on the boundaries of police force areas. As the core business of the criminal magistrates courts involves prosecutions initiated by police forces, we believe that, in most cases, this is a natural fit. Where a given criminal justice area will be too large to create a workable bench—

• 15 Jul 2025 · Local Justice Area Reform · Hansard source

  More

  That is precisely why we have a consultation—to reflect the variation in different parts of the country. In most cases, the criminal justice area and the area in which a police force operates will be a natural fit for a bench, but that will not necessarily work for everyone. We are taking soundings and engaging with local stakeholders to make sure that these soft boundaries, as it were, reflect local circumstances. As I said, this is such a vital debate, and we hope to reflect local contributions in the final set of proposals. Where a given criminal justice area would be too large to create a workable bench, we have suggested a different model that retains current local justice area boundaries. For example, creating a bench based on the very large geographical area of the Dyfed-Powys criminal justice area in Wales would be impractical. Analysis suggested that it would result in excessively long journey times for certain magistrates—a point that the right hon. Member made. We therefore propose retaining the current local justice area boundaries in that case. On the other hand, where analysis suggested that a criminal justice area could reasonably be used to structure the boundaries of a bench, we have proposed—it is only a proposal, on which we are consulting—merging certain local justice areas. That is the provenance of the benches for north Wales and south Wales. To reiterate, the point of the consultation is to seek feedback on the proposed model, and gather feedback from magistrates and other stakeholders, such as local leaders, about what will or will not work. The proposed bench configuration is intended as a starting point for this exercise. We are, if I can put it this way, very much in listening mode. I am aware that magistrates in some benches, including those within the constituency of the right hon. Member, have raised concerns about the proposals, and as ever, she is articulate in setting out the concerns of her constituents and the local considerations. I very much appreciate that she wrote to me in advance of today’s Adjournment debate outlining those concerns, so that we could take them on board in the Ministry of Justice. I would like to reassure the right hon. Member that her concerns and the concerns of Welsh magistrates have been and will be heard. While I cannot at this juncture confirm the outcome of the consultation—and some of the matters it covers are for the judiciary to determine, not politicians—these concerns and others expressed in the response to our consultation will inform our decisions on the structure for Welsh magistrates courts. I turn to the question of Welsh language impacts, which are incredibly important in this context. As the right hon. Member has said, a key concern for Welsh-speaking magistrates is the impact of the proposals on the Welsh language. This concern has also been articulated by other members of the Welsh judiciary. At the heart of it is the potential risk that differences in the percentage of Welsh-speaking magistrates in the proposed bench could limit opportunities for Welsh-speaking magistrates or court users to speak Welsh. Let me take this opportunity to assure the House that this Government remain firmly committed to the principle of bilingual provision of court services in Wales, and to the equal treatment of Welsh and English in the delivery of justice in these courts. Under the proposals, all magistrates would have the chance to discuss their sitting arrangements with their bench chair. Magistrate’s sitting patterns would be decided on a case-by-case basis, taking account of personal circumstances as well as business need. A Welsh-speaking magistrate’s preferences would naturally form part of these discussions. It is certainly not our intention to force Welsh-speaking magistrates to sit in other locations to the extent that it would limit their ability to use Welsh in court. More broadly, the proposals are intended as a codification of current practice. Magistrates are expected to undertake most of their sittings at the court closest to their home or work location. The overall intention is to minimise as far as possible the extent of practical change to the day-to-day business of magistrates in their local area. Given the continuity in sitting patterns, and the continued provision of interpreters in Welsh magistrates courts, we do not expect the proposals to impact the availability of Welsh language services for court users in Wales. To answer the right hon. Member’s question directly, and to reassure her, a full Welsh language impact assessment will accompany any final proposals. We will carefully consider the responses we have received from Welsh magistrates and other stakeholders to see what the impact will be on Welsh being spoken in court, and will put in place any mitigations, should they be necessary. We have committed to publishing a full Welsh language impact test alongside the final set of policy decisions, and we expect to publish our response later this year. I am aware of the issue of the effect that the proposed bench configuration for Wales will have on travel times for magistrates and court users, and concerns about increased journey times and added difficulties for those who, for example, rely on public transport. That concern has also been expressed in some responses to proposals in England; it cuts across the board. We are keen to draw on magistrates’ first-hand knowledge of their local area before finalising any of these boundaries. The ongoing analysis of consultation responses will help us to identify those areas—such as in Wales—where a proposed bench would be excessively large or result in unreasonably long journey times. As the right hon. Member rightly acknowledged, magistrates volunteer and do a fantastic service. We do not want to put barriers in their way; this is about enabling them to carry out their service and be deployed flexibly. It is certainly not intended to impede the vital work that they do. As for court users, the consultation does not propose any changes to case listing practices. The abolition of local justice areas will, however, make it easier to hear a case in a court closer to a user’s home. We would not therefore expect the new bench or deployment models to result in longer journeys for users. We are nevertheless continually reviewing any potential impacts of the proposals on protected characteristics. Should the data gathered from the consultation responses uncover any previously unforeseen impacts, we will consider revising the proposals to mitigate those. I thank the right hon. Member once again for raising this issue with her characteristic eloquence and attention to detail. I also thank those who took part in the consultation process and engaged with the proposals. We received 1,400 responses, which is testament to just how much people are engaged on these issues and how much they value the local justice that our magistrates provide. As with any consultation, the dialogue and feedback we have received will be crucial in driving positive outcomes, and I am grateful to all those who have contributed. We are in listening mode, as I said, and we are committed to creating a system that works better for magistrates, court staff and citizens right across England and Wales. Question put and agreed to.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend speaks so passionately on behalf of his constituents. I think the public ask for something really simple: if people are unfortunate enough to be the victim of a crime, they expect to have their day in court in a timely fashion, not to be made to wait for years, only to find that the trial has become ineffective and is put off for yet another year. That undermines faith in the system, and that is what is so detrimental about the neglect and under-investment under the Conservatives. That has been so corrosive of trust in the justice system. It is not simply that we are not delivering swift justice for victims; it is that the public risk losing faith in our justice system, which to date has been one of the glories of this country.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we all owe a debt of gratitude to Sir Brian Leveson and his team for the comprehensive review that they have undertaken, to which the Government will be giving due consideration over the summer, before we formally provide our response. We have to ensure that whatever package of proposals we take forward knits together with the recommendations from the Gauke review and the outcome of the spending review that the Ministry of Justice has received, with a commitment to make an additional investment of £450 million in our courts. I want to address his point about intermediate courts: they are not about saving money, but about addressing the backlog, delivering swifter justice for victims and having a criminal justice system in which the public can have confidence. If this package of ideas is right and will achieve that aim, we will pursue it.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The shadow Secretary of State for Justice quotes Magna Carta, but the state’s obligation is to ensure a fair trial, and essential to a fair trial is timely justice. In circumstances where some victims of crime are waiting two or three years for their day in court, that is not fair. In fact, that is resulting in many victims pulling out of trials, rendering court time wasted and retraumatising those victims. What the shadow Secretary of State for Justice has not read is the entirety of Magna Carta. I quote: “To no one will we…delay right or justice.” The right to a timely trial is embedded in Magna Carta, and we need to get back to delivering it.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member raises an extremely helpful point, which is about how we can improve efficiency in our courts through the use of technology, including technology that is improving rapidly before our eyes. For example, the Ministry of Justice is piloting the use of AI technology in some of our tribunals for transcription. How could that be utilised and rolled out more widely across courts and tribunals? He is absolutely right, but Sir Brian and his team, to give them their credit, have worked incredibly fast to produce a detailed, careful and well-evidenced report today. He will continue with part 2 of his review. Our job in the Ministry of Justice, as we develop our policy thinking, will be to bring those two parts of the review together to improve our criminal justice system.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is right that as we take forward and are ready to announce the package of reforms in response to Sir Brian’s review, we will consider how we can take forward the best of our existing system and, indeed, learn from other systems. Whether that is intensive supervision courts, where we have seen some good results, or tackling the root causes that lie behind crime and engaging in preventive measures, we should be doing all that. This is our opportunity. We have reached a point of crisis. We have reached the point of emergency—no more, no less—as a result of the inheritance from the previous Government, but we have got to take the opportunity to build back better, with a more sustainable and more innovative justice system that the public can have confidence in and that protects the public. That is what we must do. The hon. Member is right: we should learn, we should listen and we should build something better.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions · Hansard source

  More

  I can tell that my hon. Friend has taken the liberty of actually reading the report, because he has identified the central premise and argument that Sir Brian Leveson, one of our most distinguished judges, makes in it, which is this: we cannot simply sit our way out of the crisis we have inherited. We need to carefully consider once-in-a-generation structural reform. We have got to combine that with investment, too, which this Government are already doing with the 4,000 additional sitting days that we have added, over and above what the previous Government agreed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is about investment plus reform.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions · Hansard source

  More

  The holistic type of support involving the preventive interventions that the hon. Lady has described is exactly the sort of provision that we are considering, in combination with the investment and structural reforms that will also be needed. I know that my colleague in the other place, the Prisons Minister, is taking on board precisely that sort of package of rehabilitation models so that we can break this endless cycle of reoffending.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We talk about sitting days and backlogs, and it can all sound a little arid and academic, but it comes back to people. The fact that so many victims of rape and serious sexual offences pull out of the process is testament to the fact that the system is not working. That is the direct consequence of allowing the backlogs to run out of control. We have to keep victims engaged in the process, which is why we have invested specifically in victims services and why we are looking to strengthen the victims code. Ultimately, victims want swift justice. That is why we will take a careful look at Sir Brian’s recommendations and do what it takes to bring down the backlog.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his typically helpful and constructive contribution. We are talking about a system that has so many moving parts, and that is why we will not give an instant response to Sir Brian’s review or to some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman raises. It is clear that we have got to get the whole system working. In that vein, let me address our professions and our criminal Bar, who do a sterling job. I have engaged closely with the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association, and we need to do this in collaboration with them. It will be a team effort to rebuild our criminal justice system, and we will continue to engage over the summer as we bring together the necessary reforms to bring down the backlogs and deliver swifter justice for victims.