Siân Berry MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), whose motion, report and recommendations for the Bill I support and welcome. Thorough and fair leasehold reform is long overdue. My inbox as MP for Brighton Pavilion is littered with horror stories from constituents about their experiences as leaseholders who are forced to fork out extortionate service charges with no value for money, poor maintenance and no transparency on how that money is spent, as well as awful communications. My leaseholders continue to suffer from a lack of agency in solving the building safety scandal, which has left too many leaseholders in Brighton’s many high-rise and mid-rise blocks stuck in unsafe homes. Some of my constituents tell me that they believe freeholders are still trying to cut corners and do this work on the cheap. Just last month I was contacted by multiple constituents about developer Barratt Redrow’s plans to remediate their blocks, built in the early 2000s, to a B1 standard, rather than to an A2 standard as they had understood would happen. This type of dispute, nine years on from the avoidable Grenfell disaster, is commonplace, and it is so worrying for too many of my constituents. I, too, want to talk about property management agents. A large number of leaseholders in Brighton and Hove are in a nightmare situation right now of not being able to access money paid into accounts managed by just one large property management company in sudden crisis. Under current leasehold regulations, when a managing agent’s client accounts are frozen, or irregularities are identified that suggest mismanagement of accounts, leaseholders are left exposed to very big financial losses. In the private rented sector, there is a Government-backed tenancy guarantee scheme, but for leaseholders there is no equivalent guarantee on service charge accounts and reserve funds. Section 42 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 does require property management companies to hold service charge contributions in trust and with a financial institution authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Yet the flexibility of how leaseholder money is held in reality means that the sums of money in property management company accounts may far exceed the maximum amounts guaranteed under the financial services compensation scheme. Section 156 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 adds a requirement for managing agents to hold service charge funds in designated separate accounts, but it is not yet in force. This lack of enactment seems to leave wide open the potential for managing agents to hold leaseholder money in a way that falls outside of compensation schemes. It cannot be right that leaseholders are left exposed to risk in that way. To conclude, there is no doubt that the feudal leasehold system is broken and must be abolished in favour of commonhold. The regulation of managing agents to end their exploitation is very, very urgent. The promises that the Government made in opposition, to end the system within the first 100 days, were missed long ago, but we need full reform now, without delay, to ensure an end to leaseholders being ripped off, living in unsafe homes or being exposed to avoidable financial risk and losses.

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On oversight, will the Secretary of State confirm that proposed new section 33G of the National Security Act 2023, which would be added by clause 3, is not intended to limit access to justice, or prevent challenges through the courts to future decisions made under human rights principles? That seems to me to be a measure that her Government would not want to bequeath to future Governments, who might misuse the legislation.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that the Government should clarify more details of the funding announced, the funding allocated and the funding actually paid out under the existing funding plan since 2018, and should work harder to speed up the distribution of funding, not just the amount of funding that is in the pot?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Many councils, especially Brighton and Hove, with hundreds of acquisitions since 2017, are doing their best to buy, as well as build, their supply of new council housing. More family homes can be provided, and the speed of the benefits gives it a different Treasury business case. Will the Secretary of State help me win the Chancellor’s support for the idea of a massive, new dedicated “buy the supply” fund for councils?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Legacy of Jo Cox · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for that, and I will certainly pass on that message. As MPs, we do not always agree on everything. It is our job to disagree, but to disagree well, with standards, compassion and ethics. We must always seek to find common ground where we can. When we disagree, we should do so with patience and respect, as Jo always did.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Legacy of Jo Cox · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to follow the wise words of the hon. Members for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) and for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who have done a great job of embodying the various aspects of Jo that we are in the Chamber today to talk about. I join all the other Members who have spoken in paying tribute to Jo’s sister. She is a great parliamentarian—she is admired across the House for the way she works so diligently and courageously on so many issues, many of which I have in common with her. I am grateful to have learned today that we also share a legacy of dancing around to Wham! with our sisters. I will also be definitely trying the Great Get Together beer, but only after I have voted. I am so appreciative of every single one of Jo’s friends who are speaking today and who shared their parliamentary careers with her. I feel so sad, but so warmly towards them all. Their fortitude and the work they have all done in securing her legacy are huge. In June 2016 I was not an MP, but I was a London Assembly member working at the old City Hall by Tower Bridge. I remember how I heard about Jo’s murder, like everybody, but I remember in particular seeing Jo and her young family speeding across the Thames in what I called later their plucky remain boat. I have a lovely photograph—I did not know it was of her until days later—of her and the family with an “In” flag whizzing about on the Thames as part of Bob Geldof’s rival flotilla in the final days of the referendum campaign. I remember feeling so delighted that day to have seen this example of good-spirited, memorable campaigning just outside my workplace. Obviously, all that changed. Politics is supposed to be a way of resolving our differences creatively through communication, not violence. Losing Jo was a harrowing sign that that consensus, which many people were trying to keep going, had been somewhat shattered. We could have done, and can do, so much better in the UK in politics, in the media, online and in our communities by investing in what I call the real resilience—the real antidote—to hate, which is by keeping communities feeling valued and invested in. The most shining part of Jo’s legacy is undoubtedly the foundation, which works towards that goal. It embodies her spirit and her work, as does the incredible work carried out by the More in Common Network to build up communities and to call for connection over division. Ten years on from losing her, Jo’s “more in common” message feels more vital and urgent than I can say. The awful scenes we have witnessed this week, which other Members have mentioned, alone serve as a brutal reminder of how quickly anger can evolve into violence when people are turned against one another in our communities. Finally, I turn to the question of how the anger that killed Jo was seeded and how it grew. It is a question that my predecessor, Caroline Lucas, thought a lot about. It led her to travel around the country in the months following the EU referendum to talk with people whose political views differed vastly from her own. Through that experience, she proved that Jo’s now infamous words from her maiden speech in this place were absolutely correct. Caroline has said about those conversations: “More often it was refreshing and reassuring because there was so much more that we agreed on than held us apart. Many people were angry. Of course they were. But if you took the time to go, and paid them the courtesy of listening, then common ground could emerge.” As MPs, we do not and certainly cannot agree on everything, but we must always strive to seek common ground.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Road Investment Strategy 3: Reducing Danger · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State’s new third road investment strategy requires a reduction of only 7.5% in the number of people killed or seriously injured on the strategic road network by 2031, yet meeting the 2035 target in the road safety strategy requires a reduction of about 55% across England’s roads by that date. That means National Highways can get away with doing almost nothing, while local authorities are left to make up the difference. How can the Minister justify handing £27 billion to this failing body, while councils across the country are crying out for funds to make everyday walking and cycling safer?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Road Investment Strategy 3: Reducing Danger · Hansard source

  More

  9. What steps she is taking to reduce road danger through the third road investment strategy.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  I quite agree. It was courageous of the House to take on this issue, consider it and then vote. We put our names to positions that we came to with some courage, I think, because we all knew there were people who felt very strongly the opposite way, whichever way we voted. On the principle—on this and any other issue where a similar process takes place and the House of Commons has the courage to come to a decision—I agree that it is not for the House of Lords to stop that using these kinds of methods. I agree with the petition writers, who want the Government “to ensure that when bills are supported by MPs & the public, they have the time to complete all their stages in Parliament.” That is 114,000-plus signatories, alongside the 69% of people polled this year who believe that the debate on assisted dying should have continued until Parliament reached a conclusion. I look forward to hearing from the Leader of the House about what can be done so that we can make the important private Members’ Bill process viable again in the future and restore the public’s faith in the health of democracy—I will not beat around the bush—and in the ability of this Parliament to make decisions on issues of such importance to so many of our constituents.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  Many thanks, Sir Edward, for your firm chairing today, which I now look forward to. I sincerely thank the petitioners, and particularly Sophie Blake for all the work she does and for a very well put petition. I also thank Nathaniel Dye, and I had the genuine honour of meeting him and seeing his work before his death. I want to add a cross-party voice to the debate. The Greens were not whipped on the issue of assisted dying—we do not whip our Members in any debates—but all four Green MPs voted for this issue of conscience. However, that is not what we are here to debate today; we are here to talk about the process. I was so impressed with it and with the seriousness with which my colleagues and colleagues across the House took this issue. We made our decisions after so much debate and engagement with the Bill text and the amendments, and debates in our offices and with our staff. In our constituencies, we all spoke with constituents from a wide range of different groups. I spoke with young people, disabled people, faith groups, several terminally ill people and people caring for those who were terminally ill. This was serious work. I was a very new MP when the Bill went through its Second Reading, and I found it so inspiring. It is a sad topic, but I found the debate extraordinary. After all the debate in the House of Commons, which was unwhipped—by any party—and conducted with such seriousness on an issue of conscience, all that work led to a majority for the Bill. We all know what happened next: a refusal by the House of Lords to come to any kind of decision, and the effective blocking of any further consideration of this issue, into which we had all put so much work.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  Brighton is well known as the LGBT+ capital of the UK. It is a city with a famous reputation as a place where people can be who they are, love who they want to and feel safe. This is a great source of pride for me as a representative and for my constituents who make it such a fantastic place to live or visit. In previous debates, I have spoken with joy about our amazing community, our huge Pride and trans Pride celebrations, and the LGBTQ+ history of our diverse city by the sea, but with deep regret—I know that my constituents will want me to focus on this—we mark this year’s Pride Month at a time when many if not all our LGBT+ constituents feel unsafe. Our trans and non-binary constituents feel the sharpest edge of the current wave of demonisation and division, but I am sure that, like me, many hon. Members will have heard how it is also impacting our gay, lesbian, bisexual and gender non-conforming constituents. This dangerous and harmful environment has been created online, in our media and, sadly, in this place. The new guidance produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission is the most immediate example of how this is happening in legislation. The code of practice for services, public functions and associations is the culmination of years of well funded campaigns to drive a minority group out of British public life. It sets out nothing less than a system of segregation where trans people are excluded from services and spaces that reflect their gender—and in some cases also excluded from services and spaces that reflect their sex assigned at birth. Where unisex facilities exist, they are usually also disabled access, sometimes with restricted key entry, so trans people can be forced into asking for and using those toilets, outing themselves in the process. Where those facilities do not exist, trans people will be left with nowhere to go. As hon. Members have pointed out, the Government’s own equality impact assessment on the code admits that there will be a significant impact on those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment as a result of trans people being forced to out themselves by using disabled toilets, and will put trans women at greater risk of sexual violence by making them use men’s services. I have met service providers in Brighton who want to be inclusive but fear putting themselves at very real legal risk now that the guidance is coming forward. What an impossible position to be put in as a Brighton business—to feel forced to implement oppressive and unworkable policies at the expense of trans and non- binary service users or customers who have never been a cause for concern. How is all that in the spirit of Pride Month? The bare facts are that research by TransLucent has found that there was just one complaint to English unitary authorities in 2025 concerning trans women’s use of single sex spaces, such as toilets and changing rooms. I firmly believe that it is Parliament’s responsibility to fix that and honour the joy, inclusion and freedom that Pride is really about. The code of practice is both cruel and confusing. I have written today to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Women and Equalities to make those points. I also urge colleagues to sign early-day motion 240, proposed by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and which I sponsor, which is a cross-party call on Parliament to disapprove the code of practice as it stands. I hope that we will see much more cross-party work on this issue, as there often was when progress was made by previous Governments. From my local point of view, it is clear that my city and my constituency want and need a renewed focus on rights and for the guidance to be challenged. I was so pleased and proud to read the recent official statement from the leader of Brighton and Hove city council. She is not from my party, but we are united on this issue for those we represent. She said that the EHRC guidance “creates a deeply confusing picture which sees trans people being told in the same breath that they may not be able to use facilities aligned with either their sex at birth or their gender. This creates…uncertainty and insecurity for affected individuals and it is deeply unfair. Trans and non-binary residents of our city have told us that the chilling effect is already being felt with some trans people avoiding accessing services including hospitals and healthcare, to avoid challenge and discrimination…parliament must urgently act and legislate to clarify that trans people have the right to participate in everyday life in an inclusive way.” The leader of the council and I agree that Parliament should reject this document. We also agree that we must instead legislate to create a legal framework with clear and equal rights for all, which protects trans people’s rightful place in society. We must also legislate to clear up the obvious misunderstandings of the current law and its intentions at Supreme Court level when the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act are looked at together. As the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) pointed out so powerfully, other countries have written laws that work for everyone’s rights; so can we. Trans people of all ages and backgrounds exist in communities across the country and always have done. They have every right to thrive, just as their cisgender friends, family members and colleagues do. I recognise the Minister’s pride in previous achievements and her upcoming plans, but when Labour brought in the Gender Recognition Act over two decades ago, it promised trans people that it would help them live their daily lives in peace, privacy and dignity. This current Government will break that promise if we do not act together to make laws that work. This Pride Month, if the current environment for LGBTQ+ people teaches us one thing, it is that progress is precious and that rights for any of us, if not defended fully, can be rolled back. It is our job in this place to prevent that.

• 3 Jun 2026 · General Strike Centenary Commemorations · Hansard source

  More

  Huge thanks go to the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) for leading this important debate with such an important speech. It is great to speak today. It is right that we honour our local struggles when we talk about the general strike and ensure that we cement them in our own local history. Last month, in my constituency, I had the great honour of unveiling my very first blue plaque. It was to mark the battle of Lewes Road, which took place on 11 May 1926. The plaque has gone up at the site of the old tram depot in Lewes Road in Brighton, where 4,000 Brightonians stood strong against hundreds of police on foot and 50 mounted special constables to stop the training of strike breakers. The courage shown by thousands of local residents, workers and protesters who stood up to state intimidation, and who faced immediate imprisonment and hard labour as a result, is one of the many stories of Brighton and Hove’s proud and principled history. I praise and celebrate the work of Brighton and Hove District Trades Union Council and all those involved in campaigning and fundraising to get the plaque up on the wall in time for the centenary, and for hosting such a brilliant event recently to mark the centenary celebrations and to discuss the lessons. Let us be clear and never forget that the unprecedented working-class mobilisation of the general strike shook the establishment to its core—its reaction shows that. By recognising and honouring our local struggles for workers’ rights alongside this history of national collective action, blue plaques such as the one in Lewes Road can act as a permanent reminder to us all of the power of solidarity, and the importance of the right to strike and protest. To today’s workers and unions in Brighton Pavilion I have pledged that I will always honour the values and spirit of our city and the battle of Lewes Road, and stand with them when they make the hard choice to strike in their own struggles. As the debate has shown so far, the lessons of the general strike are as relevant today as they were a century ago.

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

  More

  The Minister and I have both talked about making choices. The brass tacks are that the Minister has chosen to make huge changes to our court processes, but not to introduce this change in the Bill. There is still the chance to introduce measures into the Bill on Report and make different choices. Will she consider that?

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

  More

  Huge apologies for my lateness, Sir John. I wish to speak in support of new clause 2 and lend my support to new clauses 6, 23 and 25, all of which seek to honour the commitment that the Government made in their manifesto at the last election. I have huge admiration for the hon. Member for Warrington North, both for her courageous and clear speech on Second Reading and for tabling new clause 2, which seeks to honour that commitment. I am heartened by how many Labour Members have added their names to the new clause, and I hope that the Government will listen. New clause 2, which is detailed, would introduce specialist courts. It sets out the different ways in which guidance can deal with the difficulties that courts currently have in dealing with issues such as coercive control and honour-based abuse, and would make sure that the courts deliver justice in a timely and compassionate way. It is so important that we look at the many practical ways of dealing with the cases that we need to hear, for victims of domestic violence and sexual offences, that do not completely remove the right to select a jury trial, as the Minister has admitted the Bill will do, and that do not adjust the thresholds in courts so as to effectively abolish the centuries-old principle of jury equity. That principle is important to our democratic right to protest and to protect our fellow citizens from unjust prosecution, including by authoritarian or tyrannical future Governments. The new clauses in this group outline how much can be done to make court processes support victims in a practical, kinder and more compassionate way. They would make the processes more trauma-informed, and more effective and just, as they would bring more successful prosecutions in cases of sexual and domestic violence. I also support new clauses 8 to 10, which would mandate training in such matters and which we will discuss later. A goal of the Government’s reforms is to increase speed, and the new clauses would achieve that by focusing specialist courts on these important cases. We have debated extensively the many other practical measures that could speed up justice more generally and clear the backlog, which is getting in the way of far too many of these cases. I really hope that the Government are listening and that we can vote on these issues today. I hope they will go away and listen more to the victims groups that are determined to put forward practical measures to deal with these things without affecting our fundamental rights, and introduce clauses that will do that—and remove clauses 1 to 7—on Report. That is the right thing to do. The issues have been laid out clearly during the Committee’s debates, and the Government now have an important choice to make.

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

  More

  It is great to see you back in the Chair to help us to make our way through the Bill, Ms Jardine. New clause 28 is a probing amendment, and I shall not press it to a Division when the time comes. To give the context for why I have tabled the new clause, I will lay out the experience faced by a young child—I cannot give many details of the case, as the Committee will appreciate. This young child was below school age when they became the victim of and witness to abuse. They gave clear evidence on video at the time that it had happened, and while the case was investigated and awaiting trial in court, they continued with their childhood. Their mother helped them to move on from the abuse, and she says that the memory of what happened not being constantly brought back was a key part of their recovery. However, during the court case some years later, they were made to rewatch the video. By hearing their younger self talk about the abuse, they were, essentially, properly traumatised for the first time, as they for the first time properly understood, with a real, more mature understanding, what had happened to them in detail. That case made me realise that the process of being cross-examined and watching back original, video-based evidence in chief, even just while the prosecution team refreshes their memory of their evidence, can do victims real harm. Although I can see why it may be necessary to cross-examine a witness on what happened, based either on their memory or facts stated in the evidence, I feel strongly that putting them through the additional trauma of rewatching it themselves is not necessary and should certainly not be routine, and that that should be in the law or guidance. My new clause would amend sections 27 and 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which are intended to relate to special measures and directions. It would ask that witnesses not be obliged to watch video recordings of their earlier evidence, and would allow transcripts, as a potentially less traumatic alternative, to be submitted for cross-examination. It would also ask for notice of questions for cross-examination to be provided in good time. Although I understand that there is no legal obligation for the videos to be rewatched, I know that it is happening even when concerns have been expressed. I want to make sure that it is clearer in the law or relevant guidance that no witness or victim is obliged, against their will, to relive the crimes committed against them. As I said, the new clause is probing. I am grateful that the Minister has looked into the issue, and has today committed to updating the guidance. I have corresponded with her departmental colleagues who are leading a review of the victims code, passing to them more details than I can mention here on that particular case and some ideas for how relevant guidance around special measures could be amended, as that could take the place of changes in primary legislation. I hope that my bringing this point to the Committee is constructive, and I thank the Minister for her attention.

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

  More

  I support this clause quite strongly. We heard powerfully from Claire Throssell in oral evidence how important its impact could be. Most Members will have experiences like mine through casework of cases where this clause could help. I have heard from parents and family members so distressed at how their cases have been determined, despite clear evidence, where this presumption was obviously given far too much weight in decisions. These words in legislation, which were added and have had an influence on decisions, need to go. I want to read parts of correspondence I received after the announcement in October 2025 that this measure was going to be changed. My constituent described it as an enormous relief. They were very impatient to know exactly when this was going to come forward. I am very pleased that we are discussing this now before the end of the Session. My constituent said: “I have personal experience of the impact the current legal framework can have. I am unable to provide specific information as a very close family member is still going through Family Court hearings to protect a child in a case of domestic abuse. However, as recently as January this year”— this was in 2025— “the aforementioned person was advised by two independent firms of solicitors to avoid the Family Court at all costs, due to the ‘presumption of involvement’, allied with the inconsistent and regionally patchy training and understanding by Family Court judges in domestic abuse (in spite of changes to the Domestic Abuse Act in 2021), referring to potential outcomes in Child Arrangements as ‘a lottery’.” I really do support this clause. I also support the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Chichester, which will help to tackle training gaps and which also reflect experiences that I can recall from casework. They are based on high-quality work and requests from organisations that work directly with victims and survivors, who have asked for these changes. I hope that the Minister will look at making changes that further strengthen the Bill in this way.

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

  More

  I am happy to have you back in the Chair today, Dr Huq. I wish to oppose the clause and the schedule. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden for pointing out so clearly that the restrictions on appeals will push down hardest on the least advantaged people and will compound injustices in wider society, as well as the injustices put in place by other clauses. I will not reiterate in detail the evidence we heard, or the speeches I made previously, about the risks of more errors due to the speedier but rougher and readier justice of the magistrates courts being applied to more cases, or the risks arising from higher sentences. However, clause 7 adds yet more risk to the potential harm from reducing the right to select a jury trial in clause 1 and the restrictions put in place by other clauses. This is counterproductive for the overall courts workload, too. As others have pointed out, the clause will introduce a multi-step process. We heard in oral evidence from Emma Torr of Appeal that the “multi-step process…will only increase the workload of both the magistrates and Crown courts. To give a very brief outline of how it works at the moment, the defendant or the solicitor can fill out a very simple form, which results in a quick rehearing at the Crown court. It takes a couple of hours at most and even less for sentence appeals.” She also pointed out that the Law Commission had carefully considered the matter last year in a consultation paper that ran to 700 pages. She said: “Its independent analysis was that the removal of the automatic right to appeal will increase the workload of the magistrates court and the Crown court.” –– [ Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 83, Q174.] In our oral evidence sessions, we heard clear views about the lack of legal aid in magistrates courts for people without representation to meet fairly the test set for appeals. Fiona Rutherford of JUSTICE told us: “Without a lawyer being present, and of course without there even being the right to appeal directly, you are leaving a whole load of defendants, who may well be wrongly convicted or may get the wrong sentence for the crime they have committed, floundering…I simply don’t know who will inform these people about how they will put grounds of appeal together, what grounds of appeal even are, how you formulate those, what key points you need to make in them to persuade a Crown court judge sitting alone in a room with just some evidence papers and how to put your best case forward.” –– [ Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 86, Q184.] These are serious matters of injustice. I do not know how the least advantaged defendants will be able to do anything to use the application to the High Court for judicial review, which seems to be the only remedy that the Minister has put forward to us today. I do not know how many miscarriages of justice are acceptable to the Minister, but I believe that these measures must not form part of the Bill, because of the impact that they will have on the right to justice for too many people.

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

  More

  I will speak briefly in support of the amendment, to which I have put my name. Later, I hope to speak about the real difference between viewing evidence—seeing it given in real life, or going into the room where evidence is given—and being able to review it more dispassionately later in writing. Given that we are now producing transcripts, the amendment would be an important measure to provide them free to victims who may want to see what has been said in court, without having to attend court and see it in a more triggering, more visceral way, and without facing a financial penalty. It is important that the amendment is agreed to, along with everything else, to allow for a more compassionate way to treat victims.

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

  More

  I will speak as quickly as I can. I support the amendments tabled in this group by the Liberal Democrats, which would limit any increase in the sentencing powers of magistrates beyond 12 months; amendment 34, which was moved by the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden; and the Liberal Democrat and Conservative amendments that would ensure that, if that limit is not accepted, any further changes are made by the affirmative resolution procedure. I am sure we will all remind the Minister that Sir Brian Leveson specifically made his reforms to jury trials contingent on not increasing the sentencing powers of magistrates. He stated that specifically in paragraph 71 of his report. He also stated: “My strong recommendation is that the maximum should remain at 12 months.” That followed, in paragraph 70, another important caveat that the Government seem to have overlooked: “While removing the right to elect for certain offences may streamline the judicial process and alleviate the burden on the higher courts, it raises concerns about balancing the right of the defendant with the broader interests of justice.” We have to admit that the Government are taking a risk with the moves they are making. The magnitude and volume of that risk increase with the number of extra cases that are pushed to the magistrates courts through other provisions in the Bill, while the consequences of that risk increase with the higher sentences made possible under clause 6. This is not a step we should take alongside those other steps. They increase the risks to justice. In oral evidence, we heard from Claire Davies, the leader of the south eastern circuit, who said of magistrates courts: “There are errors and mistakes made, but if the length of sentence is extended, it will potentially increase that risk.” –– [ Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 51, Q99.] We also heard from Emma Torr, from APPEAL, who described “swift and speedy justice in the magistrates court. It is often rough and ready; we are talking about cases being tried by lay justices, some of whom may be experienced but some may not be, and we are also talking about less experienced judges. You often find in the lower court, the magistrates court, that advocates are more inexperienced and tend to be at the start of their career.” –– [ Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 86-87, Q185.] This point was also emphasised by Fiona Rutherford, the chief executive of JUSTICE, who said: “There is a question mark about the accuracy of the way in which magistrates are making decisions.” –– [ Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 82, Q174.] These are the risks we are talking about compared with having a judge and jury. Risks also come from the surrounding bureaucratic situation, which could lead to more defendants being unrepresented. When the shift is made, we will be leaving them without legal aid, because of the changes in the income requirements. We heard from Fiona Rutherford of JUSTICE that without this representation there could be additional risks to victims. The Minister needs to admit that this part of the Bill goes too far. On top of the other things she is doing, she is adding more consequence, not just more volume, to the risk equation. That is a poor step to take. Clause 6 should not stand part, and I support all the amendments.

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

  More

  It is very good to see you in the Chair this evening, Ms Jardine; thank you for looking after us. I will speak very briefly in support of the amendment, to which I have added my name. I have spoken already about the many risks piling up with the Bill, and this amendment is one essential mitigation for some of those risks. If the Government press ahead, they cannot ignore it.

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

  More

  The Minister has already said “particularly complex or lengthy”, and just then she said “complex and lengthy”. Having rejected an amendment that would have set a limit of five months, will she think again about defining both complex and lengthy more rigorously in the Bill? The explanatory notes say “complex and lengthy”, but we do not have a definition of complex or a length limit. I think we need to hear more about that from her.

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

  More

  I appreciate the Minister’s comments, but will she clarify what she meant by a particular category of offence? I could not have been clearer in my speech that I did not want to make an exception for protesters. I spoke specifically about people being prosecuted in cases where it was the powerful versus the underdog. Will she clarify what it is she is rejecting?

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

  More

  On a point of order, Dr Huq. I alerted the Minister earlier to the fact that I was going to say this. I want to ask what can be done to correct the record in respect of the Minister’s comments about a case that I referred to in my speeches on Tuesday and that Tim Crosland referred to during evidence. On Tuesday, the Minister said that “some of the cases he mentioned, including the Elbit Systems trial, which the hon. Lady mentioned, contained an indictable-only charge, meaning that the case would receive a jury trial, as that one did in fact.” –– [ Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2026; c. 140.] I am afraid that the Minister was referring to a different case from the one I was referring to. The recent case that has been in the news surrounding a retrial was related to a break-in at Elbit Systems in August 2024. The November 2022 jury acquittal that I referred to was about protesters who threw red paint symbolising blood at the London headquarters of Elbit Systems in October 2020. In that case, none of the offences was indictable-only; they were all related to criminal damage. I just wanted to put that on the record, and I hope that the Minister will accept that correction to her comments.

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

  More

  It is great to have you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I am looking forward to today’s debates. I have not tabled any amendments to clause 3, but I want to talk about some necessary changes to the clause that fit in with this group of amendments. I hope the Committee will have patience with me. I want to raise again the principle of jury equity, which the Government are effectively abolishing by abolishing the right to elect a jury trial completely. I previously asked whether the Minister had considered the Bill’s impact on jury equity when drafting it, but she did not answer. I also asked whether the Minister could tell us whether we can honestly expect a judge triaging a case under the provisions in the Bill ever to allow a jury trial on the grounds on which some people currently choose one, which is to allow for the possibility of jury equity to achieve real and proportionate justice, rather than the criteria in clause 3. This issue is complicated, and trying to fix it in the context of a Bill that includes clause 1, which abolishes the defendant’s right to choose, is tricky, which is why I spoke so strongly against it. The principle and the right of juries in respect of jury equity comes out of common law. I mentioned the 1670 case, and the High Court has commented that it has been a well-established principle in common law ever since then. As it is not in statute it is, by tradition, relatively unspoken. I spoke of the case of Trudi Warner, who tested the principle through her desire to make sure that the information about jury equity was seen by people taking part in a protest. She did that not just in case they spotted the plaque in the Old Bailey, but through the demonstration that she passively took part in.

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

  More

  I have to add my voice to the point that this is an unsatisfactory situation. We have heard time and again from the Minister that the decision about allocation will be made based only on the length of sentence, but in proposed new section 74C(7)(a) to (g) on reallocation—(g) allows for any other matters—there are many points that are quite subjective where decisions could be made on reallocation, and that could have a similar impact on someone’s life. I do not think we have all the answers we need about how this will work.