Jess Brown-Fuller MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I thank all the Members who took part in the debate. This will not be something the Minister has not heard before, but I ask him to take this away: when constituents write to me saying that they are unable to register with an NHS dentist, if I send an email back to them saying, “But the Minister told me there were 67,000 more NHS dentist appointments in Sussex,” I am not getting an email back saying, “Bloody brilliant—I’ll forget it then. Don’t worry.” People are still frustrated and waiting. I am really glad that the Minister has committed to reforming the system, because it desperately needs it, and I look forward to holding his feet to the fire as he does so. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered access to dental services in West Sussex.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Local Government Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent argument for councils to be more accountable to local residents by being closer. The Government responded to Sussex’s proposals by redrawing the red lines they had originally set and putting forward a third proposal. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that just throws communities into total disarray? They thought they had responded to a consultation that was going to form the next council, but now they have been told, “Oh, actually, you can’t have either of those things. We’re going to come up with a new solution for you.”

• 10 Jun 2026 · Local Government Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about local government finances. My constituency currently sits in two different district councils. The Government’s proposals would mean that my residents in Pagham and Bersted will end up in a coastal authority that will be bankrupt on day one; the rest of my constituents will be in an authority that should be on a sound financial footing. What will happen to my residents in Pagham and Bersted? Their council tax bills will go up overnight to manage the debt that is currently held in Adur and Worthing, when their current council is on a sound financial footing. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is an unacceptable position for my residents to be put in, when they did not ask for this?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Summit on Illicit Finance · Hansard source

  More

  For most people, illicit finance is most prevalent on our high streets, when they see illegal vape shops or barbershops that do not have any trade but seem to be doing quite well. Does my hon. Friend agree that illicit finance is not necessarily always in big mansions, and can often feel very close to home?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Water Safety · Hansard source

  More

  The story the hon. Gentleman tells of his constituent echoes that of mine. In 2023, Ryan went into the sea with his friend, and they both got caught in a riptide. Ryan’s friend knew what to do in that situation—he knew to float—but Ryan did not. He was not discovered until four days later. His mum, Ren, has become a passionate advocate for making sure we teach young people not just how to swim, but what to do in emergency situations and in open water. She tours schools locally, teaching young people about the dangers of swimming even in designated bathing areas. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the strength that these families often show in the face of absolute tragedy is an incredible testament to their bravery?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Antisocial Behaviour · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency and across the country we have seen a troubling rise in violence towards wildlife, often with the use of catapults. Wildlife crime is not an isolated incident; it is usually related to something else. Studies have shown that seven out of 10 victims of domestic violence who owned pets said that their domestic abusers were also threatening, harming or killing those pets. Will the Minister please look at Holly’s law, which would create an animal cruelty register to deter wildlife crime, which often leads to other violent crimes?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  I refer members to my registered interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for infant feeding and inequalities. With water scarcity prevalent across the south-east and poor management of water companies leading to outages across the south, will the Minister consult with her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to find a route to put new mothers on to the priority services register automatically, because for formula-fed babies there is no option other than a clean water supply?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Digital Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  Many Members will have read “Careless People”, a book by Sarah Wynn-Williams. It is a whistleblowing account of her time working inside Facebook, now Meta. She was silenced by Meta, using lawfare, when she sounded the alarm. These companies do not care about the people who use the platforms. They care only about keeping people on their platforms, especially our children. What does the Minister know that we do not? Does he believe that asking them nicely, rather than legislating against them, will achieve the intended results,?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  My first job was in a local café washing pots when I was 13, and then in my 20s, I opened my own restaurant in that same location, offering young people in my local community their first job. But when I am out in Chichester, all my businesses tell me that they are so squeezed at every single angle that they cannot take risks on young people any more. Will the Minister lay out what he will do to support hospitality, specifically looking at reforming business rates so that those businesses can offer the right path for our young people to cut their teeth in work?

• 19 May 2026 · Reoffending · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are talking a good game on reducing the cycle of reoffending, but meaningful prison education plays a key role in that objective. Recent analysis has found a significant decrease in the core education hours in public sector prisons. That has been seen most acutely in female prisons, where there has been a fall of 30%. What is the Minister doing to reverse that decline in education hours across all prisons, end the postcode lottery that we see currently, and ensure that obligations to equality are met?

• 19 May 2026 · Jury Trial Proposals · Hansard source

  More

  I come with good news: with increased funding from the Government, uncapped sitting days and improved disposal rates, backlogs in the Crown courts are falling. At the Old Bailey in 2025, the backlog fell by a quarter, in Chelmsford it fell by 10%, and Maidstone saw a 5% reduction. The truth is that proper funding for our courts and uncapped sitting days are bringing down the backlogs, but the Government are choosing to ignore that data and are persisting in taking a sledgehammer to jury trials, although that will not deliver shorter wait times for victims. Why will the Minister not trust those in the justice system who want to deliver for victims using the increased funding and resource that he has delivered for them?

• 18 May 2026 · Youth Justice · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s White Paper represents a truly critical opportunity to transform the youth justice system and, importantly, reduce lifetime offending. We know that most offenders in our prisons today are repeat offenders and that persistent offending often begins early in life, with eight in 10 prolific offenders in England and Wales committing their first crime as a child. We must stop this chain of escalation, and the earlier we intervene, the better. Nowhere is that more applicable than for children in care, those from ethnic minorities and those with special educational needs, who are disproportionately represented in the justice system. Will the Secretary of State set out how this overhaul will ensure that these children, given their specific vulnerabilities, will receive the targeted support that they desperately need? May I take this opportunity to highlight the great work of the organisation SHiFT and encourage the Justice Secretary to engage with it? I believe that SHiFT’s model could be rolled out across the country, helping young people before they even commit their first crime? Education for young offenders can be a crucial step in diverting them from a path to reoffending. We are pleased that the Children’s Commissioner will undertake a review of education in young offender institutions, but can the Justice Secretary ensure that it will take into account the fact that 80% of young people who are sentenced have special educational needs and make sure that the support they are getting in those institutes is fit for purpose? The Youth Justice Board provides vital independent oversight of the youth justice system, yet the Government have chosen not to act on the report they commissioned from Steve Crocker, instead bringing a number of the board’s functions more directly within the remit of the Ministry of Justice. What is the purpose of those reforms? What benefit will the Government gain from bringing those functions in-house, and will the Justice Secretary address the concerns from across the sector that these reforms risk reducing specialist experience and weakening independent accountability? Finally, will the Secretary of State set out how the use of parenting orders will affect the recruitment of foster parents, those being asked to take on special guardianship orders or kinship arrangements, and those considering adoption? If parenting orders will not apply to those families, how will they be supported effectively to ensure that this measure does not lead to further family breakdowns and more children ending up in the care system?

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

  More

  I am pleased to speak in today’s King’s Speech debate, with the theme “Backing business to create economic growth”. I know from meeting businesses across my constituency in all fields—be it hospitality and retail, manufacturing, haulage, technology, agriculture and horticulture, or the creative industries—that they are ready, willing and able to play their part in achieving economic growth for this country. However, right now it is hard to see how that will be achieved given that businesses are being squeezed from all directions. They are facing rising costs, additional employer national insurance contributions, sky-high energy bills and a workforce who are struggling to get to the end of the month with anything left in their bank accounts. Although my Chichester constituency is often described as “affluent”, the cost of living crisis is felt acutely there. In fact, last month a Resolution Foundation report entitled the “Slurp Index” looked at the ratio of average gross hourly earnings to Guinness pint prices. It concluded that in somewhere like Trafford, the average median hourly wage will earn someone just over four pints when they are getting a round in on a Friday, but in Chichester, it does not even stretch to two and a half pints, which would not make anyone popular with their co-workers. It’s halves for everyone in Chichester—I’m very sorry. The high costs in Chichester are compounded by the fact that desperately needed improvements to the A27 have been removed entirely from the Government’s road investment strategy. Without investment, the road will continue to strangle regional trade and competitiveness for Chichester. It feels more and more likely that it is quicker to get around by sea than by the roads in my constituency. That brings me to the clean water Bill, which aims to undo years of dissatisfaction with the water industry. Over the weekend, I joined the Surfers Against Sewage paddle-out protest. Ironically, we were told not to get in the water because a sewage outflow had discharged into the Solent and the water was not safe. It did not stop us from getting in and highlighting just how important our water is to us in the Chichester constituency, as Chichester harbour is a national landscape. The legislation that the Government are bringing forward must deliver an overhaul of how our water industry is regulated, starting with the scrapping of Ofwat—a measure that the Liberal Democrats have been calling for since 2022. In the legislation, I hope that we will see many of the 44 amendments that the Liberal Democrats tabled at Committee stage of the Water (Special Measures) Bill, and which the Government chose not to accept. One of those amendments included a statutory responsibility for water companies to measure the volume of spills they release, rather than the arbitrary measure of time, as doing so would accurately reflect the actual levels of pollution. This is vital, as the Environment Agency looks to enforce stricter targets at waste water treatment works around my constituency in sensitive areas that have seen high levels of pollution, like Bosham, Chichester harbour and the chalk stream River Lavant. There was discharge into the River Lavant for a total of 285 days in 2024—but that was counted as one discharge; we need to know the volume rather than the time spent discharging. This issue fills my inbox, because in Chichester are passionate about our rivers, coastline and national landscape. Another key issue that residents raise with me is the behaviour of rogue property management companies. Chichester residents are living in properties where the verge is not maintained and saplings are dropped into holes in the ground and left to die, before being removed six months later for the whole process to start again. Residents describe management companies as faceless, with non-existent customer service except when they are told that their service charge is increasing exponentially. In some cases, that has led to residents moving from the homes they fought so hard to purchase, because they can no longer afford to live there. In the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill, the Government have the opportunity to tackle this issue head on.

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

  More

  Regulating these companies effectively and putting a cap on excessive service charges, particularly when there is no evidence that the service is actually being delivered, would really change the game for a lot of people who feel trapped in their estates. I have met with the Housing Minister and shared my residents’ accounts with him, and I hope that the legislation being brought forward will start to address the issue. As has been seen throughout the country in the recent local elections and current polling, the Government have failed to seize the initiative when it comes to the direction of the economy. People wanted change, but they are still left wanting. There was much in the King’s Speech that my constituents hope will make a difference to them, including in relation to the matters that I have raised, the police reform Bill, the ticket tout Bill or the European partnership Bill. However, given the record of this Government, many people will be quite rightly concerned that these reforms will once again be either U-turned on or fudged. I hope they are wrong, and I will of course continue to work for my constituents in Chichester to ensure that their concerns are properly represented.

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

  More

  The Minister said she could not support new clause 2 on RASSO courts tabled by the hon. Member for Warrington North, and other similar new clauses, because they would improve the experience of victims but do nothing to improve timelines. Well, I am delighted that my new clause 3 will address all those problems. We all agree that what is needed is a proper plan to fix the system. My party and I believe that that starts with upping the number of trials in select courtrooms across England and Wales from one to two a day. Normal sitting hours for a Crown court are 10 am to 4.30 pm, during which only one trial is heard for four hours and 35 minutes, to allow for breaks for all those involved, including the judge and witnesses, and to allow for the jury to retire, because they receive a lot of information and need breaks too. The Liberal Democrats are calling for two trials to be heard per day in select courtrooms, split between morning and afternoon, with each trial sitting for four hours. One session would run from 9 am to 1 pm and another from 2 pm until 6 pm. This simple change would nearly double court sitting time in those courtrooms. That is how to cut the backlog without eroding the right to a jury trial and jeopardising people’s experience of the justice system. Implementation would be determined at regional level by His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. Listing officers may schedule cases into morning or afternoon sessions or standard sitting hours according to the needs of the case. For example, an afternoon slot may be given to allow additional time for prisoner transport—we are all well-versed in the issues surrounding that contract—while standard hours may be preferable when a victim is expected to give evidence for an extended period. Court backlogs are not the same everywhere and our reforms would reflect that. HMCTS would decide at regional level which courtrooms would run two trials a day, and we would consult on exactly how many should adopt that approach across England and Wales to ensure that the system works efficiently and delivers change where it is needed most. New clause 3 would allow for the agility and flexibility that the Minister spoke about when responding to the previous group of amendments. It could also have the intended effect of pulling back in retired judges. In my Chichester constituency, we have recently reopened our Crown court, and I am pretty sure that I have quite a few retired judges knocking around in the Witterings who would quite happily come back if they were able to commit to half a day’s session, and make sure that they were finished by lunch time and back on the beach by 2 pm. During coronavirus, HMCTS conducted a pilot in Crown courts using exactly the system of two trials a day instead of one. The evidence was overwhelming: the pilot courtrooms got through 3.5 trials per week compared with fewer than 0.9 trials in courtrooms operating on standard hours. We simply want to replicate that trial across the country. That is how to get through the backlog without eroding jury trials. It would be an evidence-based approach, because we already have a pilot that speaks to its benefit. As Leveson’s report points out, Crown court hearing time per sitting day has dropped to just 3.2 hours on average; in an entire day running from 10 am to 4.30 pm, the amount of actual sitting time has reduced to 3.2 hours. On paper, courts sit from 10 am until 4.30 pm, but in reality only a fraction of that time is spent hearing cases, because of delays, gaps, cancellations and other inefficiencies that we have discussed. Our reforms would more than double the hearing time per sitting day in participating courtrooms by eliminating that wasted time and running a more intensive court sitting day. As the Leveson report highlighted, any solution to fix the backlog is going to require resources. These trials have to happen at some point, and without the investment that would be required for the provisions that I am laying out, we will just kick the can down the road and deny victims the justice they deserve. The proposals in the Bill would require massive investment to implement an entirely new system, including the introduction of the Crown court bench division. It would be slow, costly and, according to modelling by the Institute for Government, would save only around 2% of court time, with the caveat that other efficiencies would increase that figure. That barely makes a dent in the backlog when we are looking at the erosion of jury trials. Our approach would be faster and, because we have a pilot, there is clear evidence that it would actually work. By extending hours, we can reduce the backlog and deliver justice for victims. It would make use of existing resources, target inefficiencies and deliver real results. I believe everybody would benefit from a condensed-hours model, which would provide additional time in the working day for practical work outside the court setting. It would mean that the court day was shorter for barristers, judges and juries; they would spend less time in the courtroom, which would give them more time, in a normal working day, outside the court, to make preparations for the following day. It would also mean much less waiting time. When we look at what jurors say about their experience of taking part in trials, quite often the bit that they enjoyed and appreciated is the bit when they were actually in the courtroom and could see justice being done and felt like they were a part of it. So often, the most frustrating bit for jurors is the bit when they are sat in the green room outside waiting for the trial—all the time that they feel is wasted. If we condensed the model, a juror coming in for an afternoon session might be able to do the school run in the morning; a self-employed juror—we know that serving on a jury is really challenging for self-employed people—might be able to commit to a few hours of work; and those with caring responsibilities could make sure that they are there for one half of the day. The evidence tells us that such a model would be better. Legal professionals with childcare responsibilities who took part in the pilot were more likely to report a positive experience than those without them. Right now, barristers and judges are being paid for a full day of work, despite doing on average 3.2 hours’ hearing time per sitting day due to scheduling inefficiencies because of all the other work that they are doing throughout their day, and including all the issues, such as the reasons that cases drop. Even if we paid barristers and judges a full day’s rate for only half a day’s sitting time, it would still be more efficient than the current system. It could also impact the issue of over-listing and floating cases. If a case cannot take place on a certain morning because another case has been listed, it could be scheduled for the afternoon, just four hours later, and the people who are ready to take part in it would not have to wait for another date months ahead. New clause 4, tabled in my name, would require the Lord Chancellor to commission and lay before Parliament an independent report on the feasibility of introducing two court sittings per day in designated courtrooms, including an assessment of its impact on efficiency, resources and court users, and to set out the Government’s intended next step. New clause 5, also tabled in my name, would require the Lord Chancellor to set and publish targets for reducing court backlogs and to report annually to Parliament on progress. The Government have recognised that increasing funding and removing the cap on sitting days will absolutely support a lot of those measures, but the new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to set and publish targets for reducing the backlogs. That is needed to avoid the slide that we have seen in the past and to ensure consistent progress in bringing down the backlog so that we can take a mindful approach to whether measures are working and whether we need to think about introducing others. The Government have published predictions of growth in the backlog as evidence underpinning their reforms. They predict that the backlog would rise to 135,000, but the Criminal Bar Association pushed back against that figure; it thinks that it is wildly pessimistic, especially with the measures already introduced, such as taking away the cap on sitting days. The Deputy Prime Minister has said of his reforms that he does not expect the backlog to decrease until 2029 and that it will not be cleared for a decade. The backlog has now exceeded 80,000, but the backlogs at courts in Wales and in the north-west and south-east of England fell considerably after the sitting days were added, and that was prior to the effects of increasing sitting days across the board. The Criminal Bar Association said that the move was already having an effect. It cited Maidstone Crown court, the largest in the south-east outside the capital, where the case backlog had fallen by more than 5% in the past six months. New clause 13 would require a report on the effect of the reforms in the Bill on public trust in the criminal justice system—another issue that we have discussed throughout the Committee’s proceedings. It has been demonstrated that the public have more confidence in juries than in single-judge hearings. I think we can all agree that trust in the justice system is vital for keeping witnesses, defendants and victims engaged. The new clause would require a report into the impact on public trust of the Government’s reforms. Currently, 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. New clause 17 would require the Secretary of State to review and report on whether the Bill has improved the efficiency of the criminal justice system, including its impact on delays, backlogs, and the experience of victims and witnesses. On a number of occasions, Brian Leveson discussed a three-pronged approach to dealing with the backlog—reform, funding and efficiencies. He also said that “all the levers” must be pulled, and the Minister has said the same. The “efficiencies” part of that three-pronged approach is largely set out in part 2 of his “Independent Review of the Criminal Courts”, to which the Government have yet to respond. Improving efficiency would safeguard the system from getting into this mess again, and it is vital that the Government pursue reforms that improve that. The new clause would therefore require the Secretary of State to review the Bill’s impact on efficiency in the criminal justice system, focusing specifically on delays, backlogs and victims’ experience. New clause 22 would require the Lord Chancellor to publish a formal strategy for the use of remote proceedings to reduce the case backlog in the criminal justice system. Leveson himself suggests that the use of remote hearings with safeguards should be expanded to first hearings in the magistrates court, managed in police stations by prisoner escort and custody services contractors. He also proposes allowing for remote attendance during trial for certain professional witnesses, such as police officers, by default, and allowing remand defendants to attend sentencing hearings remotely, except when victim impact statements will be delivered. Sir Brian Leveson outlined the need for more remote hearings, and we are calling on the Government to publish a strategy on how that will be implemented, because it is clear that there is potential for significant time savings and efficiencies if the Government get this right. It is also clear that investment will be needed in remote facilities not just in courts, but in prisons. Many people in the justice system have told me about evidence being presented on memory sticks, the telly not working, the sound not working when they are trying to listen to oral evidence, or the screen not working for somebody to give remote evidence. We need to know how the Government will strategise all the remote proceedings if they are going to progress in that way.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

  More

  The Minister talks about the practice of floating trials or over-listing, which we know is so harrowing for victims, who get themselves ready for a case only for it to not go ahead. Quite often they are not told that they have a floating case or that their case has been listed; they are just told that their case has been adjourned and that they will be provided with a new date. If we look at the data for the number of cases that fell at the last hurdle in 2024, we see that there were 444 where the prosecution advocate failed to attend; 314 where the defence advocate failed to attend; 209 where the prosecution advocate engaged in another trial; and 186 linked to prison transport delays, although I would argue that that number is much higher because of the way they are recorded. How does the Minister square the circle of trying to speed up the process while asking the judiciary not to over-list, which could cause the number of courts that are sitting empty each day to go up, because when a case falls that Crown court will then be empty?

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

  More

  I rise to speak to my new clause 6, which would introduce specialist courts for sexual offences and domestic abuse cases. It is similar to new clause 2, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Warrington North, and Conservative new clause 25, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. We tabled new clause 6, which would ensure that specialist court capacity is made available for the fast-tracking of rape and serious sexual offence cases, because that was a Labour manifesto commitment. The Government have announced blitz courts, which will list similar cases together. They will be introduced to begin with in London and the south-east, where the backlog of cases is most severe, and will at first prioritise cases involving assaults on emergency workers. Our new clause would ensure that court space and time is set aside for RASSO cases. The Government promised in their manifesto to implement specific rape-focused courts, but have chosen not to deliver that commitment. As of September last year, 16% of cases in the backlog were sexual offence cases. We all listened to the harrowing oral evidence from victims and survivors of rape who waited years for their cases to be heard. I pay tribute to them and to the hon. Member for Warrington North for their bravery in doing something incredibly challenging: reliving the most fragile moments of their lives. They did so incredibly well. We owe it to them to fix the system. I recognise that the Government are trying to do that, but they are choosing to do it in a different way from the way a lot of survivors are asking for it to be done. Specialist rape courts have not been properly trialled. What have been trialled are courts with specific trauma-informed training. Fast-tracking rape cases will alleviate the wait that many face. If courts are trauma-informed, that might limit retraumatising experiences for victims at the point that they enter the process. In her written evidence, the Victims’ Commissioner said: “Victims of rape are particularly impacted by the backlogs and by the criminal justice system more broadly. The duration between the case being received and completed at Crown Court is particularly high for rape offences, an average of 429 days compared to an average of 259 days for all offences… Specialist rape courts which expedite rape cases and ensure a trauma-informed approach via training and adaptions to the court environment could help lessen the impact of the system on victims.” The Victims’ Commissioner has been calling for specialist rape courts since 2022 and was really pleased that the Government committed in their manifesto to introduce them. I think that comes from her experience working alongside a very limited pilot that created a trauma-informed court in a particular Crown court. I am sure she will be keen to see the Government make good on the commitment that they stood on just two years ago. New clause 23, which is also tabled in my name, would require the Lord Chancellor to commission a report on the effect of the provisions of the Bill on the progression of rape and serious sexual offence cases, and to respond to the recommendations in the report. It is completely unacceptable that these cases are waiting for so long. We need to understand whether the Government’s measures make a material impact on those cases and reduce the time that people have to wait in the criminal justice system. The new clause is also supported by the Victims’ Commissioner, so that we can see real progress for victims who are stuck in the criminal justice system.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Conflict in the Middle East: Cost of Living · Hansard source

  More

  17. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the conflict in the middle east on energy costs.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Conflict in the Middle East: Cost of Living · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, the owner of a haulage business—a vital industry that keeps our economy moving—has reported a 40% increase in the cost of diesel. It is at risk of going bust, while companies like BP are reporting record profits. Given that the impact of the conflict will be felt up to eight months after its conclusion, will the Chancellor please commit to cutting fuel duty, to keep my businesses and my residents on the road?

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

  More

  If the Government will not agree to a pilot or to a report that would allow us to scrutinise whether the changes that they have introduced in the Bill actually make a difference to the Crown court, how are Labour and opposition MPs able to scrutinise whether these changes have made a fundamental difference to the backlog, especially if a sunset clause, which I am sure we will get on to shortly, is not included? I totally recognise Sir Brian Leveson’s eminence and experience—he is right to point that out and has written a very comprehensive report—but people with thousands of years of combined experience within the criminal justice system are saying this will do nothing to reduce the backlog. I therefore would like the Minister’s guidance on how Members from across the House are supposed to scrutinise these decisions to see if they make a difference, if the Government will not agree to things like pilots or reports.

• 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 35, which I tabled last week after a conversation with the Victims’ Commissioner, would reinstate an inspectorate body for the criminal courts in England and Wales. The Courts Act 2003 introduced His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Court Administration, which was established in 2005. The inspectorate was then closed in 2010, with the then Government arguing that audits of HMCTS, combined with the inspection regimes of the current justice inspectorates and the National Audit Office, negated the need for HMICA. However, a 2022 Justice Committee report found that that argument had not stood the test of time, and it called for the re-establishment of an inspectorate body. The report stated: “A Courts’ Inspectorate, which is independent from Government, could make a substantial difference to the accountability and transparency of the justice system. It could use inspections and the promised improvements to the quality of the data to make recommendations that can inform policy and guidance in both criminal and civil justice. An inspectorate could also help to monitor the use of technology in the courts.” This is a really important time to introduce the additional level of having a courts’ inspectorate, especially when the use of technology will play a much larger role in the criminal justice system, as well as the quality of the data coming out, which the Committee has debated various times. The proposal was backed by Andrew Cayley KC, then chief inspector for the Crown Prosecution Service. He favoured an even broader court inspection regime to scrutinise the operation of the disjointed parts of the system, particularly regarding the listing of cases. The re-establishment of a courts inspectorate was also recommended by Sir Brian Leveson in part 2 of his independent review of the criminal courts; it was recommendation 58. While there are four criminal justice inspectorates, Sir Brian notes: “There is, however, no one body that is responsible for the inspection of the criminal courts in England and Wales.” Due to limitations to the scope of this Bill, our new clause proposes a criminal courts inspectorate that would inspect and report on the administration and operation of the criminal courts. The new clause stipulates that that inspectorate must have “particular regard to the experience of witnesses and victims” when assessing “the efficiency, effectiveness and accessibility of those courts”. An inspectorate would identify inefficiencies and monitor victims’ experience in the system. When debating an earlier group, the Minister mentioned what I think she called a public governance board that she is exploring. It would be helpful if she could outline whether she sees my new clause as different from that, or whether she is looking to create an additional level of inspection and scrutiny in the criminal courts system.

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

  More

  I am pleased the Minister recognises the Government must go a long way to do more for victims, but it is getting harder for services such as victim support to manage an ever-increasing caseload. I am keen to press this new clause to a vote, because the idea of victim-led case management, which many of the courts are keen to adopt, is a key tenet of improving victims’ experience in the system. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for her remarks. I am still keen to see progress to ensure that everybody in the judiciary has that mandatory training. As we start to accept that domestic abuse so often plays a part in our criminal justice system—both for defendants and witnesses—and with the Government having made great strides in introducing a domestic abuse identifier for those who cannot be sentenced for a crime of domestic abuse, I think that having specially ticketed judges is something that we need to move away from. Instead, we should make sure that all judges have that special ticket, because they never know if they are hearing a case where a witness is taking somebody to court based on one thing but other things might be going on in the background. Having that trauma-informed training is really important and I will be seeking to push this new clause to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 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.