Sarah Sackman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Renters Rights Act 2025 represents the biggest expansion of renters’ rights in a generation, but of course, rights are not worth the paper they are written on unless they are enforceable. That is why the role of appeals, including to our property tribunal, is so important. My hon. Friend will know that court fees are a feature right across our system, but we will ensure that fees do not represent a barrier to access to justice.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree that the profound financial and psychological impact of SLAPPs, and the chilling effect that they have on public-interest journalism, pose a threat to our democracy. The Government commenced the SLAPPs provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 in June 2025, and we recently saw the first case that engaged those provisions. While this is a positive first step, I am keen to consider all options for how we might take this further, and I look forward to working with Members right across the House on how we do that.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The impact of delays, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, is a feature of not just our criminal courts, but our civil and family courts. The financial impact, and, if an individual has been waiting, the build-up to the nerve-racking prospect of a trial in court, can be absolutely devastating. We are working to maximise capacity in every jurisdiction and hiring more judges to improve timeliness. I will continue to work with colleagues across the Department to deal with delays in the family court.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Victims: Court Experience · Hansard source

  More

  The Courts and Tribunals Bill puts victims at its heart and aims to deliver faster, fairer justice for all victims. In addition, we are increasing transparency and support for victims in the criminal justice system, funding victim support to the tune of over half a billion pounds, consulting on a new victims code, and enhancing special measures.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Victims: Court Experience · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for raising an important point. The starting point is that judges decide what evidence is admissible and what weight to give to that, but we are interested in how evidence is being used in criminal trials. The Courts and Tribunals Bill will make changes—for example, to defendants’ bad character evidence. This will clarify that if a defendant has a previous domestic abuse conviction, the judge can say that this shows that they have a propensity to commit further domestic abuse offences, but I am happy to work with the hon. Lady on what further changes might be beneficial.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Transparency in Court Proceedings · Hansard source

  More

  Of course, there are good reasons for the protection of jury deliberations, which ensures that they can happen in private. The Government in Scotland have recently legislated for a tightly controlled exception to support research into jury deliberations, and my officials are working with the Scotland Office to see what lessons we can learn from that vital work.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Transparency in Court Proceedings · Hansard source

  More

  I will start by reminding the House why we suspended the operations of Courtsdesk. It was because of its handling of sensitive data in breach of the agreement it had with Government. Of course, we recognise the importance of transparency and the service provided by Courtsdesk, which I recently met. The hon. Lady will know, as I have updated the House, that we intend to bring forward new licensing arrangements to make court listings and registers available to more people—for journalists in particular—and we will bring forward plans as to how Courtsdesk and others can bid for those new licences.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Transparency in Court Proceedings · Hansard source

  More

  This Government are dedicated to increasing transparency in our courts. We are expanding free Crown court sentencing transcripts to all victims who request them and rolling out recording to all magistrates courts, so that all criminal cases heard in open court will now be recorded. We are also working with our judiciary to see where we can go even further on transparency.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Asbestos-related Lung Cancer: Compensation Act 2006 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) for securing this debate. We have all been treated to a fine and thoughtful speech. He is without doubt a tireless advocate for his constituency—for Clydebank, Dumbarton, and the communities ravaged by the diseases that he has described. I extend my sympathies to all those who have suffered with asbestos-related diseases, made sick by their places of work and the conditions in which they should have been kept safe. This is no doubt an incredibly important issue, which involves a complicated area of law where the common law and legislation have developed a complex and nuanced set of rules. I will set out the general position on causation and liability in negligence claims. The usual test for causation in negligence cases is the “but for” test—that is, whether the claimant’s harm would have happened but for the defendant’s breach in the duty of care owed to the claimant. If the claimant proves on the balance of probabilities that it would not have occurred without the breach, causation is established. Causation in industrial injury litigation that involves exposure to asbestos can be particularly complex, given that normally the claimant’s condition will have been caused by prolonged exposure to asbestos, involving many incidents and several different employers. When determining liability and compensation, the courts draw a distinction between divisible and indivisible injuries. In England and Wales, liability and compensation for divisible industrial diseases, which is where the condition worsens with long-term exposure, is apportioned between previous employers, with each defendant liable only for the period of negligent exposure they caused. In the context of industrial injuries, indivisible diseases are conditions where the harm is treated as a single whole injury, because it cannot be medically or causally divided between different workplace exposures. It is usually impossible to know which specific exposure caused the injury. Under the normal rules, that would mean an employee who worked at different companies would likely fail in any legal claim because they cannot prove which employer caused them harm. Mesothelioma, for example, is treated as an indivisible disease. As my hon. Friend eloquently set out, there have been a number of legal developments in recent years regarding liability and compensation for mesothelioma. In Fairchild v . Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd, the House of Lords created a special rule for cases such as mesothelioma, where a claimant has been negligently exposed to asbestos by multiple employers but cannot prove which exposure caused the disease. In such cases, if an employer negligently exposed a worker to asbestos and thereby materially increased the risk of mesothelioma, they can be held liable even if the claimant cannot prove that that employer’s exposure actually caused the cancer. In short, the “materially increased risk” test replaced the “but for” test. However, in Barker v . Corus, the House of Lords accepted that the Fairchild exception—that is, the materially increased risk test—still applied, but it also addressed the consequences of that liability. The court held that defendants were not jointly and severally liable, as had previously been understood, but instead liable only on a proportionate basis, reflecting their respective contributions to the overall risk. In response, Parliament acted with cross-party consensus to enact the Compensation Act 2006, which reversed the effect of Barker v . Corus for mesothelioma claims. Section 3 of the Act reinstated the principle that victims could claim full compensation from any liable party, who can then seek contributions from others responsible for the exposure. That is vital in mesothelioma cases specifically, as it is not possible to establish which workplace fibres triggered the process of carcinogenesis. Equally, there is no action an individual can take that increases or decreases their chances of developing the disease. At the time of passing the 2006 Act, the broad political consensus was that due to the unique pathology of mesothelioma, the Barker ruling had to be reversed. Otherwise, there was a real risk of claimants being unable to seek the compensation that they deserved. As such, it was decided that as a unique disease, mesothelioma required a distinct legal remedy. However, as we have heard, in terms of the life-changing effects and ill health that asbestos-related lung cancer can bring, in reality, the situation for many sufferers is little different for other non-mesothelioma claims, and the Barker ruling still applies to them. That was affirmed in Heneghan v. Manchester Dry Docks Ltd, in which it was held that the materially increased risk test of Fairchild applies to those claims, while the joint and severally liable principle introduced by section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006 is limited to claims relating to mesothelioma. Broadly, the courts accept that the materially increased risk test is proven for those claims if medical evidence shows that the asbestos exposure more than doubled the relative risk. This area of law is a mix of devolved and reserved matters. The Scottish Parliament agreed via a legislative consent motion to UK-wide legislation that became section 3 of the Compensation Act. I want to assure my hon. Friend and the House that the UK Government are committed to ensuring that necessary support is available to all individuals suffering from asbestos-related conditions, including asbestos-related lung cancer. Eligible individuals can receive industrial injuries disablement benefit—a weekly no-fault payment for work-related diseases such as asbestos-related lung cancer. The Scottish Government plan to replace the IIDB with employment injury assistance, and work is under way to manage that transition. Although the UK Government have no immediate plans to review the current legal framework in England and Wales, which has been the subject of much detailed analysis and determination in the senior courts, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the attention that he has put on this issue. He and I have had the chance to speak outside the Chamber about how the law might be developed. I am grateful to him for securing the debate and giving me the opportunity to set out the UK Government’s position on what is, without doubt, a complex and intricate area of law, but one that has a significant impact on the lives of those who suffer from industrial-related diseases. In response to his question—or, dare I say, challenge—I will of course meet him and relevant organisations to discuss how the law might be reviewed to ensure that sufferers and their families can be treated fairly. I think that that is the right and careful approach, and I look forward to working with him. Question put and agreed to.

• 12 Mar 2026 · Marriage Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. Let me start by reiterating the thanks that others have already extended to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and by congratulating him on securing this important debate. What a pleasure it is to discuss something like love and marriage, as opposed to some of the slightly darker subjects that often detain us in all matters justice. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the modernisation of weddings and marriage law, as well as the important points the right hon. Gentleman raised about whether the current legal framework keeps pace with modern expectations and the practical realities of couples wishing to marry. Marriage will always be one of the most important institutions in our society, and I know that Members across the House care deeply about it, as do I and many of our constituents. I start by paying tribute to the unique place that Gretna Green, in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, has in the history of weddings in the United Kingdom. When this issue first crossed my desk, my first thought went to “Pride and Prejudice”, which is one of my favourite novels. Gretna Green is the location to which Lydia Bennet and the slightly roguish George Wickham fled to get married out of sight of their parents. There are, of course, plenty of other good reasons why Gretna Green remains a popular choice for wedding ceremonies to this day. It carries a long and rich history, which the right hon. Gentleman described so eloquently. Sitting just over the border between England and Scotland, it was indeed often the first Scottish settlement that couples fleeing England and its stricter wedding laws would reach. Although I am glad it is no longer necessary for couples to brave a trip north of the border to Gretna Green to seek freedom by eloping, its reputation for romance and tradition, as we have heard, persists to this day. As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the responsibility for weddings law in Scotland sits with the Scottish Government. As such, I cannot comment on specific aspects, but I recognise that the issues he raised about how the different systems operate across the United Kingdom, and the opportunity that this Government have to modernise weddings law, are part of a conversation that we in this House will want to have. Let us turn to what the Government are doing to reform weddings law in England and Wales. As the right hon. Gentleman referenced, last year the Government announced the biggest overhaul of weddings law in England and Wales since the 19th century. Our planned reforms build on the comprehensive and important work of the Law Commission and its 2022 report on weddings law. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that report is both extensive and thoughtful. The Government made that announcement because marriage is one of our most important institutions. At its best, it is a celebration of love, a symbol of enduring partnership and a deep personal commitment between two people. For those choosing to marry, it is a significant and meaningful decision. It is therefore important that the legal framework governing weddings is clear and modern and works well for those who rely on it. Our reforms focus on two key areas ripe for change. First, the law will move away from regulating the building in which a wedding takes place, and instead focus on the officiant responsible for conducting the ceremony. That will make it easier for people to get married in a variety of settings, giving them flexibility and choice. Secondly, we will introduce a single set of rules governing all weddings, with the exception of retaining Anglican preliminaries. That will enable many more couples to have ceremonies that reflect their values and beliefs. At the centre of the reforms is the Government’s commitment to protect the dignity and integrity of weddings as we create a level playing field for all groups. We will give couples more choice and freedom over how they marry, but ceremonies must always reflect the significant lifelong commitment that marriage represents. To progress those reforms, and to answer the question from the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), the Government will publish a consultation early this year. I appreciate that it is already March, and as one knows, “early this year” can be a flexible concept in this place, but our determination remains to get on with that consultation, building on the Law Commission’s report. That report was comprehensive, and the Government’s consultation will therefore focus on more detailed aspects of reform, including the dignity and suitability of locations and ceremonies, and the role of independent officiants. I want to address the point made by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale about the necessity of notice periods. As he said, under the current law of England and Wales, once a couple have given notice of their intention to marry, they must generally wait 28 days before they are issued their marriage schedule. He pointed to Gibraltar as an example of a place where that process is much quicker—having strong connections to Gibraltar, I know that is why it is an attractive jurisdiction, not just for John and Yoko, but for many others since. The notice period exists to ensure that any legal impediment to the marriage, or any other concerns about it, can be raised and dealt with before the marriage is given approval to go ahead. The Law Commission considered the preliminaries process in detail in its report and emphasised the importance of maintaining a robust notice system, given the protections that it offers for vulnerable people and against forced and sham marriages. That is important. While recommending that the process be modernised, including by enabling couples to give notice online, the commission did not propose shortening the existing 28-day notice period. However, it noted that the process could be made easier for couples, and recommended providing an online system for giving notice, as the right hon. Gentleman also suggested. The Government are carefully considering our approach to preliminaries and the process for giving notice. As part of that work, I will ensure that the policy team engages with international jurisdictions, including overseas territories such as the ones the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. The case for reform in this area is compelling. It will result in a great many benefits. The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale noted that the current law means that weddings, while good for the local economy, can become very costly for both couples and businesses. The Government agree that weddings can be far too expensive, so our reforms will make it more affordable for couples to get married. A new system to regulate officiants should make many lower-cost options much more accessible. Families will no longer need to fund two weddings—one that is legally binding, and one that is not but reflects their culture and beliefs. Reforms will also see a significant boost to the economy, with the Law Commission estimating that they could lead to a 3% increase in weddings in England. Wouldn’t that be a fine thing? There are also a huge number of social benefits. We will make it easier for religious groups to marry in accordance with their beliefs, improving equality and preventing vulnerable individuals, particularly women, from unknowingly having a wedding without legal protections. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park for raising the issue of humanist marriage. They will know that the Government committed to allow non-religious belief organisations, such as humanists, to conduct legally binding weddings, representing another huge step forward to ensure that marriage law reflects the make-up of modern Britain. I look forward to seeing those plans come forward. I will offer to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), who is no longer here, on how the Cornish language operates within our marriage system. Suffice it to say that reform is coming and the consultation is coming. We need a broader national conversation for the comprehensive reform that is required. Something as important as modernising our wedding laws for the first time in a very long time needs to be undertaken in a thoughtful, considered and comprehensive way. I look forward to seeing many of the reforms and the modern step change that will allow more couples to enjoy this precious thing long into the future.

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

  More

  I will give way, but I am mindful of the time. I have to wrap up on time.

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

  More

  It is my pleasure to deliver the closing speech for this Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for all their contributions. A consensus has broken out across this Chamber that the acute backlog in our criminal courts represents an injustice. We have a record and rising backlog of 80,000 cases, and behind each and every one is a victim and somebody accused of a crime. Lives are put on hold, immiserated by the fact that today we are seeing trials listed in 2030. A consensus has broken out that we cannot sit idly by and do nothing. We have to act based on pragmatism, on what works and on the principle of fairness to ensure that every citizen in this country has the right to a fair trial. Whether someone is a defendant or a victim, it is deeply unfair to make them wait years for justice. Victims’ lives are put on hold, and witnesses’ memories fade. People are pulling out of trials, allowing perpetrators to walk away. That is not justice at all. That is what we mean when we say justice delayed is justice denied, and we have to act. How do we frame these principles? We make a choice. Traditionally, our justice system has had two central parties: on the one hand, the prosecution; on the other, the defence. Victims have only a walk-on part. That will change, because the measures in this Bill place victims at their heart, and I pay tribute to them today. Again, consensus reigns in endorsing the fine speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), who paid tribute to her constituent Claire Throssell for her campaign. The measures in the Bill repeal the presumption of parental contact. We have heard powerful speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack). Their voices have been added to those of the countless victims I have met throughout this process, who have implored me to act and to challenge the injustices in our court, the delays and the nature of the justice process, which means that so often they feel they have been put on trial. That is why, as part of the reforms that we are bringing forward, we have centred victims by delivering a package of over half a billion pounds to support victims’ services. Today we have announced that there will be independent legal advisers for rape victims and that we are changing the law on the rules of evidence, which means that rape myths will be busted in our courts. Of course, as the Victims’ Commissioner has said, there is a need to address the delays. We are being asked to vote on a reasoned amendment, and before I turn to the remarks made by other hon. Members—

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

  More

  I will not give way, because I have a lot of comments to cover. Members representing those communities have been vocal in this debate. We hear you, and that is why we will be bringing forward a review in Committee. I pay tribute to the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), for Bradford West (Naz Shah), for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson). Something that came through in their comments was the importance not just of justice being done, but of justice being seen to be done. The justice system that we reform needs to command the confidence of communities, and we will work constructively to ensure that the review that we put on the face of the Bill does just that. I return to the central theme, which is the need to act. For too long, those on the Conservative Benches were prepared to sit idly by while they presided over a crisis in our prisons, a crisis in probation and, now, a crisis in our courts. We have heard loud and clear from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) that there is a necessity to act. As Sir Brian Leveson himself said, “if not this, then what?”, and if not now, then when? Politics is about choices. This Labour Government choose modernisation over tradition, investment over decline, and to put victims and communities first in a transformed, modernised justice system in which our public and our citizenry can have confidence. Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

  More

  The right hon. Member has not been here for the entire debate, so I am afraid that I am not going to address his comments. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) moved a reasoned amendment that would drive a coach and horses through this Bill. Politics is about choices, and to govern is to choose. We know what choices those on the Opposition Benches would make about our justice system, because it is writ large in how they gutted legal aid, shut criminal courts and capped sitting days. They have presented many criticisms, but one thing I have not heard is an apology, nor have I heard an alternative plan for how to address the backlog. This Government have brought forward a plan built on three pillars, or three levers that we choose to pull. The first is investment in uncapping sitting days, removing the financial constraint on how much our courts can sit and putting record investment into criminal legal aid. I have heard the important contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), the hon. Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) and for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) about needing to look at the availability of legal aid, because of course access to justice is vital. The second lever is modernisation. Many Members across the House have pointed to the wasted time in our inefficient and broken court system, with the time it takes to bring prisoners to court, the courtrooms empty because of disrepair—we are now investing in courtrooms —and problems with listing and how we adopt best practice from successful courts such as Liverpool. These are all valuable suggestions, and as the Deputy Prime Minister said in his vision speech last week, we are taking them all forward because we have to pull every lever. Thirdly, the conclusions of the independent review of criminal courts led by Sir Brian Leveson were clear: investment and efficiency alone will make a dent, but they will not bring down the backlogs. We have to bring forward structural reforms to alleviate the growing pressure on our Crown courts. That was caused not simply by covid or by lack of investment; these long-term changes in our criminal justice system have been coming down the track for decades. Crown court trials take twice as long as they did 20 years ago, the police are making more arrests and it is right that we have more procedural protections. All this means that our system is creaking under the demand, as the modelling we have put forward demonstrates. The way we are going to bring about transformation is through people—the brilliant people who work every day in our criminal justice system. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) and for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), to the CPS, the police and the prison staff, and to the defence and prosecution barristers who power our criminal justice system, because we will need them. As many have pointed out, we will also need our magistrates, and I commend my hon. Friends the Members for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) and for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), who demonstrated how magistrates will power our system. These are lay justices—

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

  More

  I will not respond to that point now, but I will say that there needs to be equality before the law irrespective of background. That brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) about rushing. We are not rushing. This Bill, as seen in the vibrant debate we have had today, will receive ample scrutiny. I have taken on board the suggestions from right across the House, whether it is the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) about district judges, or those of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). We will engage in constructive dialogue to strengthen the Bill. One of the most important ways in which we will do that is through a review, to which the Deputy Prime Minister has committed, focused primarily on the racial disparities and the inequalities in our system. I am not here to defend the status quo. We know that for too long, marginalised communities, working-class communities and racial minorities—

• 10 Feb 2026 · Court Reporting Data · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that this is a matter of concern, although it is clearly not a concern that is shared by the Front Benchers in his party. Our understanding is that some 700 individual cases, at least, were shared with the AI company. We have sought to understand what more may have been shared and who else may have been put at risk, but the mere fact that the agreement was breached in that way is incredibly serious. That is why all this needs to be put on a much more licence-secure and regulatorily secure footing.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Court Reporting Data · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman will know that I am all for being pragmatic and having dispute resolution, but, as I have said, in the course of our trying to get to the bottom of what has happened, litigation has been threatened, so it is very difficult to do that. What I want to do is move forward, and potentially with Courtsdesk if it can show that it is a responsible actor, which at present it is not doing. Two things need to happen. First, we have all the power and all the data in a single company, and I do not think that is healthy. I think that everyone in the House who believes in an open market would favour a tendering process that opens up the potential for different parties to gain licences, and in that way we can make the information accessible to different companies. Secondly, the licence agreements need to be strengthened so that we do not see a repeat of what we have seen here—a sharing of data where it should not go—and we need to have guardrails in place. The nature of the agreement that was agreed under the previous Government was too informal, too baggy and too loose for my liking. In fact, it is partly what has allowed this situation to happen, which is why I want to put things on a better footing. We will not take ages; I have said that we will do this by March, and we are getting on with it. In the meantime, it is a wild west. We simply cannot have companies acting in breach of the agreement, sticking personal, sensitive information belonging to victims and defendants alike into an AI bot, and passing it on to an AI company that will do who knows what with it.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Court Reporting Data · Hansard source

  More

  I want to be really clear that the data held by Courtsdesk is not an archive of criminal court case files. A number of Members have mentioned the importance of criminal court case records, which are held in a variety of places, not least the National Archives. They continue to remain available. The court lists, which I accept are important, continue to be available to the public—a member of the public can look them up now. Enhanced listing, which has a bit more information, remains open to journalists. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that it is important to have transparency and open justice, and for reporters to have the ability to expose what goes on in our courts. That is why I want to make the data open to more people, but we will put it on a safer footing to ensure that data breaches like this do not occur again in the future.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Court Reporting Data · Hansard source

  More

  Of course listing data is important, and of course it is important that it is accurate. By the way, it is also important that such data is not shared unlawfully with third parties that are not entitled to it. We continue to make that information available to journalists in the same way as before 2020. A journalist working in the field can access that information from HMCTS if they make a request, and it will be passed to them in the usual way. We are seeking to open that up further and to put it on a stable footing, which will remove the wild west that appears to have emerged.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Court Reporting Data · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has asked a very good question. It is vital for people to know what goes on in our courts, and local reporting of what happens there matters to wider society and, indeed, to our democracy. We recognise that Courtsdesk provided a useful service for journalists in collating information and presenting it in an accessible way, and that is what we want to be able to maintain, while at the same time safeguarding people’s data and putting it on a proper licensing footing. On the timeline, we aim to initiate that licensing arrangement and make it available to companies more widely so that, next month, there is even more accessibility. We are very close to that, but what I will not abide is a flagrant breach of the agreement that we had with Courtsdesk and the sharing of sensitive data in a way that is irresponsible. I want the data to be available to responsible journalists to use responsibly, and that is exactly what we are getting on with.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Court Reporting Data · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that the bombast we have just heard is not just inaccurate but dangerous, because it suggests that there is anything like a restriction on open justice. Let me be absolutely clear: there has been no deletion of any court lists. [ Interruption. ] Excuse me. There has been no deletion of any court lists, which is the nature of the data that has been provided. Let us be absolutely clear: we had an arrangement with Courtsdesk, which we accept provides a useful service. [ Interruption. ] What Courtsdesk did, which the shadow Minister does not seem to think is a problem, is to pass that information on in breach of the agreement—no doubt for commercial purposes—to an AI company. That information included defendants’ addresses and dates of birth. I do not think anyone in this House would think that such things should be provided to anybody other than accredited journalists, yet they were provided to an AI company. We then asked Courtsdesk to delete the information that it held. As of yesterday, I understand that it still has not done so. It accepts that it has acted in breach of its agreement. It threatened the Ministry of Justice with legal action, which it has not chosen to take forward. We are saying that when a company acts in breach of an agreement, putting vulnerable people and parties at risk, it is very serious. I take data protection seriously, but there has been no obstruction to journalists being able to access through the usual channels the lists that we are talking about. That access remains open today, and it remains open to journalists to contact HMCTS. Indeed, we want to put this system on a securer footing with the necessary guardrails. [ Interruption. ] I will repeat, because the shadow Minister is muttering through my entire response, that no one has deleted any court records. Everything that he refers to in relation to serious sexual historic crimes remains accessible. Case law remains accessible, and the court lists remain accessible. Open justice is vital, but I will not have a wild west of private companies acting in breach of agreements with Government and passing sensitive data on to third-party AI companies. That will not do, and the shadow Minister knows that if he were in my position, it would not have been acceptable to him either.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Court Reporting Data · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is right, in that the original agreement that was reached between Courtsdesk and the previous Government made it clear that there should not be further sharing of the data with additional parties. It is one thing to share the data with accredited journalists who are subject to their own codes and who are expected to adhere to reporting restrictions, but Courtsdesk breached that agreement by sharing the information with an AI company. That is simply irresponsible, and when it came to light, I took the decision—I did not take it lightly, but I certainly remain confident in that decision—to cease giving Courtsdesk access unless and until it, or any other party, showed that it could use that information responsibly. Open justice is very important, but such information should not be shared with an AI company in breach of the agreement that exists with Government.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Court Reporting Data · Hansard source

  More

  Let me start by saying that this Government are committed to tackling grooming gangs, punishing offenders and protecting children. The grooming gangs scandal is one of the most heinous crimes of our time, but allow me to repeat this: it is fundamentally incorrect to say that court records are being deleted. Court records remain completely intact, and will only be deleted in line with the general data protection regulation and record retention policies. The data that we are talking about here is data that a private company, Courtsdesk, has been asked to delete because it has failed to demonstrate that it is using that data responsibly. The data includes only magistrates court lists and outcomes, not the transcripts of which the hon. Gentleman speaks—data that Courtsdesk is not entitled to hold. The sort of data that he is concerned about remains, and those who need to access it for investigative purposes or otherwise can do so through the usual channels. Let us not conflate that with the data in question here.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Court Reporting Data · Hansard source

  More

  The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that the report to the ICO has not yet been made. I raised the matter with our data officer, and the conclusion—the advice that I was given—was that it did not meet the threshold for an ICO referral. I have asked for that to be looked at again, but what is clear, and Courtsdesk accepted this fact, is that it breached the agreement by passing this material to an AI company. That is not a responsible thing to do with people’s private addresses and other sensitive data relating to individuals through which those individuals can be identified and which are not subject to the same reporting restrictions which, of course, journalists abide by. Let me be absolutely clear with the House: the sort of service that Courtsdesk provides is one that we want to replicate, but we want it to be on a stable footing with the necessary data protection guardrails, and that is what we are putting in place. If Courtsdesk had engaged with the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS in a responsible fashion, we would not be in the position that we are in today. The fact is that, all along, journalists have retained the ability to obtain information. That is the critical point. This is about court lists, not court records. In respect of court lists, for all courts, journalists throughout have been able to engage with the information in the same way as they were able to do pre-2020, pre-Courtsdesk. They can get that information, and they can continue to report what is happening in our courts.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Court Reporting Data · Hansard source

  More

  I want to make it absolutely clear that accredited journalists continue—as they have throughout—to have access to court information that they need, directly from individual magistrates courts and tribunal services, via either the court and tribunal hearings service, which is a new digital system, or the gov.uk website. I do recognise the utility of what Courtsdesk provided, but the company was clearly not acting in a responsible way. When we approached its representatives about the breach of its agreement with HMCTS, they accepted that they had breached it and then threatened the MOJ with litigation, which is not an appropriate way to behave if one is trying to co-operate and get things on to a sound and steady footing. Let me also be absolutely clear about the timeline. All magistrates and court lists, and the accompanying case summarisation data, will be available from the court and tribunal hearings service from the end of March 2026. I want to put this on a stable footing so that journalists have ready access, because I accept that the information must be made easily available to them, in a responsible but properly licensed fashion. As I have said, that work will be made public and the licences made available from March. We have to do this in a responsible way. We have to balance the very real needs of open justice—which I readily accept, and to which the Government are committed—with data protection, particularly when it comes to the vulnerable victims who are at the heart of this.