Sarah Sackman MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I welcome the support from Members across the Committee for clause 10. A proper evidential basis is defined in the Bill as ensuring that there is material before the court that shows both that the complainant made the previous allegation and that the previous allegation was false. I do not want to elaborate on the test, and thereby in any way tie the hands of the judge hearing the evidence in the case. The tests and the clear structure set out in the Bill will enable and empower the judge to test whether there is an evidential basis for the claim and whether it has probative value and relevance to the issues at hand. The judge will then be able to take a view on whether it can be included and put to a witness. There will always be cases where the evidence is relevant to the proceedings, both for the prosecution and for the defence. There is certainly no hard rule excluding it altogether.

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

  More

  First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington for tabling the amendment and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden for moving it today. While I recognise the concern that the amendment is seeking to address—specifically, the transparency about the relationship between complainants and independent supporters—the Government do not consider it necessary to include an express requirement in the legislation to disclose that relationship at the point of application. Witness supporters are already an important and well-established feature of court proceedings. The court environment can be daunting for many vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. The presence of a trained professional supporter, such as an independent domestic violence adviser or an independent sexual violence adviser—an IDVA or ISVA—can play an important role in helping them feel more at ease while giving evidence. Clause 13 places that established practice on a clear statutory footing by recognising the use of a professional supporter as a distinct special measure, alongside a presumption that it may be used by a vulnerable, intimidated witness where the supporter is a professional. In practice, details of the proposed independent supporter, including their relationship to the witness, are disclosed to the court before permission is granted to them to accompany the witness. A professional supporter must have no connection to the case in question, and cannot themselves be a witness. That approach will continue unchanged when the use of a supporter is formalised as a special measure. As clause 13 makes clear, the court must also be satisfied that a supporter’s presence is not contrary to the interests of justice—an assessment that includes consideration of any potential adverse effects that the supporter may have on the fairness of the proceedings. Against that backdrop, we do not think that the amendment would add any substantive value or additional protection, given that all that information already forms part of a court’s decision-making process as to whether to permit the witness supporter. The term “independent supporter” is defined in the Bill, and the courts retain full discretion as to who can act in that capacity based on the factors that I have alluded to and while maintaining trial fairness. For those reasons, we do not think that the amendment is additive. I urge the hon. Member to seek to withdraw the amendment.

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

  More

  I seek to assist the Committee, as I do not want us to get this wrong. The purpose of the definition is to exclude non-professional supporters or those who do not habitually perform a role in supporting witnesses. That is the intent. The fact that the court must also be satisfied that the support is not contrary to the interests of justice is an important protection in relation to who can and cannot perform the function. I do not think that necessarily excludes the fact that one could, in theory, have a relative perform it. I am, again, happy to provide that clarification so that there is no issue with the Committee not having the full information.

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

  More

  I am more than happy to accede to that. This has been useful, and I am very happy to provide that clarity. Question put and agreed to. Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14 Exclusion of persons from court Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  I will be brief. What we have tried to do with the definition of propensity—we think this is the benefit—is to provide clarity and a structured process for judges. Of course, it is important to remember that a trial is not a likelihood test. As we all know, it is a test of the criminal standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt, whether it is a judge-made decision or a jury directed by a judge. It is really important, even in the context where bad character evidence is admitted—the issue of propensity is there—that juries are reminded that they have to be absolutely sure that the offence did happen. A decision cannot be based on the fact that a person did something before and therefore probably did it again. The jury has to be absolutely sure. None of that changes. That standard of criminal proof does not change as a result of clause 11. We hope that, in line with the Law Commission’s recommendations, the measure provides a clear, structured and, above all, consistent series of tests so that, irrespective of where a trial happens in the country, the same approach is taken and there is a shared understanding among judges, juries and practitioners as to what the test is. Question put and agreed to. Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 12 Use of screens etc Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  Clause 10 sets out that evidence or questioning about a victim’s previous allegation of a sexual offence may be admitted only when there is a proper evidential basis for doing so. It also clarifies that certain facts do not, by themselves, mean that a previous allegation was untrue. Those include: if the victim did not report the offence to the police; where an allegation did not result in a charge or conviction; and where a victim withdraws from proceedings. The Law Commission’s report, alongside the sector campaign “Bad Experiences, not Bad Character”, identified inconsistencies in how courts currently approach previous allegations in sexual offence trials. There have been instances where previous unproven allegations have been raised to suggest, without evidence, that a victim is unreliable by insinuating that such allegations were false. That risks reinforcing myths and misconceptions, making the trial process a traumatic one for the complainant. This measure will maintain a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Judges will still be able to admit evidence about a complainant’s previous allegations when there is a proper evidential basis for doing so. The clause simply creates a clearer and more consistent statutory test to ensure that such decisions are based on sound evidence rather than speculation. Victims should feel confident that a previous allegation will not be unfairly used against them in the courtroom. Clause 10 strengthens the integrity of the trial process while supporting complainants and survivors to come forward and engage in the justice system.

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

  More

  I am grateful for those questions and comments, because, through clause 14, we are seeking to strike a balance. At the moment, in the instance that I gave an example of, the balance is all one way. Of course we want open justice, but that is not the same, as can be the case, as having essentially a mob of people in the gallery whose mere presence is almost certainly intended to intimidate witnesses. Empowering the court to exercise discretion, while retaining the presence of at least one person connected to the defendant and protecting those representatives of newsgathering or reporting organisations, strikes the right balance. On the question about everyone being a citizen journalist now, subsection (4)(b) refers to “representatives of news gathering or reporting organisations”. It refers to those who carry accreditation because they are a member of an organisation, not those who are self-appointed. I am happy to come back to the hon. Member for Chichester with clarification about that. When we talk about reporting restrictions and how they operate, they generally operate in connection with qualified journalists who are subject to the codes of conduct that go with that job. Indeed, that is something that arose with some of the issues in relation to Courtsdesk, because those who make use of that facility and that information, as opposed to the material that the public are entitled to see, are investigative journalists. I am happy to come back to the hon. Member with clarification, and if we think the legislation needs tightening up for the reasons she has outlined, then that can be looked at in the future. Question put and agreed to. Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 15 Editing of video recorded cross-examination and re-examination Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  I will set this out in writing so that, again, the hon. Member and the public have it, but I can say, in essence, that although we agreed with the spirit of the entirety of the Law Commission’s recommendation, our view was that stage 1 of the test, which is effectively reflected in the Bill, already sets a high bar. We thought that that was sufficient in the context and that stage 2— I was asked about this previously—would not add materially to the way in which the test operates. However, I will take the opportunity to give a response to the question that the hon. Member has just asked so that she can interrogate that over time. Question put and agreed to . Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 11 Evidence of propensity to commit offences involving domestic abuse Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  I am very happy to do that. I will make that correspondence available to all members of the Committee and the wider public because it is important that, when judges and others are looking to apply the test, they understand the Government’s rationale and understanding of the provisions. For reasons that others have articulated, this is an important clause, which recognises something that women’s groups and others have been campaigning on for an awfully long time. It can help to change the culture in our criminal justice system for victims of sexual violence.

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

  More

  Clause 11 will ensure that if a defendant has a previous conviction for domestic abuse—of any type and against any victim—it can be taken into account as evidence of bad character in a further domestic abuse case. That will help courts to recognise relevant patterns of behaviour that might otherwise fall outside narrow offence category boundaries. We know that domestic abuse can take many forms and that patterns of domestic abuse do not always map neatly on to a single type of offending. Recognising those patterns can help juries to understand the context of the offence. The clause therefore allows previous domestic abuse-related convictions to be admitted as propensity evidence when the statutory test is met. That will include cases in which the previous conviction involved coercive or controlling behaviour, and the current allegation involves a different form of domestic abuse, such as sexual assault against an intimate partner. Our aim is to ensure that courts can consider relevant patterns of abusive behaviour when they provide important context on the issues in the case while maintaining the full range of safeguards that protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Clause 11 completes the package of evidential reforms set out in clauses 8 to 11. Taken together, the measures provide greater clarity, consistency and coherence to the rules governing sensitive evidence. They help to improve the experience of victims—particularly victims of sexual offences—in the criminal justice system while ensuring that trials remain fair and balanced. I urge that clause 11 stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Chichester for the points she raised. In many respects, they are well made, and they consider people’s choice architecture—for want of a better phrase—their understanding of what they might be entitled to request, and whether we should default to providing all the special measures or maintaining, as we say we should, a tailored case-by-case assessment of the needs of the witness or the complainant. It is a tricky one. We want to make sure that, where there is a proper basis for it, special measures can be provided to those who need them and where the judge agrees that they are needed. The hon. Member is right that in the vast majority of cases, the request for special measures or to give evidence by video link is approved— it is almost always approved—but there might be cases when, for reasons of trial fairness, that is not the case. The tailored approach is one that we regard as proportionate. This also relates to the points made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle about court layout and some of the physical constraints that exist within some of our Crown courts. We do not want a postcode lottery. We want consistency, which is what so much of the Bill is designed to achieve. However, we also have to acknowledge that in some of our Crown court centres, the physical constraints are real. That does not necessarily relate to screens, but it might relate to the entrance and exit. For example, there are limitations on the ideal situation of a complainant being able to avoid having to pass a defendant, which might be undesirable for all sorts of reasons. There are some courtrooms in which that simply is not possible without huge capital investment to change the physical structure. Hon. Members have raised legitimate points and I understand the thinking behind them. We think that in the circumstances, and given that victims have a wide range of needs, a tailored approach, based on a detailed needs assessment, is the most effective approach, but we will continue to consider the situation. Question put and agreed to. Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 13 Witness to be accompanied while giving evidence

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

  More

  I understand the point. In the circumstances, I would prefer to take officials’ advice and check that the legislation is doing what it intends to—providing a consistent practice of professional witness support, while maintaining trial fairness. I do not want to misdirect myself or the Committee.

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

  More

  There is only one Old Bailey, and as a result of clause 20, there will only ever be one Old Bailey. I invite all members of the Committee to join together on a group tour of the new facility in Salisbury Square when it opens, hopefully in a year’s time. Question put and agreed to. Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Stephen Morgan.)

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

  More

  I am very happy to provide that information, to the extent that we hold it. Question put and agreed to. Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 16 Application of special measures to victim personal statements etc Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  The clause makes it clear in legislation that special measures are available when a victim chooses to read their victim impact statement aloud at sentencing. This is a moment of real significance for many victims—the point at which they are able to explain, in their own words, the impact of the offending on their lives. Although special measures can already be used for this purpose, that entitlement is not explicitly set out in legislation. As the Law Commission has explored, the lack of a clear statutory basis can create uncertainty about what victims may rely on, adding avoidable stress at a time when they are already managing the emotional weight of addressing the court. Clause 16 removes that uncertainty. It ensures that victims can rely on the same special measures at sentencing as they can when giving evidence, whether using screens, a live link or some other appropriate measure. By placing the provisions on a clear statutory footing, clause 16 gives victims greater reassurance that their voice can be heard at sentencing and that they will have access to the support needed to participate effectively. It will enhance their overall experience of the justice system, and strengthen the quality of information available to the court when determining a sentence. I commend the clause to the Committee.

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

  More

  That reflects the clause as drafted and the intention behind it, from speaking to our judicial leadership. In my experience, I have certainly found our judicial and tribunal leadership to be progressive, reforming and more open to cultural change, scrutiny and improvement than perhaps might previously have been the case. I welcome that, because it is as it should be. The hon. Member is right, of course: tribunals are different. They are meant to be informal and feel different from going to the High Court, which is all terribly alienating to the ordinary person who is untrained. A tribunal is supposed to involve a relatively cost-neutral and more relaxed process so that the individual can participate in it. Our proposals do not cut against that, but bring the judiciary across England and Wales into the notion of unity, with a lot of the benefits of being under a single leadership—sharing best practice and deploying judges across different jurisdictions—being enhanced, so that everyone can benefit without bleeding out the differences that rightly exist in our different courts and tribunals. Question put and agreed to . Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Schedule 3 Leadership of tribunals Amendments made: 72, in schedule 3, page 68, line 4, after “may” insert “, subject to the following provisions of this section,”. This amendment is intended to clarify that the Lord Chief Justice’s general power under section 7A(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (inserted by the Bill) to delegate functions relating to tribunals is qualified by subsequent subsections of that section. Amendment 73, in schedule 3, page 68, leave out line 5. This amendment would remove redundancy in the drafting of new section 7A(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (inserted by the Bill). Amendment 74, in schedule 3, page 68, line 9, at end insert— “(1A) A function of the Lord Chief Justice may not be delegated under subsection (1) to a person who— (a) is a judge, or other member, of the Upper Tribunal or First-tier Tribunal only by virtue of the person being a relevant Scottish office-holder or a relevant Northern Ireland office-holder, and (b) is not a Chamber President, or a Deputy Chamber President, of a chamber of the Upper Tribunal or of a chamber of the First-tier Tribunal.” This amendment, together with amendment 75, would prevent the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales delegating functions relating to tribunals to a person who is a judge of the Upper Tribunal or First-Tier Tribunal only because the person holds a particular judicial office in Scotland or Northern Ireland. Amendment 75, in schedule 3, page 69, line 6, at end insert— “(8A) For the purposes of subsection (1A)— (a) a person is a ‘relevant Scottish office-holder’ if the person is— (i) a judge of the Court of Session, (ii) a sheriff in Scotland, (iii) the President of Employment Tribunals (Scotland), (iv) the Vice President of Employment Tribunals (Scotland), or (v) a member of a panel of members of employment tribunals (whether or not a panel of Employment Judges) established for Scotland; (b) a person is a ‘relevant Northern Ireland office-holder’ if the person is— (i) a Lord Justice of Appeal in Northern Ireland, (ii) a puisne judge of the High Court in Northern Ireland, (iii) a county court judge in Northern Ireland, (iv) a district judge in Northern Ireland, (v) the Chief Social Security Commissioner, or any other Social Security Commissioner, appointed under section 50(1) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, or (vi) a Social Security Commissioner appointed under section 50(2) of that Act (deputy Commissioners).” See the explanatory statement to amendment 74. Amendment 76, in schedule 3, page 69, line 21, after “may” insert “, subject to the following provisions of this section,”. This amendment would make a change to the drafting of new section 7B of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (further delegation of functions of the Lord Chief Justice) corresponding to the change made by amendment 72 to the drafting of new section 7A of that Act. Amendment 77, in schedule 3, page 69, line 25, at end insert— “(1A) A function of the Lord Chief Justice may not be further delegated under subsection (1) to a person who— (a) is a judge, or other member, of the Upper Tribunal or First-tier Tribunal only by virtue of the person being a relevant Scottish office-holder or a relevant Northern Ireland office-holder, and (b) is not a Chamber President, or a Deputy Chamber President, of a chamber of the Upper Tribunal or of a chamber of the First-tier Tribunal.” This amendment would impose a limitation on the power to further delegate a function of the Lord Chief Justice under new section 7B of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 corresponding to the limitation imposed in relation to new section 7A of that Act by amendment 74. Amendment 78, in schedule 3, page 69, line 28, leave out from “to” to end of line and insert “a person appointed as— (a) Deputy Head of Tribunals Justice, or (b) Chamber President of a chamber of the Upper Tribunal.” This amendment would enable functions of the Lord Chief Justice under paragraph 1(1) or 2(1) of Schedule 2 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 that are delegated to a senior judge to be further delegated to the Deputy Head of Tribunals Justice. Amendment 79, in schedule 3, page 70, line 2, at end insert— “‘relevant Scottish office-holder’ and ‘relevant Northern Ireland office-holder’ have the same meaning as in subsection (1A) of section 7A (see subsection (8A) of that section);”. This amendment is consequential on amendment 77. Amendment 80, in schedule 3, page 70, line 7, leave out “(1)(b),” and insert “(1)— (a) in the words before paragraph (a), after ‘may’ insert ‘, subject to the following provisions of this section,’; (b) in paragraph (b),”. This amendment would make a change to the drafting of section 8 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (Senior President of Tribunals: power to delegate) corresponding to the change made by amendment 72 to the drafting of new section 7A of that Act. Amendment 81, in schedule 3, page 70, line 8, at end insert— “(2A) In subsection (1A)— (a) for ‘paragraph 1(1) or 2(1) of Schedule 2’ substitute ‘any of the provisions listed in subsection (1B)’; (b) for ‘a Chamber President of a chamber of the Upper Tribunal’ substitute ‘a person appointed as— (a) Deputy Head of Tribunals Justice, or (b) Chamber President of a chamber of the Upper Tribunal’. (2B) After subsection (1A) insert— ‘(1B) The provisions are— section 7(7); section 7(8B) and (9); paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 2; paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2; paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3; paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 3; paragraph 2 of Schedule 4; paragraph 5(1) and (3) of Schedule 4; paragraph 5(5) to (8) of Schedule 4; paragraph 5A(3A) of Schedule 4.’” This amendment would insert provision amending section 8 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to enable the Senior President of Tribunals to delegate to the Deputy Head of Tribunals Justice or an Upper Tribunal Chamber President certain functions to which subsection (1) of that section does not currently apply. Amendment 82, in schedule 3, page 70, line 9, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert— “(3) For subsection (2) substitute— ‘(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to functions of the Senior President of Tribunals under any of the following— section 29B; section 29D; section 46; paragraph 3 of Schedule 5; paragraph 2 of Schedule A1 to the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.’” This amendment is consequential on amendment 81. Amendment 83, in schedule 3, page 70, line 21, at end insert— “18A After section 8 insert— ‘8A Delegation: supplementary (1) Where a function is exercisable, in a particular case, by the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals, acting jointly— (a) so far as the function is exercisable by the Lord Chief Justice, it is to be treated for the purposes of section 7A as a relevant tribunal function and may be delegated under that section, and further delegated under section 7B, accordingly (including to the Senior President of Tribunals); (b) so far as the function is exercisable by the Senior President of Tribunals— (i) it is to be treated for the purposes of section 8 as a function the Senior President of Tribunals has in that capacity and may be delegated under section 8 accordingly, but (ii) it may not be delegated under that section to the Lord Chief Justice. (2) Where a person (“the delegator”) has a power to delegate a function under section 7A, 7B or 8— (a) any requirement that the delegator may exercise the function only with the concurrence of another person (“P”) does not prevent the delegator from delegating the function to P, and (b) if the delegator delegates the function to P, any such requirement is to be disregarded so far as the function is exercised by P. (3) In this section “the Lord Chief Justice” means the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.’” This amendment would insert provision intended to clarify the effect of delegation powers under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, inserted or amended by the Bill, in cases where the function being delegated is exercisable jointly with, or with the concurrence of, the person to whom it is delegated. Amendment 84, in schedule 3, page 75, line 6, leave out “senior judge” and insert “person who holds high judicial office”. This amendment would enable functions of the Senior President of Tribunals to be exercised during any vacancy or incapacity by a holder of high judicial office in Scotland or Northern Ireland (as well as in England and Wales). Amendment 85, in schedule 3, page 75, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert— “‘high judicial office’ has the same meaning as in Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (see section 60(2)(a)of that Act);”. This amendment is consequential on amendment 84. Amendment 86, in schedule 3, page 88, line 9, at end insert— “32A In Schedule 8 (tribunals and inquiries: consequential and other amendments), in paragraph 41, omit sub-paragraphs (3) and (6) (which insert into the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 provision repealed by this Act).” This amendment would repeal provisions of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which insert into the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 provision repealed by the Bill. Amendment 87, in schedule 3, page 92, line 38, at end insert— “Agriculture Act 1947 43A In Schedule 9 to the Agriculture Act 1947 (constitution etc. of tribunals etc.), in paragraph 15A (which provides for a member of the First-tier Tribunal to act as a member of the Agricultural Land Tribunal)— (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for ‘the Senior President of Tribunals’ substitute ‘the appropriate office-holder’; (b) after sub-paragraph (1) insert— ‘(1ZA) In sub-paragraph (1), “the appropriate office-holder” means— (a) in relation to a member of the First-tier Tribunal who exercises functions wholly or mainly in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the Senior President of Tribunals; (b) in any other case, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.’ Lands Tribunal Act 1949 43B In section 1 of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949 (which makes provision including provision about selecting a surveyor for the purposes of section 58 or 106 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845)— (a) in subsection (6), for ‘the Senior President of Tribunals’ substitute ‘the appropriate office-holder’; (b) after subsection (6) insert— ‘(6ZA) In subsection (6) “the appropriate office-holder” means— (a) in relation to the determination of compensation to be paid in respect of land in England or Wales, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales; (b) in any other case, the Senior President of Tribunals. (6ZB) Section 7A of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (Lord Chief Justice: power to delegate) applies to any function of the Lord Chief Justice under subsection (6) as it applies to a relevant tribunal function within the meaning of that section. For provision enabling the delegation of any function of the Senior President of Tribunals, see section 8 of that Act.’ Rent Act 1977 43C In Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977 (rent assessment committees), in paragraph 5A (which provides for a member of the First-tier Tribunal to act as a member of a committee in Wales)— (a) the existing text becomes sub-paragraph (1); (b) in that sub-paragraph, for ‘the Senior President of Tribunals’ substitute ‘the appropriate office-holder’; (c) after that sub-paragraph insert— ‘(2) In sub-paragraph (1), “the appropriate office-holder” means— (a) in relation to a member of the First-tier Tribunal who exercises functions wholly or mainly in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the Senior President of Tribunals; (b) in any other case, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.’” This amendment would insert provision amending provisions of the Agriculture Act 1947, the Lands Tribunal Act 1949 and the Rent Act 1977 so as to confer on the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales certain functions currently conferred on the Senior President of Tribunals. Amendment 88, in schedule 3, page 93, line 12, leave out paragraph 46 and insert— “46 In section 9 (assistance for transaction of judicial business)— (a) in subsection (1), in the Table (judges deployable to certain courts), in column 1 of entry 4A (the Senior President of Tribunals), after ‘Senior President of Tribunals’ insert ‘, if not an ex-officio judge of the Court of Appeal’; (b) omit subsection (1ZA).” This amendment would enable a holder of the office of Senior President of Tribunals who is an ex-officio judge of the Court of Appeal to act on request as a judge of the Crown Court (like all other judges of the Court of Appeal). Amendment 89, in schedule 3, page 93, line 29, at end insert— “Mental Health Act 1983 48A In Schedule 2 to the Mental Health Act 1983 (Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales), in paragraph 5 (which provides for certain members of the First-tier Tribunal to act as members of the tribunal)— (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for ‘the Senior President of Tribunals’ substitute ‘the appropriate office-holder’; (b) after sub-paragraph (1) insert— ‘(1ZA) In sub-paragraph (1), “the appropriate office-holder” means— (a) in relation to a member of the First-tier Tribunal who exercises functions wholly or mainly in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the Senior President of Tribunals; (b) in any other case, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.’ Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 48B In section 33 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (acquisition order where landlord cannot be found)— (a) in subsection (2)(a), for ‘the Senior President of Tribunals’ substitute ‘the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales’; (b) after subsection (3) insert— ‘(4) Section 7A of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (Lord Chief Justice: power to delegate) applies to the function of the Lord Chief Justice under subsection (2)(a) as it applies to a relevant tribunal function within the meaning of that section.’ Local Government Finance Act 1988 48C In Part 1 of Schedule 11 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (the Valuation Tribunal for England), in paragraph A18A (power for member of First-tier Tribunal to act as member of the Tribunal)— (a) in sub-paragraph (2)(a), for ‘the Senior President of Tribunals’ substitute ‘the appropriate office-holder’; (b) in sub-paragraph (9), after paragraph (a) insert— ‘(aa) “the appropriate office-holder” means— (i) in relation to an FTT member who exercises functions wholly or mainly in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the Senior President of Tribunals, and (ii) in any other case, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and’. Social Security Act 1998 48D (1) Section 15A of the Social Security Act 1998 (functions of Senior President of Tribunals) is amended as follows. (2) For the heading substitute ‘Confidentiality in the First-tier Tribunal’. (3) In subsection (1), for ‘The Senior President of Tribunals’ substitute ‘The appropriate office-holder’. (4) After subsection (1) insert— ‘(1A) In subsection (1), “the appropriate office-holder” means— (a) in relation to the First-tier Tribunal in England and Wales, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales; (b) in relation to the First-tier Tribunal in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the Senior President of Tribunals.’” This amendment would insert provision amending provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the Social Security Act 1998 so as to confer on the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales certain functions currently conferred on the Senior President of Tribunals. Amendment 90, in schedule 3, page 94, line 1, at end insert— “49A The Crime and Courts Act 2013 is amended as follows.” This amendment is consequential on amendment 92. Amendment 91, in schedule 3, page 94, line 2, leave out “the Crime and Courts Act 2013, in”. This amendment is consequential on amendment 90. Amendment 92, in schedule 3, page 94, line 3, at end insert— “50A In Schedule 13 (judicial appointments), omit the following provisions (which insert into the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 provision repealed by this Act)— (a) paragraph 30(3); (b) paragraph 43; (c) paragraph 44(2); (d) paragraph 45(2) and (4); (e) paragraph 46(2) and (6); (f) paragraph 47(4) to (6), (8), (9), (11) and (12). 50B In Schedule 14 (deployment of the judiciary), in paragraph 12, omit sub-paragraph (2) (which inserts into the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 provision repealed by this Act).” This amendment would repeal provisions of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 which insert into the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 provision repealed by the Bill. Amendment 93, in schedule 3, page 94, line 3, at end insert— “Wales Act 2017 50A (1) Section 63 of the Wales Act 2017 (cross-deployment of tribunal members and judges) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1), for the words from ‘if’ to the end substitute ‘— (a) in England and Wales, if the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales asks the member to do so and the President of Welsh Tribunals agrees to the request being made; (b) in Scotland or Northern Ireland, if the Senior President of Tribunals asks the member to do so and the President of Welsh Tribunals agrees to the request being made.’ (3) In subsection (2), in the words after paragraph (b), for ‘the Senior President of Tribunals’ substitute ‘the appropriate office-holder’. (4) After subsection (2) insert— ‘(2A) In subsection (2), “the appropriate office-holder” means— (a) where the tribunal member exercises functions wholly or mainly in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the Senior President of Tribunals; (b) in any other case, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.’” This amendment would insert provision amending provisions of the Wales Act 2017 so as to confer on the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales certain functions currently conferred on the Senior President of Tribunals. Amendment 94, in schedule 3, page 94, line 3, at end insert— “Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Act 2018 50A In the Schedule to the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Act 2018 (authorised court and tribunal staff: legal advice and judicial functions), omit paragraph 40 (which inserts into the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 provision repealed by this Act).” This amendment would repeal provision of the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Act 2018 which inserts into the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 provision repealed by the Bill. Amendment 95, in schedule 3, page 95, line 4, at end insert— “Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 54 The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 is amended as follows. 55 (1) Section 32 (judicial agreement to certain regulations) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)(a)— (a) omit the ‘or’ at the end of sub-paragraph (i); (b) at the end of sub-paragraph (ii) insert ‘, or (iii) relevant tribunal proceedings in England and Wales;’. (3) In subsection (1)(b)— (a) in sub-paragraph (i), after ‘First-tier Tribunal’ insert ‘in Scotland or Northern Ireland’; (b) in sub-paragraph (ii), after ‘Upper Tribunal’ insert ‘in Scotland or Northern Ireland’; (c) in sub-paragraph (iii), after ‘employment tribunals’ insert ‘in Scotland’; (d) in sub-paragraph (iv), after ‘Employment Appeal Tribunal’ insert ‘in Scotland’. (4) After subsection (2) insert— ‘(3) In this section, “relevant tribunal proceedings” means proceedings in— (a) the First-tier Tribunal, (b) the Upper Tribunal, (c) employment tribunals, or (d) the Employment Appeal Tribunal.’ 56 (1) Schedule 3 (practice directions for online proceedings) is amended as follows. (2) In Part 2 (proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal), in paragraph 7 (giving practice directions)— (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for ‘The Senior President of Tribunals’ substitute ‘The Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals, acting jointly,’; (b) after sub-paragraph (1) insert— ‘(1A) The Lord Chief Justice may give practice directions under paragraph 5 in relation to proceedings in a Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal whose business involves only the application of the law of England and Wales. (1B) The Senior President of Tribunals may give practice directions under paragraph 5 in relation to proceedings in a Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal whose business involves only the application of the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland.’; (c) in sub-paragraph (2), for ‘The Senior President may not give practice directions’ substitute ‘Practice directions may not be given under sub-paragraph (1), (1A) or (1B)’; (d) in sub-paragraph (4)— (i) omit the ‘and’ at the end of paragraph (a); (ii) after paragraph (a) insert— ‘(aa) the Lord Chief Justice, if the business of the Chamber to which the directions relate involves the application of the law of England and Wales, and’; (iii) in paragraph (b), after ‘Tribunals’ insert ‘, if the business of the Chamber to which the directions relate involves the application of the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland’; (e) in sub-paragraph (6)— (i) for ‘the approval of the Senior President of Tribunals if’ substitute ‘any approval’; (ii) for ‘sub-paragraph (4)(b)’ insert ‘sub-paragraph (4)(aa) or (b)’. (3) In Part 3 (proceedings in employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal), in paragraph 11 (giving practice directions)— (a) in sub-paragraph (1)— (i) for ‘The Senior President of Tribunals’ substitute ‘The Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals, acting jointly,’; (ii) for ‘any proceedings’ substitute ‘proceedings in the Employment Appeal Tribunal’; (b) after sub-paragraph (1) insert— ‘(1A) The Lord Chief Justice may give practice directions under paragraph 9 in relation to proceedings in employment tribunals in England and Wales. (1B) The Senior President of Tribunals may give practice directions under paragraph 9 in relation to proceedings in employment tribunals in Scotland.’; (c) in sub-paragraph (2), for ‘The Senior President may not give practice directions’ substitute ‘Practice directions may not be given under sub-paragraph (1), (1A) or (1B)’; (d) in sub-paragraph (5), for the words from ‘of—’ to’ the end substitute ‘of the Lord Chancellor’; (e) after sub-paragraph (5) insert— ‘(5A) The President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal may not give practice directions without the approval of— (a) the Lord Chief Justice, and (b) the Senior President of Tribunals. (5B) The President of Employment Tribunals (England and Wales) may not give practice directions without the approval of the Lord Chief Justice. (5C) The President of Employment Tribunals (Scotland) may not give practice directions without the approval of the Senior President of Tribunals.’; (f) in sub-paragraph (6), for ‘sub-paragraph (5)(a)’ substitute ‘sub-paragraph (5)’; (g) in sub-paragraph (7)— (i) for ‘sub-paragraph (5)(a)’ substitute ‘sub-paragraph (5)’; (ii) for ‘the approval of the Senior President of Tribunals if’ substitute ‘any approval’; (iii) for ‘sub-paragraph (5)(b)’ substitute ‘sub-paragraph (5A), (5B) or (5C)’.” This amendment would insert provision amending provisions of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 so as to confer on the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales certain functions currently conferred on the Senior President of Tribunals. Amendment 96, in schedule 3, page 95, line 4, at end insert— “57 In Schedule 5 (employment tribunal procedure rules: further provision)— (a) in paragraph 3, omit sub-paragraphs (3) and (6) (which insert into the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 provision repealed by this Act); (b) omit paragraph 28 (which inserts into the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 provision repealed by this Act).”— (Sarah Sackman.) This amendment would repeal provisions of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 which insert into the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 provision repealed by the Bill. Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to . Clause 19 Lay justices’ allowances Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  That is true. We should be doing what is set out in this good clause and I have nothing more to add. Question put and agreed to. Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 20 Special provision when Crown Court sits in City of London Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  I think that, for once, consensus reigns.

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

  More

  I have heard that argument, but I do not accept it. I do not think the provision makes it less fair. But I accept that there is work to be done, which does not necessarily need to be reflected in the Bill, to support litigants in person, and to examine the approach and the structure to legal aid, to narrow the gap for those who do not have access to it. That way we can reduce the number of people who have to navigate the system without legal representation. I will not repeat the arguments that I made earlier. For those reasons, I commend the clause and schedule 2 to the Committee. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Chichester for tabling the amendment. As she acknowledged, there has been fruitful cross-party working on the issue. I am really pleased to see the progress that we have made, both as a matter of open justice, because timely justice must be fair and transparent, and, candidly, because technology is our friend here and is enabling progress. It must be robust and tested, because the ability of AI to enable redactions where needed has to be properly studied, which is why we have initiated an AI study. But I am pleased with the progress that we have been able to make and that, as a Parliament, we will continue to make.

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

  More

  The hon. Lady raises a valid point. All sorts of work needs to be undertaken about the use of social media in courtrooms, whether by juries or other participants, and where that is and is not appropriate, particularly in the context of reporting restrictions that are put in place for a good reason. But on this point, we think that the amendment is not needed. We can continue to make progress informed by an evidence base. For those reasons, although we are in real consensus on the principle of this, I urge the hon. Member for Chichester to withdraw her amendment.

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

  More

  I am grateful to all the Members who have spoken for the points they have raised. Without repeating myself, they have focused on a number of areas. The first is the concern around access to justice under the new process. We had a good debate on the question of the availability of legal aid in an earlier sitting. As I have said, the Government are committed to fair and accessible routes to legal aid. There are mechanisms such as passporting for those on universal credit. An example given was that the vast majority of prisoners do not have an income. The real picture is that the vast majority of them, unless they have personal wealth, do access legal aid and therefore would be represented and supported by those who are able to give legal advice in what are, of course, high-stakes situations. As I mentioned in the earlier debate, a hardship mechanism is available where the matter necessitates greater complexity and expenses. I recognise that, where there are litigants in person, there is more to do, and part of the implementation and delivery of these reforms will involve looking at what support can be given to those who find themselves in that position. At the moment, litigants in person in the Crown court on appeal to the Court of Appeal are given targeted information and forms that allow them to formulate grounds of appeal and that make it user-friendly and intelligible to a lay person. That sort of thing will have to be put in place if a permission stage is extended to the magistrates court. The points that have been made are valid, but I also want to present a realistic picture of the fact that the majority will continue to access legal aid. As I said earlier, the Department has committed to review the position once we know what the final shape of the Bill looks like to ensure that we are not creating a problem in respect of access to justice. However, in the event that there are litigants in person, we also know that we need to strengthen support for them more broadly across the system, not just in the context of these reforms. That will be a vital feature of the implementation. The second issue raised was about the trade-offs between the efficiency savings versus the introduction of a permission filter to match the sort of permission filter that already exists in the Crown court. While I recognise that the current volume of appeals, in the context of the volume of work that the magistrates undertake, is small, that will grow as the volume of work that the magistrates undertake grows. The sorts of appeals where success is achieved are precisely the ones that will not be prevented by this appeal test, because it is a low bar; all that has to be shown is reasonable arguability, and a court can identify that straightforwardly. It is not as if, all of a sudden, a huge risk to access to justice is created. However, what is permitted is the filtering out of wholly unmeritorious appeals, the volume of which may grow as the overall volume of cases within the magistrates court expands.

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

  More

  I will say two things to that. Obviously, that report—as is typical from the Law Commission—is non-partisan, but it predates the reforms we are proposing in the Bill, which will inevitably increase the volume of cases we are talking about. It goes back to the point that, where we have finite resources, if the permission stage filters out only a relatively small number of cases—in fact, that is how I anticipate it will work—then that is all to the good, because even those take up a disproportionate amount of Crown court resources that we can ill afford to have directed to wholly unmeritorious appeals. That is what we are getting rid of. The other thing is that this test is focused on specific grounds, much in the same way as exists in Crown court appeals. The treatment of that appeal can be directed towards the issue that has been the cause of the appeal, rather than having the whole thing looked at again, which is currently the case.

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

  More

  Yes, I do. This is why we have to get this right. As I say, we are firmly committed to improving transparency across the system and making a success of it, but those changes have to be balanced against the operational realities and the financial realities in which our court system operates. Proposed new section 108S of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, to be inserted by schedule 2 to the Bill, will already provide the power for the rules of court to provide free transcripts to any person the Secretary of State directs. The amendment is therefore not required, as the intended effect will already be achieved under the current drafting. We have taken significant steps to strengthen transparency, including expanding transcript provision, so that all victims who want them will be able to request free transcripts of Crown court sentencing remarks directly relevant to their case from as early as spring 2027. That is a meaningful step forward for victims. In cases of public interest, Crown court sentencing remarks are already published online, and broadcasters are able to film sentencing remarks in the Crown court with the agreement of the judge. We are focused on driving improvement for the longer term, exploring how technology, including AI, can reduce the cost of transcript production in future and make it more widely available. That is why we are undertaking a study into the use of AI transcription in court hearings. All this work will provide this Parliament and future Parliaments with an evidence base for future decisions about how transcript provision could be expanded in a way that is operationally sustainable and delivers real-world benefits for victims, including in the magistrates court, over time, as recording capability expands.

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

  More

  It is context specific, which is exactly why we have a study: to test the level of accuracy. Accuracy is really important; we do not want a lot of judicial time to be taken up reviewing the accuracy of transcripts before they can be put out. That would not be a good use of judge time, which should be spent running trials and getting them concluded. In some contexts, most obviously in family law, redaction is really important.