Courts and Tribunals Bill

Debate between Alex Norris and Judith Cummins

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Norris)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Before I turn to the substance of this important Bill, let me recognise those who have helped bring it to this stage: those who have sat in the Chair, both in this Chamber and in Committee; the excellent Clerks of the House, who serve us so well; the Whips on all sides; the hon. and right hon. Members who served in Committee with such vigour; the Minister for Courts; my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy); Members from across the House for their contributions to debate on the Bill, today and at previous stages, especially those who shared their or their constituents’ experiences; and those legal professionals from outside who have engaged with us.

I give specific recognition to the artist formerly known as Sir Brian Leveson for his landmark review. During this process, he has been elevated to the other place, where he is the noble Lord Leveson of Liverpool. What a public servant he is, and what work he did in his review! I recognise his efforts, in this area and in many other aspects of British life. It is a real pleasure to work with him, and we are grateful for his work, which underpins the Bill. Crucially, I recognise the victims and survivors who have shaped the reforms, including those who join us today in the Public Gallery. They should be proud of what they have done. I know that they bring forward their stories at a cost to themselves, in order to make change, and we are very lucky that they do so.

The Bill has victims at its heart. Its purpose is urgent and long overdue: to ensure that justice in this country is fast and fair, because victims today face intolerable delays. People suffer appalling crimes; they summon extraordinary courage to come forward; they relive their most traumatic experiences; and they put their trust in the system, and hope that justice will be done. What happens next is that they wait, and wait, and wait. Trials are pushed back. Cases drift further into the future, and there are years of anxiety before a trial can even begin, while confidence in the system drains away. All too often, victims give up because the process is unbearable.

As the Minister for Courts said—and as the age-old maxim goes—justice delayed is justice denied. This Government cannot and will not accept that. The Bill grips a problem that the previous Government simply would not. It tackles the record and rising Crown court backlog that we inherited, which now sits at nearly 81,000 cases—more than double the level in 2019. I am afraid that is testament to the Conservative party’s record in government, and their failure to grasp the nettle and tackle the reform needed to wrestle our criminal justice system back on track. Again, today we have seen the Conservatives simply deny the reality; they refuse to be reconciled with their record.

Our modelling shows exactly where this trajectory leads, if things are left unchecked: to even deeper delays, collapsing confidence, and a justice system that cannot fulfil its most basic promise, which is that justice will be done swiftly and fairly. This Government will not normalise that delay and allow victims, witnesses and defendants to bear the burden of a system under strain. We cannot continue to try to meet 21st-century pressures with a 20th-century model.

On Report and throughout this process, we have heard colleagues call for greater investment. They are right, and we are investing at record levels. There are unlimited sitting days for our criminal courts.

Others have called for modernisation. They are right to do so, and we are modernising. Through greater use of technology and AI to maximise our capacity, we can speed up justice and ensure that our system responds to the changing nature of crime, which has meant massive increases in digital evidence and demands on court time. But investment alone will not solve the crisis, nor will modernisation. As the noble Lord Leveson of Liverpool made clear, and as all the evidence shows, only when we have structural reform in the form of pragmatic changes can we really begin to turn the tide on the backlog. That is what this Bill will deliver.

I make no apology for looking again at this proposal— I myself as the new Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend as the new Prime Minister. Of course we looked again at some of the measures in the Bill. We listened to the strength of feeling from across the House and the legal sector, and we have made changes that mean that now almost all defendants facing trial in the Crown court will continue to be tried by a jury.

The Bill is not solely about bringing down the backlog. It is about making the system work better. I am proud that through other legislation alongside this Bill we have already been able to bring forward measures to improve victims’ experiences of court, with new specialist courts for survivors of rape and sexual offences. I want to recognise, as other colleagues did, the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) at previous stages of the legislation to bring us to this point.

The Bill goes further in supporting that wider effort and challenging the damaging myths that have so often silenced rape victims. It makes it easier for victims to access special measures in order to give their best and proper evidence. Crucially, in the family courts it will finally repeal the presumption of parental involvement. The safety of children must always come first. I recognise the incredible efforts of Claire Throssell to bring this change forward and make it a reality today. It has come at extraordinary cost. I hope that this is a day of pride at what is a significant step forward.

Much of the debate around this Bill has invoked tradition, but the history of our justice system has never been a history of standing still. It has always been a history of adaptation and institutions evolving to meet the demands of a changing society and a changing age. This Bill represents those timeless values applied in a modern context. We are acting to put the interests of the British people first, because the status quo, which would take our courts to a point of no return, which continues to deny fast and fair justice to those who need it, and which damages public confidence and consent, is simply unacceptable to us.

The Government are the only ones with the courage to address the challenges we face head-on, and we have heard that in debates at all stages of the Bill. We are pulling every lever within our power to rebuild a court system capable of delivering justice fairly, swiftly and sustainably. With this Bill, we choose that path, because the cost of doing nothing is simply too high. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Immigration Policy

Debate between Alex Norris and Judith Cummins

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

It is disappointing the Government did not come here voluntarily to announce their policies, and I notice that there was no apology, but given the scale of their failure, this is not surprising. Since the election, 67,000 people have entered the UK illegally, a 45% increase compared with the same period before the election. Many of those 67,000 have since committed serious crimes, including murder and rape. In the last six days alone, 900 illegal immigrants have crossed the English channel. The Government’s promises lie in tatters: the gangs are not smashed; the French are not intercepting boats near the shores, as we were promised last year; and the so-called one in, one out deal saw 41,000 illegal immigrants come in across the channel last year and only 300 go out.

The Government are now resorting to bribing illegal immigrants with £40,000 per family to leave—that is more than most working people here earn in a year. British workers should not have to pay record high taxes for this Government to give their money away to illegal immigrants. It is frankly disgraceful. Instead, the Government should now agree to our plan to leave the European convention on human rights, which would enable them to rapidly deport all illegal immigrants. The crossings would then quickly stop and there would be no need to bribe illegal immigrants to leave.

Let me turn now to indefinite leave to remain. When we proposed a 10-year path, the Government voted against it, but I am delighted that they have now done yet another U-turn and adopted our policy. We do not agree with every detail in their plans, but we agree with the substance. However, I am sorry to hear that some of the Minister’s own MPs are apparently unconvinced, so let me help him. Given that the Government appear to need our votes to pass these ILR changes, we will support them. Will the Minister confirm whether the ILR changes will be made in primary legislation or via the rules? If the Government use primary legislation, that will take some time to pass, by which time the 2021 and 2022 arrivals will have ILR, so we would also support him to pass emergency legislation if he will accept that offer—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call the Minister.

[Alex Norris]

It is a challenge to be lectured on the need for apologies from the architects of the Trussonomics that mean my constituents are paying more on their mortgages month on month. However, we have seen more of that mathematics from the right hon. Gentleman, because he says that spending an average of £158,000 on families in hotel accommodation who now have no right to be here because they have finished making their way through the asylum system is better value than spending £40,000 in order for them to return home and to build their lives again. I am not surprised.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about gangs, but he will know that there has been a record level of interventions—more than 4,000. He talked about our work with the French, but he will know that 40,000 crossings have been prevented. He also mentioned returns. He will know that 60,000 people have been returned under this Government, a 31% increase on his time in the Home Department. He offers criticism, but the only answer that he offers in lieu is to tear up international agreements with no sense of what change that would drive. It would merely set back that returns work and lead us back to years of debate and no action. I will not do that.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned ILR, but of course that was not the nature of the announcement last week. That related to the closing of an important consultation on earned settlement in this country. We will be having those conversations with Parliament, and measures will be laid in the usual way in the weeks and months ahead.

[Alex Norris]

I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to earned settlement. It has always been the case that the immigration rules in force at the point of application, rather than at the point of entry to the country, are the ones that are germane to the conditions an individual has to meet. Nevertheless, she will know that we consulted on what transition protections there could be, and that consultation closed last month. There is an important reality for all colleagues to wrestle with here. In the first five years of this decade we saw unprecedented levels of migration through legal means as a result of the Conservatives’ open borders experiment, which means that one in 30 people in this country came in during that window. That means that those people will become eligible for social housing and other benefits at the same time, which represents a significant challenge to the taxpayer and to public services. Nevertheless, that consultation took place and we will be coming back to respond in the usual way.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is deeply disappointing that these changes were pushed through without an explanation in this Chamber. The same Home Secretary who emphasised the importance of scrutiny from MPs at the Institute for Public Policy Research has denied this House the chance to question her reforms. That is not good enough. Does the Minister think that reviewing each refugee’s status every two and a half years for 20 years will really fix the asylum system? That is estimated to cost £725 million over the next decade, so what plans do the Government have to fund this, and can they give a cast-iron guarantee that it will not cause the asylum backlog to further increase? Taxpayers are paying £6 million a day for asylum hotels—a legacy of the Conservative Government. Will the Minister back Liberal Democrat plans to end the processing through faster claims, such as Nightingale processing centres, or set out their own plan? Finally, will the Government confirm their plan for lifting the ban on asylum seekers working? Why have they chosen a year, not six months?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

We know where these people are working because they came to this country on work visas, so we are clear on where they are. On the assessment, that was the point of the consultation that ended last month. We got more than 200,000 responses—that shows the strength of feeling. We are looking at that in the usual way, and we will come back with our plans after that in the usual way.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

May I quote approvingly the remarks of my constituency neighbour and Labour MP, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White)? She said that if Labour is to win its battle against Reform, it has to do much more on illegal boats. I am sorry that she is not here, but I have warned her that I was going to ask this question. Specifically, she makes the good point that people should only be allowed to claim asylum abroad. If that were the case, surely there is an argument that if people arrived here illegally, they would not be able to claim asylum and would not be covered by the convention, and they could be detained and deported.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

I think we all recognise the absolutely important role that people from outside the UK have played in the NHS for decades. My hon. Friend will know that our proposals set out that working in the NHS and other public services was one proposed way in which people could earn that route to settlement. As I have said to other colleagues, we are looking at the consultation closely. We must understand that there is a real challenge beneath this, and that the immigration rules have always been applied at the point of application, rather than at the point of entry. Nevertheless, I have heard the point that he and other hon. Members have made with vigour.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

Has the Home Office made an assessment of the number of people who will be affected, and of the amount that will be saved, by moving from a statutory duty to support asylum seekers to a discretionary power?

Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing

Debate between Alex Norris and Judith Cummins

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for those questions, and recognise the anger that the hon. Gentleman has conveyed. I am sorry that he heard in the way he did, and of course I will have that meeting with him. It can be difficult to sequence these things correctly; as all colleagues know, we live in an age of misinformation and disinformation, and trying to sequence who hears what and when can be sticky. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman should not have heard in the way he did. The same is true for the hon. Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani), whose duties as Deputy Speaker preclude her from taking part in these proceedings. I recognise the strength of feeling that she has conveyed to me in no uncertain terms about her views and the views of her constituents, and their opposition to these plans. I will continue to engage with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady, and I encourage her local authority also to do so. Again, I recognise the strength of feeling.

Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s other questions, of course the location of the site has been considered. We are looking at all sites in that way; whether it is a hotel or dispersed accommodation, the local context is always considered. I would gently say that both sites have been used recently for the Afghan resettlement scheme, so there is a clear understanding across Government of the capabilities of those sites and their locations.

However, I want to be very clear about what is at stake here. The hon. Gentleman talked about the closure of hotels, and we know that hotels are an exceptionally challenging issue in this country. Too many people come to this country having been sold the dream that they will be housed in a hotel and will be able to work illegally in our economy. Today, we have announced that we have had our best ever year for illegal work raids, with 1,000 people deported as a result, but we have to break the model that says, “You’ll get to live in a hotel and work illegally.” Closing the hotels is a really important part of that work.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Since this Government entered office, the illegal immigration crisis has gotten seriously worse on every front. The number of people arriving in this country illegally is up, and not just by a little bit; arrivals are up by more than 50% compared with the same period before the election. Before the election, the number of migrants staying in hotels had fallen by 47%. It has now gone up, and fewer of the people breaking into this country illegally on a small boat are being removed.

We are now in a position where the Government are putting forward a proposal that, in opposition, they described as “an admission of failure”. The Defence Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), is unable to say whether the plan will save us money or cost us more. We also hear that this proposal will involve accommodation on a site that is directly next to homes provided to the families of our brave armed forces personnel. Have the Government consulted those families about this plan?

All this demonstrates that we need much stronger proposals than the weak efforts the Government are presiding over. That is why we have put forward the borders plan, which goes beyond tinkering with the system. If we want to stop the use of this accommodation, we need to change completely how we approach this problem and ensure that all illegal immigrants are removed within a week. It is a comprehensive plan based on our proposals to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, reform how our asylum system operates, and remove the blockages that have prevented the removal of illegal entrants. It is a proposal that is not only practical, but fair, as those who come to the UK illegally should not be housed at the taxpayer’s expense in ever greater numbers. People need to know that if they break into this country, they will be detained and deported. That is how we will solve this crisis.

I will finish by asking the question we are all wondering: when will the asylum hotels close? Will the Government commit to closing all asylum hotels within a year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

I have studied that report closely. There have been more than a thousand lessons learned from the previous Government’s attempts to solve this issue. We are taking those in hand to make sure we do it right. My hon. Friend talks about the cost. I am pleased that in our time in office we have reduced the cost to the taxpayer of the asylum system by £1 billion, including £500 million across the hotel estate, but it is clear, including from his Committee’s reports, that we have to go further, and that is what we are doing. We are, within the parameters of the contracts we inherited, sweating things. Where there is money to be recouped, we will recoup that for the taxpayer, but it comes back to the fundamental question that if we want to spend less money on this type of activity, we have to have fewer people in the estate. That starts with breaking the attraction that they have to come to this country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

We share the Minister’s concern about the approach of the official Opposition. Clearly, they left us with this mess and now they feign outrage. It appears that this Government’s proposal, sadly, is to decant asylum seekers from one kind of unsuitable and costly accommodation to another. Instead, they should be tackling the real issue: speeding up asylum decisions so that those with no right to stay are returned and those with a valid claim can work, pay tax and integrate.

I will pick up the Minister’s point about the difficulty of sequencing communications. As a Member of Parliament who had an asylum hotel opened in his constituency, I was informed several weeks in advance. I offered a much better alternative form of accommodation somewhere else nearby. As I found out, the Home Office was determined to open a hotel, because that alternative was not taken up. The alternative accommodation would have been more appropriate, and my constituency feels let down.

The Government have promised to end the use of hotels by 2029, yet they have put forward no credible plan to achieve that. The Lib Dems have set out a plan for ending hotel use in just six months by declaring a national emergency and setting up Nightingale processing centres to bring down the backlog. Will the Home Secretary match the Lib Dem plan by declaring that national emergency today? Will the Minister confirm whether the plan that he has put forward means speeding up decisions and returning those with no right to stay, or does it simply mean shifting large numbers of asylum seekers from one form of accommodation to another? Will he share what assessment has been made of the relative merits of Army barracks that are in or next to urban areas, as opposed to those in rural areas? Finally, will he concede that cutting overseas development spending will drive more people away from conflict zones to seek safety in Europe and onward unsafely on to boats in the English channel?

Plan for Neighbourhoods

Debate between Alex Norris and Judith Cummins

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend succinctly expresses the strength of feeling from colleagues today. As I say, we are going into a spending review phase, which may be a good moment for those conversations. I enjoyed the conversation I had with him on the Swanscombe pavilion, and will look to support him in whatever way we can to try to find a solution.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

For the final question, I call John Slinger.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I know that the list of areas is the one the Minister inherited. He gave a truly brilliant statement, which spoke of a stronger community, of pride in place and of the need for thriving communities. I pay tribute to the Minister for visiting Rugby, where he did a walk-around and held a roundtable with me, and saw that our Labour borough councillors—my colleagues—are working hard to achieve all those things, as well as a vibrant community and business sector. I hope the Minister will work with them so that they can learn some of the lessons from this absolutely superb plan for neighbourhoods going forward.