Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we are investing in more trainee legal advisers—108 in the last announcement. He is right: there are issues, particularly in the south-east, with being able to compete with the sorts of salaries that support staff might get beyond the courts. We are looking at that very closely.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Justice Secretary very much for his very positive answers about recruiting magistrates, and about the timescale; that is welcome news. He referred to 90% of cases being dealt with by magistrates in the courts. That means that there are a lot of delays, and those affect victims, who have waited ages—even years—for their case to be heard. Can the Justice Secretary assure us that recruiting more magistrates will mean that the backlog that victims clearly face is addressed? It needs to be addressed; victims need answers.

[Mr Lammy]

First off, I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning victims. For too long in this place, we have tended to focus either on the prosecution side or on defendants, but it is important that we put victims at the centre. That is why we are coming forward with more magistrates. We need that 90% of cases dealt with more swiftly, of course, but court reform is what gets us the entire package. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to support our court reforms over the coming months.

Separation Centres Review

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I was very pleased to say in oral questions that we are turning the tide on the prison capacity crisis that we inherited. In the context of my statement, I talked about a tiered approach—yes, a supermax approach, but on more than one site. As we enter a spending review and I make that case, as well as the case that Jonathan Hall makes, by definition and necessity the places will have to be category A—at the highest tier—for this group of prisoners. It is important, as we saw after the incident at Frankland, that we are able to move prisoners to other high-security sites; we have Belmarsh prison here in London, which I visited early in my post. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; we will need to have those places, and I am happy to write to him with more detail.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his careful words. In Northern Ireland, we operated segregation in our prisons during the troubles, and we found that it was essential to keep those who were able to turn moderates around into fanatics away from the general populace. However, for most of that time, we did not have to wrestle with the ECHR. In matters of national security, we have the right to restrict privileges, such as privacy and the right of assembly. Will the Secretary of State exercise those powers to keep in isolation those whose very presence is dangerous?

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has great experience of staring in the face, and at the consequences of, terrorist and extremist behaviour. It is important that we remain in the ECHR framework and that we bear down on excessive litigation. It is also important that the guidance is clear for the staff who have to work within this framework and that, where we can, we look at capping compensation payments, for example, and other areas. We will continue to review how, staying within the law, we do not create an excessive and unbearable environment for those who have to work there and protect us all.

Prison Capacity: Annual Statement

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

I will write to the hon. Gentleman on his last question—I just do not have the details, and I do not want to mislead him or the House on that particular case. As for high-security prisons, there is an ongoing workstream within the Department to look at the future of that estate, and we will update the House in due course.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. Does he accept that in their rush to free up space, the Government have missed the rehabilitation aspect that is essential to any real reform? How can the Government show prisoners a different way, teach them new skills and give them confidence in their ability to change when sentences are cut regardless of where they are in the rehabilitation process? Bearing in mind that Northern Ireland is similar to England and Wales, reoffending there is significantly higher among those serving short sentences, with approximately 51% of adults released from sentences of less than 12 months reoffending within a year.

[Jake Richards]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He said that there was a rush to free up space —that was because we absolutely had to. If we had not freed up space in our prison system, the criminal justice system would have collapsed, so there definitely was a rush.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned rehabilitation. This Government are absolutely committed to rehabilitation —that is a thread throughout the Sentencing Act, which has just received Royal Assent. Thinking about my diary over the next few weeks, I am going to visit a literacy project in Doncaster and colleges that are linking up with prisons. We have to look at this issue creatively and holistically to make sure we have the services and resources in our prisons to offer educational and work programmes. As I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), there is no point pretending that there are not fiscal pressures in the criminal justice system at the moment. There are, and we have to think a bit creatively and work with partners to overcome those pressures.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I would be grateful if the hon. Lady would let me have a note on the hold-up with that particular complaint. There are delays with Access to Work, reflecting the big surge in demand for it, and that is why we have proposed reform. We have consulted on reform, and we will come back with our proposals quite soon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

6. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help support women who are disproportionately affected by long-term health conditions.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

Through the big shifts in our 10-year health plan, we will ensure that more tests and care are delivered in the community, improving working between services, using greater use of technology to support women who are managing long-term conditions and, crucially, learning from the work led by the pioneering women’s health hubs.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister very much for that answer. Arthritis and other musculoskeletal conditions are the single biggest cause of pain and disability in the UK and one of the most common reasons for workplace absences. This affects women and girls in particular: 60% of those with arthritis in the UK are women, which accounts for some 6 million women across the United Kingdom. Will the Minister work to ensure that musculoskeletal health is included in the next phase of the modern service frameworks, so that the health of women and girls is made a priority?

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that osteoporosis disproportionately affects women and plays a crucial part in absence from the workforce. Baroness Merron, who leads on this work, and I met Charlie Mayfield when he was looking at how to get more women back into the workforce, and we will ensure that women’s health and these sorts of long-term conditions are part of that. I cannot commit to an MSK strategy, but we are absolutely committed to including this in our renewed women’s health strategy.

Sentencing Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is a fine champion of this agenda and for his constituents in Harlow, and as he knows, the Bill does more than just fix the crisis we inherited; it will confront reoffending and keep our communities safe.

As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out during the very first debate on the Bill in this House, it takes us back to the fundamental purpose of sentencing, which is punishment that works. Punishment must work for victims, who deserve to see perpetrators face retribution; it must work for society, which wants criminals to return less dangerous, not more; and it must work to prevent crime. We want better citizens, not better criminals—that is what will deliver safer streets and protection from crime. The Bill will restore victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system. I reiterate that nothing is worse for victims than prisons running out of places and crimes going without punishment, which is the situation we inherited when we came into government in the summer of 2024.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister has outlined very clearly what the Government, and he in particular, are trying to achieve. There is a perception among the general public—this is certainly indicated in the press and the media—that the Government are going to be a bit soft on those who carry out crimes, but I am very much in favour of rehabilitation, as I think is the Minister. Can he please outline what will be done to enable those who leave prison to be rehabilitated and to ensure that they do not reoffend? The rising number of those who reoffend is incredibly worrying.

[Jake Richards]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Over the course of this speech, I will set out what the Government are doing more generally to increase rehabilitation and crack down on reoffending. The hon. Gentleman states that there is a suggestion that this Bill is somehow soft on crime. I say gently to him that by the end of this Parliament, there will be more offenders in prison than ever before, so I completely reject that assertion.

I want to briefly pay tribute to the campaigners who have informed large parts of this piece of legislation and the amendments we are discussing. We are introducing tough restriction zones that limit the movement of offenders instead of the movement of victims. The new restriction zones, which will be given to the most serious offenders on licence and can be imposed by a court, will pin any offender down to a specific location to ensure that victims can move freely elsewhere. This was campaigned for by Diana Parkes and Hetti Barkworth-Nanton, the founders of the Joanna Simpson Foundation. Once again, I pay tribute to them and all those who have campaigned for this crucial change.

Clause 6 introduces a new judicial finding of domestic abuse in sentencing, which will enable probation services to identify abusers early, track patterns of behaviour and put safeguards in place. I must pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats, and in particular to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for his tireless campaigning and willingness to work across parties to deliver this crucial change, which I know all Opposition parties support.

More generally, it is worth remembering that this legislation was carefully drafted as a result of the independent sentencing review led by the former Conservative Justice Secretary, David Gauke. [Hon. Members: “Great man.”] “Great man”, the Conservatives say, but they are voting against every single one of his proposals. I take this opportunity to thank him again for all his work—it was a thorough, comprehensive and excellent piece of work.

We are determined to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible—there is an urgency to this process. I remind the House that alongside this legislation, the Government are building prison places at a faster rate than ever before. In our first year, we opened nearly 2,500 new places, and we are on track to add 14,000 by 2031. In the next four years alone, we will spend £4.7 billion on prison building, but we cannot simply build our way out of the crisis we inherited from the Conservatives. The pressures on the system demand that we reform sentencing, but I remind the House that nothing in the Bill changes sentences for prisoners convicted of the most serious, heinous crimes who are serving extended determinate sentences or life sentences.

The Bill delivers vital reforms to our probation services. We are rebuilding the service that the last Government decimated, increasing investment by up to £700 million by 2028-29—a 45% increase. We are also recruiting; in our first year, we hired 1,000 trainee probation officers, and we are on track to hire 1,300 more this year. At this point, I want to pay tribute to all the hard-working probation officers in our country. They deserve full credit for what they do, and it has been important for us to find the extra resources to put into this service, to grow the numbers and the support available.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s important question, which goes to the heart of exactly what the Bill is about. It is all very well for us to write fancy words on goatskin and ermine, but if we do not change the culture—the aim at the heart of the Bill—this process will have been pointless. We must change the culture, and the legislation is partly about that, but it is also about ensuring that we get the implementation right. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and I are heading to Liverpool next week to see how we can learn from the world-leading work of the University of Liverpool on changing the culture through a duty of candour for public authorities. We are continuing that work at pace; none of it is stopping. We are continuing to work jointly on the Bill’s implementation, and on getting it right once it becomes law, while simultaneously developing the policy. I look forward to updating the House on that work.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I, too, thank the Minister very much for the statement. I also thank the Liverpool MPs, who have worked very hard to achieve balance in the Bill between citizens and the priority status of security agencies. As the Minister said, it is time for the Government to get this right, and that is what we should be doing.

My colleague Paul Frew, a Member of the Legislative Assembly back home, is taking a candour Bill through the Assembly. The obligation must apply across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. May I ask the Minister a favour, if she does not mind? Will she work with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and with my colleague, to ensure that everyone will benefit, no matter whether they are in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

It gives me great pleasure to confirm that, to take this forward, we have had fantastic collaboration with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Government. Everyone has collectively been pursuing the aims of the Bill, which has been a true joy for me as a Member of Parliament from a nation with a devolved Government. All nations have given legislative consent for the criminal offences to apply UK-wide—that is positive. We will bring that amendment forward when the Bill comes back to the Commons. We continue to work collaboratively across the United Kingdom to ensure that a duty of candour applies to all public authorities in the United Kingdom.

Jury Trials

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend makes a number of very important points. There are better ways to handle this situation. I do not pretend that they are simple; they are difficult. They involve getting to the heart of bureaucratic organisations that have been poorly managed and are unaccountable. Let us look at some of the solutions. One, which Brian Leveson mentions in his report, is incentivising early pleas to prevent cases dragging on unnecessarily, for example by ensuring that those accused of offences meet their counsel earlier, so that they get good advice about their likelihood of success or otherwise sooner, and changing the fee structure accordingly to achieve that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for bringing this issue forward. Just to give an example for when he is looking at options, in Northern Ireland we had cause to use Diplock courts on many occasions. In 2023, they were used on 0.8% of occasions. Terrorist trials and serious criminal trials do not have a jury because of intimidation. However, does he agree that our natural sense of justice demands a jury of our peers, that non-jury trials must remain exceptional, and that justice can be served more efficiently by juries, by increasing court dates, and by cutting the number of ineffective trials that waste time—the very thing he has referred to?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes a series of important points. There is something very special about being judged by a group of one’s peers, and about the wisdom of ordinary members of the public coming together. Juries are basically the only opportunity for members of the public to participate in our criminal justice system. That is important and should be preserved. He is right to say that we need to get the courts sitting around the clock. This week alone, 241 sitting days have been missed because of closed courtrooms—241 in three days! Imagine what the figure is over the course of a year.

We must ensure that prisoners arrive at court on time. The present contract is not working properly, which leads to many trials collapsing or suffering unacceptable delays. We need to drastically improve court IT, ending the technical failures that waste hours of court time every week. As I said, we need to provide proper support for the criminal Bar. I welcome the Justice Secretary’s modest intervention the other day to ensure that there are enough advocates to prosecute and defend cases. Those are the bottlenecks that actually drive delays. Bottlenecks are a problem of resources and management, not an inevitable side effect of having citizens weigh evidence. Jury trials are not the problem. We must ensure that we get to the root of the challenge, not get rid of something that we have enjoyed for such a long time.

Let me mention the degree of opposition to the proposal, which my hon. Friends have rightly mentioned. It is important to note the broad opposition of the legal world, where alarm bells are ringing about the policy. The Law Society, which represents thousands of solicitors, calls it an “extreme measure” that goes too far and fundamentally changes how our justice system operates. Its president, Mark Evans, warns that the plan goes further than the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson’s review of efficiency, and is not backed by evidence that it will solve the backlog. The Bar Council, which represents barristers, has been equally clear that it sees

“no basis for altering the structure of the court system”

in this way, and warns that limiting the right to a jury trial strikes at a core citizen’s right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Online misogyny radicalises our boys, pressures our girls, and fuels harmful attitudes. It must be tackled in order to protect all our children. The Government are acting through tougher laws, including the Online Safety Act 2023, and our upcoming violence against women and girls strategy will protect children from harm online. Prevention is fundamental, so we are supporting schools to teach children about respect, consent and healthy relationships. I can inform the House that the Secretary of State for Education is in Australia right now learning about the model used over there to see how we can best learn lessons from it and apply them here.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is quite clear that it is important that we all work together across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Indeed, we should take that a stage further and work together with the Republic of Ireland to ensure that we both can combat online misogyny. What discussions has the Minister had with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly on how we can do that work better in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The hon. Gentleman will know that these crimes have no borders, especially online misogyny crimes. They do not take place in a silo, and it will take all of us to tackle them, including those of us in the England and Wales jurisdiction of the criminal justice system and those across our devolved counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland—and, as he states, in the Republic of Ireland too. We regularly meet with our counterparts to discuss these issues, and no stone will be left unturned when it comes to tackling misogyny.

Cammell Laird Workers’ Imprisonment: Public Inquiry

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I also attended the 2023 debate in Westminster Hall with her and other Members, and I fully support the campaign. During the earlier statement on resident doctors, she referred to standing on a picket line. Like her, I have stood on the picket line along with nurses and others in Newtownards on many occasions.

The imprisonment and removal of redundancy packages would not normally occur in any instance where a workforce had decided to strike, and many of these workers never regained stable employment. Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a case to be answered in terms of the regaining of finance, and that more must be done to seek justice for the 37 workers who still suffer today and have not had justice?

[Kim Johnson]

I totally agree: justice does need to be served, and the 37 have been affected because of the financial demands put on them because of the action they took. They were striking workers, not criminals, and they should never have gone to prison.

I pay tribute to Paul Heron and Clare Lash-Williams, who are providing legal advice for the campaign, with the intention to launch a successful legal appeal against the original charges. I also thank GMB union for its support; I look forward to its continued support going forward.

In 1984, faced with sweeping redundancies and the decline of the shipbuilding industry, workers at Cammell Laird occupied their workplace, including a gas rig and a Royal Navy frigate, to resist job losses and defend their livelihoods and communities. Management’s response, backed by the Government at the time, was swift and very heavy-handed. The workers were threatened with dismissal, the loss of their redundancy payment, and even police intervention. They were deliberately targeted to send a warning to others—an attempt by the state to break industrial action and demoralise workers taking strike action across the country.

The workers reluctantly agreed to end their occupation in September 1984 after weeks, when their water supply was cut off. They were immediately arrested for failing to turn up to court for an earlier judicial review hearing. They were convicted in their absence and sent to Walton jail, Merseyside’s category A high-security prison. Their appeal at the High Court in October 1984 was presided over by Lord Lawton, who had been a member of Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists, had visited Hitler in the 1930s and had been selected to run for Parliament. He was a long-standing enemy of the trade union movement and would have been only too happy to uphold the unprecedented 30-day prison sentence for contempt of court, a grossly disproportionate punishment.

The whole case stinks of an establishment stitch-up. There were plenty of similar cases at the time, throughout the movement. Not even the National Union of Mineworkers leader, Arthur Scargill, was imprisoned, despite being convicted of the same charge. The only comparable case of an imprisonment of a large group of workers due to a national dispute was the Shrewsbury 24, and 47 years later, their convictions have finally been overturned by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

When the 37 were charged with contempt of court and sent to a high-security prison, Liverpool city council was locked in a fierce battle with the Thatcher Government of the time over a £30 million cut to funding from central Government, after the Government deemed the council to have set an illegal budget. The council remained defiant, adopting the mantra. “We would rather break the law than break the poor.” More than anything, the council focused on building council homes and creating jobs—work unmatched by any other authority at the time. That was the political environment with which the Cammell Laird 37 had to contend.

The workers fought proudly not only for their jobs, but for the future of the shipyard. Their only crime—if it can be called a crime—was defending their livelihood. The strikers ensured that there was absolutely no damage to any property during their occupation. They even allowed Ministry of Defence inspectors into the occupation to inspect a frigate and to carry out maintenance work. Were they criminals? No. They were responsible trade union members, carrying out legitimate action at their own workplace, and respecting the property of which they were in control. For that, they were incarcerated in prison for 30 days.

The Justice for the Cammell Laird 37 campaign resonates deeply with my constituents in Liverpool Riverside, and with people across Merseyside. The 37 are widely considered to be heroes for standing up to Thatcher’s policies of managed decline, which destroyed our industries and decimated our communities. Their struggle took place against the backdrop of the broader union fight-backs, and parallel injustices, such as Orgreave and Hillsborough, in which ordinary people paid the price for fighting back against a Government hellbent on crushing working-class communities. Four decades later, the fight for justice continues. Sadly, half of the 37 have died while waiting for their names to be cleared. Action is needed now to ensure that the surviving workers receive justice, because justice delayed is justice denied.

I grew up in Liverpool during the Thatcher years. The neo-liberal policies enforced on our city would define us for years to come. Liverpool in the 1980s was highly dependent on the docks for work. We suffered unemployment rates of almost 50%. Our communities were deeply aware that the fight for jobs was not just about improving the current situation, but about preserving jobs and workplaces for generations to come. Thatcher’s privatisation drive resulted in British shipbuilders going from employing 62,000 workers in 1982 to just 5,000 workers five years later. In Merseyside alone, we lost 34,000 manufacturing jobs between 1978 and 1981 due to Thatcher’s policy of managed decline. It was this hollowing out of industry that these workers were trying to defeat. They deserve full recognition and gratitude for the struggle they waged, and an apology for the disgraceful way that they were treated.

The Justice for the Cammell Laird 37 campaign, like the campaigns on the Shrewsbury 24 and the miners’ strike, and so many other union struggles of the time, goes to the very heart of how Thatcher’s Government responded to workers who dared to stand up for themselves. I remember the police brutality inflicted on striking miners at Orgreave, followed by lies and cover-ups by politicians, the police and the media. I am proud that this Labour Government have now committed to a full inquiry into Orgreave. It follows logically that there should be a public inquiry into the jailing of Cammell Laird workers—a miscarriage of justice with many obvious parallels. However, the priority must be releasing the Government papers to help the legal team clear the names of the 37.

There is no doubt that this was a major miscarriage of justice, sanctioned at the highest levels of Government. No other industrial action resulted in so many men being sent to prison. The 30-day sentence was grossly unfair; by the time the men were released, they had lost their jobs, workplace rights, redundancy payments, and pension payments. Research by the GMB shows that at least one of the men could have lost £120,000 or more. Some were blacklisted for many years and struggled to find work afterwards, causing immense suffering and economic hardship. For that reason, we believe that there should be a public inquiry.

The limited records from the National Archives and Thatcher’s private papers demonstrate that Ministers were determined to privatise the building of warships, cut the number of shipbuilding yards, and sell off the remainder of the state-owned yards. The Cammell Laird 37 knew that was what they were up against—a Government hellbent on privatisation at any cost. It is that systemic and ideologically driven undermining of the British shipbuilding industry by a group of Ministers determined to drive through the complete privatisation of British shipbuilders, regardless of the wider economic and social consequences, which warrants a public inquiry, so that the 37 and all those impacted can understand why the treatment they received was so uniquely punitive and destructive.

A public inquiry is not merely symbolic; it is essential. It is crucial to understand how and why a Government acting through Ministers and the court imposed such punitive measures on ordinary citizens for exercising their right to industrial action. We call for the actions of Ministers from the time to be investigated, and for all the remaining records to be made public. That includes the Ministry of Defence and British Gas contracts, and any Crown Estate leases relevant for a future appeal. Following a GMB campaign almost a decade ago, the European Parliament committee on petitions called on the UK Government to release all relevant papers, but that has never been actioned. More importantly, we want a formal Government apology to these workers.

The legal team believes that the court was given inaccurate information at the time of the initial prosecutions, and that the workers may not have been lawfully dismissed. It argues that Cammell Laird may have had no legal standing to bring the claims that led to the injunctions, and that the occupation may have occurred on land that was not under the company’s control. These claims are groundbreaking, and, with the help of the Minister, we can ensure that the campaign’s legal team has access to the appropriate documentation to finally bring about justice for the 37.

During the 2023 Westminster Hall debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), the Justice Minister at the time stated that

“this Department has conducted extensive searches of its records and those in the court and prison systems.”

He also confirmed that he understood that

“nothing has been found in relation to the Cammell Laird strike action or the strikers themselves.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2023; Vol. 727, c. 301WH.]

He stated that other Departments, including the Cabinet Office, Home Office and the then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, confirmed that they “do not believe” they hold any relevant records, which I find quite astounding. However, the Cammell Laird campaigners believe that an exhaustive search has not been undertaken. Papers must exist relating to the closure, and every effort should be made to identify and release them.

Restriction of Jury Trials

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that announcement has been made first to the House.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answers. Rape victims must be paramount in all that happens. Rape and sexual assault trials are already lengthy and very emotional for victims. Juries signal a public perception of justice, and highlight the importance of the community and the average person. What assessment has been made of the impact that judge-only trials can have on the victims of rape, and what steps will be taken to ensure that judge-only trials do not feel less empowering, because this step could increase victim attrition with victims feeling that they do not have the support of the public?

[Sarah Sackman]

Let me make it very clear that for the offence of rape there will always be a jury trial. That was made clear in our proposals last week.