Courts and Tribunals Bill

Sarah Russell Excerpts

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I will be starting wind-ups at 5.52 pm, so for the last two minutes, I call Sarah Russell.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my declaration of interests: I am a solicitor. I continue to have two concerns about the Bill as drafted, and I am very grateful to the Government for changing their position on clause 3. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), who said that the right to elect is being abused and probably is not critical, but there are two things that are.

First, I support amendment 70 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) on the importance of the extension of legal aid in the magistrates court. As solicitors, we have a saying: the lawyer who represents themselves has a fool for a client. As solicitors, we do not attempt to represent ourselves, even in our areas of interest—I have given employment law advice to an employment lawyer. Yet we expect lay people to go into the magistrates court with sentencing powers of now up to two years with no legal advice and representation. When the Justice Committee asked what evaluation had been made of the impact on unrepresented litigants in person on the Crown court backlog, the answer from the MOJ was that no evaluation had been done. I feel strongly that we need to look at that as one of the causes of delay.

The second matter I want to draw attention to is that sentences under the unduly lenient sentence scheme only apply in the Crown court. When we double the magistrates courts’ potential sentencing powers to two years, we will take very large numbers of offences out of the purview of the unduly lenient sentence scheme overnight. Fear of domestic violence, stalking involving fear of violence, coercive and controlling behaviour, and many first-time sexual offences will be likely to attract sentences of less than two years. They will be heard in the magistrates court, and if those sentences are unduly lenient, there will be nothing that we can do about it.

[Sarah Sackman]

We live in an era of problem solving, not point scoring. Indeed, as the Courts Minister, that has always been my focus. There is no bigger challenge in my portfolio than the unacceptable—indeed, intolerable—delays in our criminal courts, and that has always been the approach. To do politics is ultimately to make choices, and the choices we have made as a Government are around the action that is needed to reform, invest in and modernise our criminal justice system, so that it is fit for purpose.

I always enjoy the oratory of the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox)—I am sorry that he is not here—who talked about our ancient rights. Magna Carta is absolutely clear:

“to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.”

That is a recognition that timeliness is an essential ingredient of the thing that the state must guarantee: a fair trial. A trial that arrives for a victim today in 2029 or 2030 is not fair on the victim or defendant alike.

It was said that we should try to invest. Well, we have done that. We have lifted the cap on sitting days and made record investment in legal aid and in our court estate. It was said that we should look at the Liverpool model, and I have been to Liverpool; it is indeed an excellent model, and we are entrenching many of those practices in the new national listing framework in the introduction of case progression officers. It was said that we should make prison vans run on time, and we are pulling out the stops to do just that, asking local authorities, Transport for London and others to open up bus lanes, while ensuring that PECS actually does its job. Those on the Opposition Benches say, “Nightingale courts” and “Let’s work longer days,” but they do not recognise the fact that the court day does not start at 10 am or 10.30 am. As we know, judges and barristers are working around the clock and around the court day to prepare cases and get the show on the road. We cannot ignore the conclusion of the independent review of the criminal courts: there is no single solution. There needs to be investment and modernisation—and we are doing both those things—but there also needs to be structural reform.

I thank Members across the House for their valuable contributions, which have raised some really important themes that I want to address. The first is the impact that these changes will have on our magistrates courts, which was raised by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), who talked so credibly about the contribution of her father as a magistrate. Those who act as magistrates and volunteer their time do an incredible job. They bring local voices—lay voices—into our justice system, which is incredibly precious.

It is right that we are challenged and held accountable for whether we are increasing capacity in the magistrates courts to absorb the additional work, and indeed we are. Whether it is our recruitment drive for 21,000 magistrates—not an unrealistic one, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) put to me, but a credible one to get back to where we were as recently as 2014, and I am pleased to report to the House that we are on track—or the recruitment of an additional 166 legal advisers since April 2025 and an additional 100 district judges, that is what I mean when I say we are rebuilding our justice system from the bottom up. The impact on the magistrates courts is important, and we are increasing capacity.

The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) made a really good point about training. The Judicial College is working overtime to ensure that magistrates and district judges alike are trained, so that they are able to exercise the sentencing powers that this Bill will give them.

The second excellent point that was made was about allocation and whether trials should be heard in the magistrates court or the Crown court. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and I have had our differences in the course of this debate, but I have always respected his voice, and I have always listened. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North made a similar point about the allocation process. Let me be clear: the exercise that we are committing to in this Bill is the same that has always existed in primary legislation, whereby the court will look at allocation guidelines published by the Sentencing Council. Sentencing and likely sentence is a relevant factor, but so too is hearing representations from both sides—the prosecution and the defence, the prosecution being able to bring in the victim’s perspective—on not just the likely sentence but the seriousness and complexity of the case at hand. Given the procedural, legal and factual complexity and any aggravating factors, that holistic exercise will determine where a case should be heard, so that the determining factor is the seriousness of the case, rather than the identity of the defendant.

The next point that was forcefully and well made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North and for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and others was in relation to legal aid, and new clauses 18 and 70. There is no greater champion of access to justice and the importance of legal aid than this Government and myself. I am a powerful advocate for legal aid, not least because I saw at first hand—when I was in practice, before coming to this place—the vital role it plays in our justice system. That is precisely why one of the first steps that I took as a Minister was to invest in our criminal legal aid system, with £116 million for criminal solicitors and an additional £34 million for criminal legal aid advocates. That investment is important, but it will not go all the way, and I recognise that. That is why we need to review the support that we give to unrepresented defendants in our magistrates courts or, indeed, in the Crown court in the rare cases where that arises. As I said in our response to the Leveson review, we will look again at those thresholds once these reforms have been embedded.

I am sorry that I have to be very brief, but I want to address new clause 22 in relation to police accountability. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) will be aware—as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) will be—that there is currently a case before the Supreme Court relating to this matter, so he will understand that the Government have to carefully consider the outcome of that before giving a full response to the issue raised around police accountability.

I want to conclude by returning to what I said about the removal of the right to elect. This Bill is designed to bring down the backlog and to deliver timely justice, but it is also about building a better and fairer system—one in which the court triages cases, not the defendant. That is about redressing the balance of power between defendant and victim. It is also about making improvements to open justice by enhancing transparency and expanding the use of transcripts; improving the laws of evidence; and improving training for our court staff and judiciary by having trauma-informed training, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) implored us to do.

To govern is to choose. We are making that choice. In the Courts and Tribunals Bill, we will deliver not only timely justice but a fairer justice system that puts what has been the pride of the world—the English and Welsh justice system—back on its feet.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 23 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Criminal Justice Reform

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

It is a really significant change. What I am about to say is not just about restriction zones, but it is really important that I say it. Traditionally, victims and survivors have lived their lives around the licence conditions of their perpetrator. We need to flip that, and restriction zones give us that chance. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is here on the Front Bench, which is very helpful, because she built this system out. That is the change that we want to see to ensure that victims are living full lives.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

The Lord Chancellor has inherited an absolute mess in the prison system, and I feel heart sorry for him trying to balance the needs of victims with the need for justice and the need to manage the prison estate in a meaningful way. Exclusion zones could be absolutely transformative in enabling victims to live their lives going forward, but it is contingent on the tagging service being effective. At the moment, people and particularly victims would assume that if someone breaches their tag restriction zone, at the very least their probation officer would be automatically informed, but the IT does not function in that way. When will that be in place?

[Alex Norris]

The technology is rapidly improving, as is compliance. There are other points of failure, such as people not getting tags. That is why that presumption helps, as does tagging in prison. I was with staff on Friday and I was tagged, as colleagues may have seen. I have to say it worked very effectively in that case. We are absolutely resolute that it must work. That is why we are putting this effort and investment in.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Catherine Atkinson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the time she has spent with me in raising this and other issues. Under our proposed expansion, multiple family members will be able to receive non-means-tested legal help to prepare for an inquest hearing where a public authority is an interested person, and that includes help with preparing documents to send to the inquest. Increasing the number of legal representatives when it comes to advocacy is an area of some concern. Inquests are fact-finding proceedings designed to determine the circumstances of a death, and we would hope that, in general, one legally aided advocate would be sufficient to support each family through an inquest hearing. However, we have heard her concerns, and I hope for her assistance in continuing to look at the issue as the Bill progresses. [Interruption.]

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I will—my hon. Friend assists me in finding my place in my notes again, so I thank her.

[Sarah Russell]

My hon. Friend is most welcome. I am grateful for all the amendments that the Government have tabled, but I remain concerned that the current civil legal aid rate is £40 an hour. She has referred to security-vetted counsel. Is it likely that security-vetted counsel will be prepared to work for £40 an hour, when those of us who have done legal aid work know that, frankly, half the work that we do is unremunerated?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Minister responds, I just point out that many colleagues wish to contribute to the debate, so I hope she is coming to her conclusion soon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Prime Minister said this was going to be one of his first acts as Prime Minister; it turns out it is going to be his final act as Prime Minister. He is only doing it by the skin of his teeth, because he is presenting a proposal to the House that none of us got to see even this weekend, and those who had been drawn into the consultation process and had been privately consulted say that this bears no relation at all to what they have been shown, even very recently. The Government are clearly doing this on the hoof, and it is very worrying.

It is no exaggeration to say that some of those people who may be appointed to lead investigations and inquiries might be influenced or pressured by those whose purpose is the destruction of the British state and British sovereignty itself.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

The people who lead these inquiries are leading public figures and have usually held significant judicial office. Is the hon. Member honestly suggesting that they are going to be successfully pressured by people who want to destroy the British state?

[Nick Timothy]

I am tempted to say that the hon. Lady should have a conversation with the Attorney General, who used to prosecute British soldiers and was still appointed to one of the highest offices in the land.

Irish republicans, Islamist extremists, useful idiots deployed by Putin’s Russia—they will all see the opportunity in this law, as we know they have seen the opportunity in examples of lawfare fought elsewhere, including Northern Ireland. These are known unknowns, but there are also unknown unknowns. [Interruption.] There is an additional risk that the security services will be tied up in court cases, thanks to differing interpretations of the legislation, or that the scope of the Bill and the information that must be disclosed will be widened over time. I can hear sighs and complaints from Government Members, but they do not seem to understand that new laws—especially when they are to be taken in balance with existing laws—are tested in the courts, and their interpretation widens. That is a fact, and it is one of the concerns expressed by the intelligence agencies, the police and others. If Government Members think they are above listening to those people, I am very sorry about that.

There are questions, too, about the role of investigations and inquiries set up by the devolved Governments, including in Northern Ireland. I was alarmed by the Minister’s earlier answer to a question about the need to reveal information about intelligence agency sources in that context. These are the reasons that my party proposes an amendment, informed in part by the Government’s own proposed amendment back in January, to give control of secret material back to service leaders, who are rightly then accountable to elected Ministers, in not only the intelligence services but the armed forces, the National Crime Agency and counter-terrorism policing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

Before I speak to the Government’s new clauses and amendments, which ensure that there is no carve-out from the duty of candour for the intelligence and security services, I put on record my utmost respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and all my hon. and right hon. Friends who have been relentless in pushing this Bill forward. However, it is the Hillsborough families and campaigners, who have fought doggedly through their pain and heartache, who deserve all our respect. In memory of their loved ones, through their courage and refusal to be silenced or ground down, they have fundamentally changed the relationship between the state and the public, ensuring the services that are there to protect and serve us are always accountable.

There is something deeply wrong in our country that caused us to need to legislate for these services to tell the truth, and to face criminal sanctions if they do not. Telling the truth should have always been their position, not something that they were forced to do. The rest of us face reprisals for not telling the truth. At the very least, we should expect that from the state.

Chloe and Liam, the children of my dear friends and constituents, Lisa and Mark Rutherford and Caroline Curry, were killed in the Manchester terror attack. They sat through utterly agonising years, months, days and hours of inquiry hearings, which revealed that MI5 had not given an accurate picture of the key intelligence held on their children’s murderer. The chairman of the public inquiry also found that MI5 missed a significant opportunity to take action that might have prevented the attack. Lisa, Mark and Caroline were signatories to the Hillsborough Law Now campaign letter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister earlier this year. That letter says:

“Despite MI5 lying to a public inquiry in this way, no one has been held to account. This lack of accountability needs to change. Creating a full duty of candour responsibility on MI5, MI6 and GCHQ is the clearest route to creating this change.”

The letter went on to say:

“Every security and intelligence officer should be required to tell the truth, and the leaders of the organisations should also bear full responsibility.”

That is absolutely right, and I am relieved today that the Government have listened.

Caroline, Lisa and Mark are not in the Gallery today. They told me that they feel that by not being here, they are letting their children down. They are not. Their loved ones will know that they, like everyone who has fought so hard and has been involved in getting us here today, have never, ever given up. They have fought with every breath, every single minute of every day since their loved ones were so brutally taken from them. This law will not be retrospective; it cannot right past wrongs. However, it will send a very clear signal to the state, and in doing so will instil a culture in which the truth, not the cover-up, is the primary focus. This is so important for everyone who is fighting for justice—the nuclear veterans, Chinook, Grenfell, the Post Office scandal, the infected blood scandal, the covid-19 bereaved families, and many others.

As MPs in this place, it is now our job to make sure that this Bill becomes an Act, to make sure that every single word of it is fully adhered to, and that the people we represent are never again treated in such a despicable way. In a democracy like ours, truth and justice should never have taken decades; it should never have been this hard, this relentless or this painful. It is a real honour to have met all those involved with the Hillsborough law campaign, although I wish I had met them under different circumstances. I thank all of them. We all owe them, and I sincerely hope that now they have got Parliament to this stage, they are able to find some small element of peace.

[Sarah Russell]

I join my many colleagues in paying tribute to the Hillsborough families—those in the Gallery today, and those who, for very understandable reasons, felt that they could not be here. Your quest for justice is truly inspirational to all of us, and I thank you so very much for your perseverance and everything you have done. I do not doubt that it will make the country a better place.

Many people have raised concerns about the duty of candour in this legislation, and its application to the security services. I am sure that when the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) raised this issue in the Chamber, he did so in good faith, but no one who has raised those concerns has been able to point to any case in which the existing law protecting the security services and the secret information that they hold has actually failed, or to any problems resulting from the existing arrangements. Those concerns seem to be entirely hypothetical. Giving the security services a huge carve-out from the duty of candour when there were known problems with, for example, the evidence given to the inquiry on the Manchester Arena bombing seems completely unsustainable and unreasonable. There is literally no evidence to suggest that this Bill presents any risk to national security. I join my colleagues in saying that if there were evidence to suggest that the existing arrangements had ever failed us, many of us would think again about the drafting of this Bill, as it has been presented by the Government. We would all put the country first, but I cannot see anything that should prevent this law from going ahead as drafted.

It is so important to get to the truth, and I hope that the duty of candour will help to move things forward significantly. We owe it to the Hillsborough families, and the many families affected by the many other disasters that we sadly hear about too often in this place, to ask the other question: what comes next? That is why I rise to speak in support of new clauses 5 and 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), through which he calls for a national oversight mechanism that follows up on the actions taken by public authorities in response to the conclusions and recommendations of inquests and inquiries. We must get to the truth, and we must have recommendations on how to avoid future catastrophes, disasters and unnecessary risk, but we then have to do something to stop those things happening again.

At the moment, prevention of future death reports and inquiry reports are all too often not followed up—or not followed up consistently across the board. All too often, including after the Ockenden report and the maternity scandals, systemic change has not followed from inquiry recommendations, despite the considerable resources and effort put in by individuals to improve systems. We think about justice for the Hillsborough families, the Grenfell families and many other families who have sadly lost loved ones in terrible circumstances, but we must make sure that we bring into play the mechanisms that ensure proper follow-up after all these disasters. We must follow through on inquiry outcomes, and ensure that the right mechanisms are in place.

I thank very much everyone who has worked to get us to where we are today—the many families, but also the Members of Parliament who have worked across party and for a great deal of time on bringing this legislation forward. Let us keep this work going.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

It is a true privilege to have been present for this debate, and to have heard some of the most incredible contributions that I have ever heard in this place.

I will be mercifully brief. I recognise that it is to the Prime Minister’s considerable credit that he has fulfilled his manifesto commitment and got the Bill to this point within a year of his remarks at the Labour party conference in Liverpool last year. I also put on record my recognition of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) for his persistent work on this subject for many years. Principally, however, it is the families of Hillsborough victims, the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, Pete Weatherby KC, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and many others who have to be recognised for not letting the matter rest, and for their tireless determination to get us to where we are today. We must not forget the Manchester Arena victims, the Grenfell families, the Chinook families, the contaminated blood families, the British nuclear test veterans, and all those who have been part of this campaign.

The duty of candour on the NHS did not deliver for the families of my constituents Christie Harnett, Nadia Sharif and Emily Moore, and many others who died in the scandal at the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys mental health trust. I have welcomed confirmation of a public inquiry, and the information that applications have been received to chair it, but families need that inquiry to be up and running. I hope that the Health Secretary can progress that urgently this summer.

We are being asked to support dozens of Government amendments today that were tabled with little notice, and without our having been able to scrutinise them in detail, but I am led by the families to support those amendments. I recognise the calls for oversight and monitoring mechanisms, such as those set out in new clause 5, tabled by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), and in new clause 1, by my old friend and doughty campaigner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). Those measures would assure us that the new Government amendments will function effectively and, among other things, allow us to hold to account police officers and members of the armed forces and the security services, as we are led to believe.

I sense that many Members across this House would like to hear more from our Front Benchers about commitments made to ensuring oversight and monitoring. Perhaps the Minister can address that when she responds to the debate. The expectation of honesty and transparency is not, and never can be, a threat to national security. Will the Minister set out how the application of the duty of candour and the prevention of carve-outs will be applied to the work of the Northern Ireland Legacy Commission, which is being established by the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill? Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the Government will table amendments to that Bill, or can otherwise provide guarantees that the measures in the Bill cover the families who have suffered so much in Northern Ireland.

The common characteristics of these appalling human tragedies are the most unimaginable trauma, pain and grief, and the demands are the same. They are for truth, justice and accountability, and today provides the means to deliver on those demands. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member from Liverpool, West Derby: if anything tells us why we come to this place to change the country for the better, surely it is what we are doing today, and I very much welcome this landmark legislation.

Home Office and Ministry of Justice

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The Crown court backlog is the most significant challenge facing the Ministry of Justice. Long delays in cases reaching trial undermine confidence in the whole justice system. I welcome the extra money that the Government have made available to increase the number of sitting days of the Crown court. I also welcome the additional funding to improve the physical condition of our courts and to invest in improved IT systems to make our courts run more efficiently.

While the Government are right to take those steps, I am concerned that they are wasting time, effort and money in curtailing the rights of British citizens to a jury trial. This reform has been presented as a necessary step to improve the efficiency of the courts. However, evidence suggests the contrary. The Government are aware of analysis by criminal justice researchers that indicates that the entire package of Government reforms will save no more than 8% of Crown court time. More striking still, the introduction of judge-only trials is likely to deliver a saving of just 1.5% to 2.5%. That is a marginal efficiency gain compared with the curtailing of our citizens’ rights to a jury trial, and it does not take into account the potential wasted time in determining whether a trial is to be held in a magistrates court or the new Crown court bench division.

I have previously asked the Lord Chancellor to set out the evidence to show how much of the backlog will be cut by his reduction of jury trials, but I have not received a meaningful reply, so I must conclude that he is either unwilling or unable to provide a response. The Labour party has proven of late that it is willing to dispense with the unpopular and the ineffectual, so I hope it will take the same approach to unpopular and ineffectual policy as it does to personnel. I hope that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) and his new Lord Chancellor will drop this dreadful policy.

If the Government are serious about reducing delays, perhaps their focus should be on addressing why workers in the Ministry of Justice take more days off sick than workers in any other Whitehall Department. The average MOJ employee took 10.7 days’ sickness in 2024-25; that is 30% higher than the civil service average, and double the average in the private sector. The Minister needs to get her Department in order.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member have any figures disaggregating prison officers from the remainder of MOJ staff? Obviously, their working lives are very different.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I do not believe that information was provided, certainly not when it was presented to me, but if the hon. Lady has it, no doubt she will send it to me.

Jury trials and staff absence are not the only areas where the Government are focusing on the wrong issue; a similar problem emerges in the management of our prisons. The Government seem to believe that recklessly releasing many thousands of criminals early will address the crisis of overcrowding, instead of investing in measures to ensure that they do not reoffend. I fear that releasing so many criminals so early in their sentences risks a wave of reoffending in the future.

It is well established that when prisoners engage in meaningful educational or vocational courses, there are sizeable reductions in reoffending. More than 50% of adult prisoners have the literacy skills of an 11-year-old or lower; knowing this, one might think that the Government would seek to address the problem. The earned progression model should surely ensure that participation in education and training is compulsory to secure the very early releases that the Government are proposing. Instead, this Government are choosing to reduce the provision of prison education, astonishing though that might seem.

That is of huge concern, because investment in prison education is cost-effective. Research in 2018 showed that the economic benefits of lower reoffending and higher levels of employment after release outweighed the costs of prisoner education by a ratio of 5:1. In this instance, the problem is not that the budget has been cut, but that the cost of supplying that education has risen so significantly that the volume of core education delivered this year will be cut by 20% to 25%. Instead of addressing why those costs have increased or exploring more competitive and flexible commissioning models to incorporate smaller providers, the Government’s response has been to cut provision. That is short-sighted. If the MOJ is so poor at entering into contracts, may I recommend to the Minister that that budget is entirely devolved to prison governors? I believe they would be better at bringing together local businesses to provide the education they need for the prisoners in their care. It would certainly be better than paying Serco, Capita or whoever £100 million a year to deliver less education each year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I thank the Government for the considerable progress that has been made on criminal legal aid and other matters within the estimates since we have taken office. The courts system, as we have heard, was in the most dilapidated and decrepit state, and we had a dearth of judge recruitment between 2010 and 2018. The net result was that the entire justice system was on its knees. In that context, the 10% uplift in legal aid expenditure over two years was long overdue.

I will ask the Minister a couple of questions. There have been significant problems with the Legal Aid Agency’s IT systems. Those problems are increasingly in hand, but it appears from House of Commons Library papers that there is a 75% reduction in capital spend at the Legal Aid Agency over the coming period. It is not clear to me whether that reporting is accurate or perhaps not right, because there is a proposal to spend significant money on the Legal Aid Agency’s IT systems, and I do not see how that would not fit within the capital estimates. It would be helpful if the Minister could report back, either today or to the Justice Committee subsequently, on how that has come about. The disparity seems extremely large.

The entire system is still creaking heavily. In an environment in which we know that there may have to be further cuts to other Departments to fund the defence investment that is required, we must remember that the Ministry of Justice has experienced cuts not just since 2010, but since 1997. Legal aid rates have gone up by £1 an hour since 1997, with the exception of the areas that the Government have put up—it is only some of them—since we took office. The result is that legal aid in general is in hugely difficult circumstances, and we see the net effect of that in the number of people representing themselves in the courts.

I have asked in Justice Committee sittings whether there has been an evaluation of the impact on court backlogs of unrepresented litigants in person. I have asked what assessment has been made of the difference they make to trial times in the criminal and civil courts, and therefore the potential implications for the backlogs in those courts. At the moment, the backlog stands at 350,000 in the magistrates court, and the figure is commonly reported to be 80,000 for the Crown court.

The MOJ has not been able to give us those figures, and it cannot say that that assessment has been done. It is speculative to suggest that people not having a lawyer—and large numbers of them do not—is increasing the courts backlog, because we just do not have the figures. In an environment in which every penny counts, and in which spending that money extremely efficiently is vital, it seems a significant omission not to have at least reviewed whether moving up the criteria for entitlement to legal aid significantly might change the dimensions of the court backlog, as all of us want to see.

The nature of the current entitlement is that someone with a total household income of £37,000 or more in the Crown court—they could be facing trial for rape or all kinds of serious offences—would not be entitled to legal aid. I think most members of the public would be shocked that if they were accused of a crime of that gravity, they would get no legal aid if their household income—potentially from two adults—came to more than that. In 1970, about 28 million people in this country were eligible for legal aid. The figure today would be infinitely smaller.

I completely accept that we cannot simply flood money into a system when we do not have that money and when it would not be responsible. There is also the risk that we create waste if we suddenly flush money into a system not set up to accommodate it. I understand why the Government are taking a staged approach, but I should like us to ensure that we are exploring all the potential ways of reducing the Crown court backlog. At present there are some contentious proposals on the table, some of which I do not support. It is pleasing to note that Andy Burnham—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The right hon. Member for Makerfield.

[Sarah Russell]

Many thanks, Madam Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) suggested in December that this might be worth looking at again, and many of us in all parts of the House would be grateful for such an approach.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Sarah Russell Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter]

Not yet; I am conscious of the time.

The removal of the right to elect for either way offences in clause 1 is the single most significant measure in reducing the caseload of the Crown court, with the Bill’s impact assessment indicating that that change will see 16,000 fewer sitting days in the Crown court each year.

In clause 6, the Government propose to increase the maximum sentencing power of the magistrates court to 18 months. We are told that will save a further 8,000 sitting days in the Crown court. Taken together, those two measures—ending election and extending magistrates’ powers—represent a sizeable shift of the caseload out of the Crown court and into the magistrates court. That will deliver on the main objective of these reforms, which is to ensure the capacity of the Crown court to try the most serious criminal cases in a fair and timely manner. There has been less scrutiny on how magistrates will cope with their new responsibilities; I will deal with that in a moment.

Clauses 3 to 5—the provisions that have attracted the most debate—will establish the Crown court bench division to enable cases with a likely sentence of three years or less to be tried on indictment without a jury. Clause 4 will allow trial by judge alone for some complex and lengthy cases. Compared to the other measures in part 1 of the Bill, those will have a less significant effect on the backlog, but a still substantial 5,000 Crown court days will be saved.

I accept the Government’s argument that there is a strong case for modernising how the Crown court operates. Some improvement will be achieved through adopting the measures on efficiency set out in part 2 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review, or the additional resources promised under the concordat with the Lady Chief Justice that will remove restrictions on court sitting days, but those are unlikely to be enough on their own. Given the crisis that the criminal courts are facing, I am willing to support the creation of the Crown court bench division and the other measures in part 1 of the Bill.

I do not accept the case made by some that the proposals represent the end for jury trial and that the Bill should be opposed on that basis. Of the 3% of criminal cases that currently go before a jury, about a third—some 4,000—of the less serious of those offences, such as possession of class A drugs, car theft, affray and large-scale waste dumping, will now go before a judge alone. I do not believe that undermines the jury system, although it will undoubtedly change how some cases are tried. Therefore, arrangements for judge-only trials in the Crown court need to be carefully reviewed once they are in force to test whether they deliver the time saving promised without undermining the right to a fair trial.

I turn to my reservations on the proposals. I am concerned that magistrates courts will not be able to cope with the increase in caseload envisaged by the Bill. The work of the magistrates court is delivered by a range of dedicated public servants: magistrates, district judges, legal advisers, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff, probation, the Crown Prosecution Service and legal aid lawyers. However, we know that recruiting and retaining many of those key personnel are long-standing problems.

The Lord Chancellor wrote to the Justice Committee last week and told us that the Ministry of Justice hopes to recruit thousands of magistrates and hundreds of legal advisers and district judges over the next year or two. I am concerned that those are very ambitious targets, and that even if the recruitment bear fruit, they will not meet the challenge of diverting 24,000 days of complex hearings from the Crown court each year while dealing with the existing problems in the magistrates court, which has its own backlog.

Clause 7, which seeks to reform appeals from the magistrates court, will require electronic recording of proceedings. That strikes me as a significant change. The impact assessment is not clear about how much that will cost, but I doubt whether it can be delivered either quickly or cheaply.

Another area of concern is the process for allocating cases for judge-only trials. Prosecution and defence lawyers will wish to make written and oral submissions, and some may seek to challenge decisions on allocation by judicial review. To those concerns should be added the differing eligibility for legal aid in the Crown and magistrates courts and concerns that the loss of a lay presence in determining innocence or guilt risks losing diversity and adding unconscious bias.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

In the magistrates court, only those who earn less than £21,000 a year—less than a full-time job at real living wage rates—are entitled to legal aid. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is real danger in that in terms of access to justice?

[Andy Slaughter]

That is exactly the point that I somewhat briefly alluded to; I am glad that my hon. Friend outlined it in more detail. The Government really must address that before the Bill concludes its passage through this House and the other place.

In relation to both restriction of jury trials and the decision not to accept Sir Brian’s recommendation that a judge should sit with lay magistrates in the Crown court bench division, the point has been made that the lay element is being limited too far. I could say a lot more, but I am conscious of the time. Many details need to be worked out. I see why the Government are giving themselves until March 2028 to implement the Bill’s proposals.

As the Bill progresses, I hope that the Government will listen to Members of this House and the other place and to those with an interest in the criminal justice system—from lawyers to victims—on how it can be clarified and improved. The Justice Committee has held evidence sessions and been in detailed correspondence with the Lord Chancellor, the Courts Minister and Sir Brian for several months. Our current call for evidence closes tomorrow, and on 17 March we will hold a further evidence session.

I do not have time to cover the other important but less controversial parts of the Bill, but I would like to recognise the Law Commission, which has done the hard work on the proposals on evidence in sexual offence prosecutions that lies behind clauses 8 to 12. I also pay tribute to the campaigners who worked tirelessly for the removal of the presumption of parental involvement. Those measures will help to ensure that some of the most vulnerable in our society are protected by our courts.

Finally, I know that the Lady Chief Justice will be pleased that the Government have found a legislative vehicle to bring the leadership of tribunals within the wider courts structure. That is a good thing. Overall, this is a necessary package of reforms. I look forward to working with the Government to improve it as it progresses through Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Russell]

What does the right hon. Gentleman say about the freedom of women to walk the streets without fearing for their physical safety? What does he say about the freedom of women who have made allegations of rape, and who are waiting six years between reporting to the police and having a trial? Does he recognise that those are liberties that matter, too?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course that is an important point—we are not debating that. Of course the backlog is wrong, but this is not the right way to correct it. The backlog is caused by administrative delays or, if hon. Members want, cuts to the judicial system; it is not caused by trial by jury. Of course we put defendants first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I support the reasoned amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, which declines to give this Bill a Second Reading. I do so because while there are some useful measures in the Bill, at its heart is an unjust proposal. The Government’s plan to curtail jury trials is wrong.

[Sarah Russell]

I respect the hon. Gentleman and understand that his concerns about the Bill are genuinely rooted. None the less, the presumption of parental involvement being revoked in this Bill is absolutely critical, and I do not understand how he can proceed with a reasoned amendment that would kill the entire Bill on that basis.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The right to a trial by jury is central to the English legal system. It has its roots in Magna Carta. It ensures that the public participate in the administration of criminal justice and gives protection to citizens from politically inspired trials. It is regrettable that some parts of the Labour party seem to take delight in tearing up long-held principles that underpin our constitution simply because it is politically expedient to do so. They are shredding our constitution without much thought as to the consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paulette Hamilton]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.

For ethnic minority communities, that right has been seen as a vital protection against fear of bias, whether conscious or unconscious. A diverse jury of 12 brings the common sense of the community into the room; a single judge, however learned, does not offer that same representation.

[Sarah Russell]

The Judicial Executive Board produced a report on judicial bullying and racism in 2022, but has never published it. Does my hon. Friend agree that that backs up her point that there are concerns about the judiciary?

[Paulette Hamilton]

I absolutely agree. That does back up what I am saying.

I am not suggesting that our judiciary is biased, but perception matters, so I ask the Minister for two specific assurances. First, the Bill contains no clear statutory review, and there is no start or end date. Clause 3 allows the new provisions to be brought into force by regulation with a three-month minimum lead-in time, but beyond that, scrutiny is absent. I welcome that the Justice Secretary has announced a review. Can the Minister confirm the exact timeframe for that review? When will it begin and, crucially, when will it end?

Secondly, if there is to be a review, I urge the Minister to make its scope explicit. Will the Minister commit today that any review will break down data by ethnicity? We need to know if this new system is leading to disproportionate outcomes for ethnic minority defendants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in favour of the Bill, but first I want to remind the House why these reforms matter to victims. When the powerful wave of the MeToo movement washed over us in 2017, almost 10 years after the incredible Tarana Burke began the MeToo programme in US schools and women began to share their stories, I froze when I heard on the radio what Harvey Weinstein had been doing in plain sight. I spent the rest of the day scrolling through courageous women’s stories online, and despite my horror at each of their experiences, I felt relief and hope. I felt relief that we could share our stories of experiences that I know every woman in this Chamber and, unfortunately, every woman and girl in the UK, has at some level had to endure. And I felt hope that this would be a watershed moment and that there would be no more Harvey Weinsteins. Recently, however, we have come to learn of the monstrous abuses committed by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates, reminding us that this fight is by no means over.

Regardless of whether a victim has survived a high-profile repeat offender or abuse from someone they knew and trusted at home or at work, they deserve justice. The Tories utterly failed victims in their 14 years. They ran up a huge backlog. Some women victims have said recently that they have waited 10 years, and that is a 10-year sentence for them. We cannot accept these delays. Over 90% of all criminal cases are already heard fairly without a jury by magistrates.

Clause 8 of the Bill puts restrictions on evidence or questions about a survivor’s sexual history. That should never have been part of the trial in the first place. Clause 17 will mean that courts will no longer have to start from the presumption that parental involvement will always be in the interests of a child. Women’s Aid has called this

“a significant shift in the ‘pro-contact’ culture”

that puts children at risk. This change will be incredibly encouraging for one of my constituents whose ex-partner was convicted of child sex offences and who has seen her children’s wellbeing massively impacted. I pay tribute to the campaigners here today, who have worked so hard to make this happen. Today we can move the dial towards a system that does not unfairly advantage perpetrators and does not retraumatise victims.

[Sarah Russell]

On that point, there is a backlog in the family courts of 110,000 cases, more than what we are discussing, and legal aid rates for family law have not gone up since 1997. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an important move but we need to do more?

[Catherine Fookes]

I agree that we need to do more. As a recipient of legal aid myself in the past, I know how important it is that its budget is increased.

It is almost 10 years since the birth of the MeToo movement. We must now ensure that we deliver on the hope that it engendered. Real change is needed. I back survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence, and I therefore back the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I rise to support this Bill, particularly clause 17— Jack and Paul’s law—to finally repeal the presumption of contact in the family courts. It is the result of 11 years of campaigning by my incredible constituent Claire Throssell MBE, who is in the Gallery today, following the tragic deaths of her beautiful sons, Jack and Paul. They were killed in a house fire by their father, a known domestic abuser. Their dad lured Jack and his nine-year-old brother Paul into the attic with the promise of a train set, but he started 14 fires around their family home, killing himself in the blaze.

Jack and Paul’s deaths happened during a two-hour, court-ordered, unsupervised contact visit permitted by a family court and allowed to go ahead by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. The state failed Jack and Paul; it failed to put their wellbeing first, after a decade of their father’s abuse, neglect and coercive control of them and their mother. This House must act today and vote through this Bill to save the lives of a future generation of children by ending contact at any cost.

The presumption of parental involvement is a legal principle in the Children Act 1989 that means that any parent, even those who are known domestic abusers, should always be given contact with their children, but the retention of presumption continues to be fatal. Some 68 children—that we know of—have died at the hands of known domestically abusive parents since Women’s Aid started research on this issue. This Bill presents a life-changing opportunity to prevent such deaths and puts children’s wellbeing at the heart of our family courts.

[Sarah Russell]

Does my hon. Friend agree it is absolutely crucial that we fund contact centres properly, so that there are properly supervised options for courts to order?

[Dr Tidball]

I do indeed. In combination with the provisions in the Bill to effect structural reform, to stop criminals from gaming the system and to triage trials effectively, such measures will embed a child-centred and victim-centred approach in the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I draw attention to the fact that I am a solicitor with a current practising certificate who has appeared before tribunals historically.

I will speak briefly today about the £1.3 billion maintenance backlog in our courts. We have heard that the Justice Secretary will commit £287 million to it. That is a large sum of money, but it is not enough.

I want to talk about the fact that legal aid rates have not gone up since 1997. The Justice Secretary is looking at increasing them significantly, but unfortunately that is moving them from £40 an hour to £60 an hour. In private practice, most solicitors would expect to be billing about five times that to run their firms. It is just not enough.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sarah Russell]

I am afraid I will not.

When we look at how much these measures will bring down the backlog in totality, it is simply not enough. When the time from reporting a rape to an actual trial is, on average, six years, bringing down the backlog slightly by the end of the next Parliament is just not enough. I have significant concerns about the restrictions on access to jury trials.

Anyone who has read Baroness Harman’s independent review of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the Bar should have real concerns about the attitudes of some barristers towards women and ethnic minorities. Not every barrister exhibits those traits, but they are a systematic problem. She talks about the fact that:

“A recurrent theme in the submissions was that there is a tolerance of misconduct at the Bar which is learned and passed down from generation to generation. I was told that some barristers, particularly men of the older generation, ‘have no idea how outdated and offensive some of their views are, nor do they care about the impact of sharing those views with others who may be offended by them’.”

[Kim Johnson]

The Justice Secretary identifies that we have these problems, and he talks about the delivery of training on racism and misogyny to support people to be brought into the 21st century. Does my hon. Friend believe that those kinds of training courses can work?

[Sarah Russell]

Obviously not everyone is exhibiting these traits and training can help, but my understanding, from what I have heard anecdotally, is that substantial numbers of members of the judiciary are not up to date with the training requirements that they already have. I would welcome hearing more from the Secretary of State about exactly how those training programmes will be developed, brought forward and made mandatory in a way that is effective.

It is of significant concern that Baroness Harman had to make a recommendation on the importance of the Judicial Appointments Commission taking into account findings of misconduct when considering who to appoint as judges. It is astonishing that she had to recommend that that should be required. How has the Judicial Appointments Commission been operating to date?

I stand here as someone who does not like to criticise the judiciary. I know that it has many hard-working members who have been operating in a difficult environment for a very long time. We have to be honest in saying that most of the rates that I have referred to were not put up by the new Labour Government either. We have had cuts to the justice system for 25 years, and that is why it is on its knees. We can do things within the context of the current system that might make it somewhat better, but I go back to my original question: when rape trials are taking six years from arrest to prosecution, what are we going to do to make wholesale change? Nothing I have heard so far has convinced me that what we will do here today, whichever permutations we go with, will fundamentally transform those waits.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Criminal Court Reform

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Our criminal law cannot be set in aspic. The system that we have now largely came about as the result of legislation in 1971. Just prior to that, this House decriminalised homosexuality, and it was only in 1991 that we outlawed marital rape. Of course we make change, and it is right that we make change in this circumstance.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I have immense sympathy for the difficult position that the Lord Chancellor and the many victims of crime in this country are in. There is, however, a category of offences relating to the right to protest—a right that has been restricted by multiple Governments over time. It is very important that we maintain jury trials in anything that touches on that area, so can the Lord Chancellor commit to retaining jury trials in cases where the offence would currently go to the Crown court or would be an either-way offence?

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise that there will be a range of cases beyond those that will now sit with the magistrates, in which the sentence would be more than 18 months and up to three years. However, I believe it must be left to our magistrates and judiciary to make the appropriate determination.

Prisoner Releases in Error

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Was the hon. Gentleman not listening? I discussed the cases just a few moments ago, and I discussed how those cases emanated prior to those checks—many of them—and that one of the errors in those cases started in the court system. It is also the case, and I have been crystal clear about this with the House, that in a paper-based system in which it is often the most junior people in our OMUs who are dealing with this, we cannot eradicate all human error. Any Secretary of State who stood at this Dispatch Box and said that we could would be telling a mistruth.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

We must of course solve the immediate problem of accidental releases, which are a huge issue. However, for longer-term planning, we have a very high vacancy rate in our prisons. I understand what the Secretary of State has said about the work on bringing that down, but will he look at the Justice Committee’s recommendation to produce a 10-year plan for the prison system workforce in the same way as we do for the NHS?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and we are looking at that recommendation. There are significant workforce issues. We are asking our prison officers to work in a system that the prison inspector himself has said is cracking and at “breaking point”, and we must invest in our workforce.

Sentencing Bill

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

The new clause will never bring back the victims who have been lost, nor heal the pain felt by those left behind, but it may offer some closure if such crimes do not go unpunished and if causing a fatality does not occur with impunity. I thank hon. Members who have supported the new clause and ask everyone to vote in favour of it this evening.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Huntington (Ben Obese-Jecty) for speaking to his new clause, although I do not support it because the minimum needed to cause death by careless driving is a momentary lapse of concentration. Of course, he was talking about a death, and I am not suggesting for a moment that that should go unpunished, but a full lifetime driving ban meaning that someone who had a momentary lapse of concentration at 19 still cannot drive at 55 does not feel proportionate. However, I agree that we should look much more closely at all driving-related offences, including all offences relating to dangerous driving, careless driving and, in particular, causing death by dangerous driving. Those are horrendous crimes.

I have met families who have been bereaved in that way, and those have been some of the most impactful conversations I have had in my life. The impact on those families simply cannot be overstated. We are expecting the road safety strategy imminently, and I hope that these matters will be taken forward on a cross-party basis and looked at sensibly, because it is a really important topic.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I totally understand what the hon. Lady is saying about a momentary lapse in concentration, but that lapse has cost somebody their life. Were that anybody sitting in this room, that would be a devastating consequence not just for them but for everyone here and everyone in their family. I recognise what she says about it not feeling proportionate, but there is nothing more final than losing one’s life. To that extent, I believe it is proportionate. Driving is a privilege and not driving is, realistically, only an inconvenience, whereas the repercussions of a family living their life without somebody are vast.

[Sarah Russell]

I broadly agree with the hon. Member on the overall topic: we should look at whether those offences are dealt with with sufficient severity. I also agree that the impact on people’s families cannot be overstated.

[Dr Mullan]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Russell]

I will make some progress and speak to amendment 31 to clause 6. That clause is the one that I am most proud of. It was the result of cross-party work between the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and the Government Front Bench and it needs to be given the prominence it deserves.

For the first time, the clause will enable the recording and tracking of when domestic abuse is a factor in an offence. Amendment 31, which I support, discusses the ability to call for evidence as to whether there has been domestic abuse. I start from the fundamental position that we should believe women on domestic abuse—I add that victims are predominantly, though by no means exclusively, female. None the less, I also strongly believe in the rule of law and the importance of having evidence. That is why I have sponsored the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter).

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) will more thoroughly address new clauses 28 and 29, which are about gambling treatment being considered on a par with treatment for drugs and alcohol in the courts. Those on the Conservative Benches have suggested that Government Members are in some way anti-punishment. We are not. I absolutely believe that crime should be punished, but I also absolutely believe that rehabilitation services are critical to preventing the recurrence of crime. When 80% of criminal offending is reoffending, we have to look seriously at how we break those cycles of offending. I welcome and applaud the clauses put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South. Gambling creates significant social problems in our society and when that extends to crime, we need solutions.

New clauses 15 and 24 both address the potential abolition of the Sentencing Council. The language with which they have been addressed by Opposition Members today has been a bit more circumspect than some of what we have heard them say previously about the Sentencing Council in this Chamber. Our judges in the UK are some of the best in the world. The independence of our judiciary is an absolutely fundamental premise of our democracy, and the way in which it has been talked about recently treats it with complete disdain. That terrifies me. It is one of the most important principles that our country stands upon.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) said that the Conservatives still respect the independence of the rule of law, but I have heard Members on those Benches refer to lefty activist judges as if somehow the judiciary in Britain were populated by radical Marxists. That is not the case. I am a lawyer and I spent 13 years in practice. I have never met a judge who was anything but genuinely committed to the apolitical upholding of the law. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is incredibly important that we continue to recognise and promote those principles. I say that partly from a genuine ideological position and partly from experience.

Britain has exported £9.5 billion in legal services in the last year. One of the reasons for that level of success is that there is genuine belief in our judiciary—people in multiple jurisdictions across the world trust that our judges will hear disputes impartially. When we talk like Conservative Members have in a criminal or civil context, we damage not only our institutions but our economy. We have to understand the importance of the British rule of law and we need to promote and uphold it at all costs. Those who do not do so damage our country. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

[Dr Mullan]

Does the hon. Member think it appropriate for an immigration judge to support and advocate for a charity that is actively trying to stop asylum laws being implemented? Should an immigration judge be involved in an organisation like that?

[Sarah Russell]

I do not know the details of the case to which the hon. Member refers, which makes it impossible for me to give an informed comment by return. None the less, I can genuinely say, speaking from 13 or 14 years’ experience practising as a solicitor before I came to this place, as well as a lot of time spent in the Labour party and meeting leftie people, that the two did not really overlap. They just did not.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that, in a democracy, it is important to be able to hold everybody to account, including judges? Does she accept that we need to be able to check that they are making good decisions on behalf of everybody?

[Sarah Russell]

The hon. Member appears to be ignoring the entire recruitment process for the judiciary, which fundamentally, at its heart, emphasises the independence of those people from political interference, and also the fact that the application of the law should not be subject to political interference in this place. That is absolutely fundamental. Judges are not getting up every morning and just coming up with ludicrous leftie positions. The picture that is sometimes painted by those on the Opposition Benches is just fanciful. It bears no relationship to my experience of engaging with the actual judiciary on an ongoing basis.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

Would the hon. Lady agree that it is outrageous that Members of this House should hold up a judge’s wig at a party conference, and that judges therefore have increased security risks?

[Sarah Russell]

The members of the judiciary that I have spoken to have very genuine concerns about their personal security, particularly immigration judges. They are genuinely frightened of doing their jobs, and that will be affecting judicial recruitment. We need immigration judges to be able to stand up and serve the judiciary. Many judges take a pay cut to become a judge, and they deserve our genuine respect. They work very hard in a system that has been grotesquely underfunded for 14 years.

Lastly, I would like to mention new clause 40, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I have referred to cross-party working elsewhere. I understand that it might not be in the exactly right format for the Government to it take forward today, but I hope that the Minister will consider how we will deal with the fact that people are not receiving training when they are on remand and are often released at the end of that time. It is a serious issue that deserves serious consideration.

I have asked previously in the Justice Committee about what work is done with people on remand, particularly in respect of domestic abuse offences. In my opinion, we are missing an opportunity for people, without accepting any sort of guilt, to engage in services that many would benefit from, considering their general behaviour, irrespective of whether their original offence was related to domestic abuse. In fact, all of us could benefit from those opportunities for reflection. People spend a lot of time in prison, and at the moment it is not being used as effectively as I and many others would like it to be. That brings me back to my original point. Government Members absolutely believe in punishment, but fundamentally we also believe in rehabilitation, and the emphasis on that in this Bill is very much to be welcomed.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I will speak to my new clauses: new clause 4 on probation capacity and new clause 17 on the devolution of probation to Wales. I also support new clauses 2 and 3, as well as new clauses 19 and 30, which relate to relate to IPP sentencing.

First, let me commend the diligent work of my constituent, Rhianon Bragg, and fellow activists who have helped place vital victim safeguarding measures on the face of the Bill, particularly in relation to the restriction zone conditions in clauses 16 and 24. I have questioned and subsequently written to the Secretary of State for further clarification on the details of those measures, and I look forward to his response, which will help provide those vital assurances to Rhianon and other victims and survivors. The measures entail putting the restriction conditions around the perpetrator rather than the victim, and that is a major step ahead in our approach to looking after victims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Pochin]

I thank shadow Minister for supporting me on that point.

I turn to clauses 24, 36 and 37 with respect to licences. These clauses all give powers to the Probation Service to reduce the length of a community order imposed by the judge or magistrate. The Probation Service is underfunded and overstretched already, and the real risk is that offenders will have their requirements reduced by probation officers in order to free up capacity in the service. The probation officer already has discretion on the number of days of rehabilitation required, and it is dangerous to give any more quasi-judicial power to the Probation Service.

[Sarah Russell]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sarah Pochin]

No, I will make some progress; I have given way a lot.

Let me move on and make a point of clarification with respect to clauses 26, 27 and 28, which are on recall. The current system allows for fixed-term recall of 14 days for custodial sentences of less than 12 months and 28 days for custodial sentences of one to four years. Standard recall offenders serve the rest of their sentence. Can the Minister confirm that this Bill introduces FTR and SR of 56 days for all custodial sentences of less than four years, with the exception of terrorists, such that offenders who have committed serious crimes including assault, robbery and possession of knives or other offensive weapons could be out again in two months? That is not protecting the public. However, I welcome the fact that the presumption of 56 days’ recall does not apply for domestic violence offenders who have breached their licence conditions and gone on to reoffend.

Clause 42 is about foreign criminals. I propose to replace the clause and to move new clause 25, which would apply an automatic deportation order to foreign criminals sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment or a six-month community sentence. The Secretary of State wrote to Members of Parliament claiming that he had strengthened the ability of the Government to deport foreign criminals. He said in a letter that it will be the duty of the Home Secretary to deport foreign offenders who receive at least a 12-month custodial sentence, yet in the same letter he stated that

“this is subject to several exceptions, including where to do so would be a breach of a person’s ECHR rights or the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.”

In other words, nothing will change and no one will get deported.

Finally, new clause 26 would make an addition to the Bill referred to as

“Criminal Cases Review (Public Petition)”.

Under the new clause, if it appeared to any British citizen aged 18 or over that the sentencing of a person in the Crown court has been unduly lenient or harsh, that British citizen—the petitioner—may refer the case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for it to review the sentence. There would mean that there would be a platform for defendants like Rhys McDonald and Chris Taggart in my constituency, who received an average of 30 months for an ill-advised tweet, to have their sentence appealed.

Work for Serving Prisoners

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

My local women’s prison is HMP Styal, and my hon. Friend will be aware of the Clink Charity, which does work in developing people’s skills in hospitality. Its ability to operate in HMP Styal collapsed completely because, as there was such a shortage of prison officers, the women were locked up for so much of the time that it was simply unable to provide the service. In other prisons, the charity is being forced to retender for contracts on a commercial basis. It is a not-for-profit that was set up to do that work. I encourage the Minister—I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees—to review whether contracting in the Ministry of Justice is really working as we need it to in that regard.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. There is some really fantastic work being done, which I will come on to, and it is essential that we find ways of enabling even more of that, because time stuck in prisons does not improve behaviour; it makes it worse. In the last year of the Conservative Government, we saw assaults on prison staff increase by 23%.

The £15 million investment in body armour and Tasers announced by the Deputy Prime Minister in recent weeks shows that he is giving prison staff the tools they need to do their jobs safely, but anything we can do to reduce the chances of violent incidents deserves our full support—that includes meaningful activities such as work in prisons—because those on the frontline in our prison system deserve our full support.

Prison officers at HMP Ranby told me what a difference it made to the behaviour of prisoners when they were doing work—when their days had purpose. As well as the improved behaviour that work for prisoners leads to, nearly a fifth of the earnings of prisoners who work out of prisons on licence goes to the Prisoners’ Earnings Act levy, which supports victims of crime. We have a Government committed to investment and reform and taking a long-term view of what is needed for a justice system that works. Our Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, Lord Timpson, was a businessman who throughout his career enabled offenders to turn their lives around and break the cycle.

I have sought to be candid about how bad things are in some of our prisons, but I also want to talk about some of the brilliant work already happening, which can be built on and scaled up. I praise the hundreds of employers who are pointing the way forward. In Derby, we have Pennine Healthcare, an employee-owned medical equipment manufacturer, and its successful experience of employing prisoners has led to its long-term vision for rehabilitation-focused employment opportunities, for itself and potentially across the sector.

Pennine supports a release on temporary licence scheme. I was proud to welcome the former Justice Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), to its headquarters in Derby. I went with him to HMP Ranby to see where Pennine is establishing a workshop, which it calls Project Phoenix. It will operate as an extension of the Derby site, and it will also prevent manufacturing from being offshored to competitors 7,000 km away in China. It could not have been more positive about the motivation and work ethic of the prisoners working for it.

That is a practical solution to meet some of the workforce challenges facing UK manufacturing, at a time when many employers share with me the difficulties that they can have in recruiting people with the skills that they need. It could create a pipeline of trained workers who can have jobs that they know how to do available to them when they leave prison. The difference that could make to offenders’ chances of avoiding another turn of the revolving door of reoffending is clear.

I am the parliamentary champion for the Rebuilding Futures Alliance—the RFA—whose mission is to break the cycle of reoffending by creating smarter pathways into work, often in rail. The evidence is extraordinarily compelling in showing that employment reduces reoffending.

Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member will know that his colleague, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), is working closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), on getting things right for victims. That is something we take very seriously, and it needs to be done properly, with victims, in order to get it right. I hope that the independent sentencing review report will contain things that give us confidence about moving forward and about the way we work with victims.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

The Conservatives appear to have forgotten quite a number of things, and I think it might be a good time to remind them. Former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s disastrous partial privatisation of the Probation Service was overturned in 2019 after the number of serious offences—including rape and murder—committed by those on probation skyrocketed. Does the Minister agree that we are seeing the long tail of Conservative failure, which overshadows everything that we must do now?