Victims and Courts Bill
Order. The normal protocol is that a Member wishes to intervene, but I appreciate the encouragement—and the Minister has risen to it, so well done, Mr Timothy.
5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Engagements
I asked the Prime Minister six questions last week and he did not answer a single one. He has a duty to this House to answer the question. Let us see if he can do better this week. I will start with a simple one. Will the Prime Minister approve the licences for the Rosebank and Jackdaw gasfields in the North sea?
- Hansard source
Engagements
We can have renewables and oil and gas. The Prime Minister says it is a matter for the Secretary of State—I thought that he was the Prime Minister. He loves to hide behind legal process every single time. I wonder what a Director of Public—[Interruption.]
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister loves to hide behind legal process. I wonder what a Director of Public Prosecutions would make of the defence, “Sorry, I can’t produce my WhatsApps—my phone has been stolen.” The Jackdaw gasfield could be up and running before winter. All that gas would be used here in the UK to heat 1.6 million homes. That is enough to power Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex put together. Will the Prime Minister approve the licences, or is the Energy Secretary running the Government?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister is hiding behind so many people. He is the Prime Minister; he can make this decision today. He is so weak that he is the first person to be pushed around by the Energy Secretary. Let me remind the Prime Minister who is on my side: the unions—yes, they are on my side—including GMB, Tony Blair, RenewableUK—the very people he talks about are saying to drill in the North sea—Centrica, Octopus Energy and even Labour MPs. Let me quote one Labour Member, the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell): “Offshoring our carbon emissions might give some a sense of moral superiority” but it is simply “impoverishing our own communities”. We agree, so why does the Prime Minister think that he knows better than everyone else?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I am going to let the Prime Minister in on a secret: he is the Prime Minister, and he can change the legislation. Hiding behind the Energy Secretary is pathetic. Under the Prime Minister’s Labour Government, we buy half the gas that we use from Norway. Last year, Norway’s Labour Government drilled 49 wells in the North sea. How many did Britain drill? Zero. For the first time since 1964, under this Prime Minister’s Government, Britain drilled no wells. Why is energy security the right policy for Labour in Norway, but the wrong policy for Labour in Britain?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Norwegian Prime Minister is doing what is right for his country—if only our Prime Minister would do the same. Stopping all new drilling in the North sea was a reckless promise when he made it before the election; in the middle of a global energy crisis, it is catastrophic. Experts are predicting a £300 rise in bills in July. Approving new licences would show that he is serious about cutting bills. Why will he not do it?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister says that bills are coming down; they are higher than they were when he came into office. He talks about what the Government are doing to help with energy bills. Families and businesses will suffer from the spike in energy costs because of his decisions. He could abolish the green taxes on their bills. He could stop the fuel duty rise. We could drill our own gas in the North sea. What is he doing? He is planning another giveaway to people on welfare. Yet again, he is taking money from those who work to give it to those who do not. First, we had the Budget for “Benefits Street”; now, we have the bail-out for “Benefits Street”. Does that not just prove that they have given up on being the Labour party and are now just the welfare party?
- Hansard source
Voluntary Groups and Community Centres
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms McVey. For transparency reasons, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and note that I am the honorary president of a local Royal British Legion branch and patron of the Bexley Neighbourhood Watch Association. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) for securing this debate. I am also grateful for the contributions from all Members this morning. They have been varied, but as a former councillor myself, I recognise many of them. Across the United Kingdom, our communities are supported by an estimated 166,000 voluntary organisations. The majority are small organisations that are close to the ground, but which often have the biggest impact on people’s lives. Throughout my time as the shadow Minister, I have had the immense pleasure of meeting a variety of these groups; I am sure I will meet many more after this debate. As a Member proudly representing my home community of Old Bexley and Sidcup, I have the immense privilege of working with many fantastic groups which include the Brownies, Guides, Scouts, faith-based groups, amateur sports clubs, u3a Sidcup, the Friends of Danson Park, Friends of Foots Cray Meadows, Discover Welling, and many more that I will get into trouble for not mentioning. Bexley is also home to a number of fantastic community centres that continue to serve our communities throughout the year, from the various clubs and youth zone at Blackfen community library to the wide variety of clubs that use our church halls, or even the amateur wrestling group at Falconwood community centre. Bexley’s community hubs have everything on offer and are supported by over £1 million of investment by Bexley’s Conservative council. Returning to the national picture, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations represents more than 17,000 charities, social enterprises, community groups and organisations. I understand that 92% of its members are charities with an income of less than £1 million; most have an income of less than £30,000. In response to the Chancellor’s first Budget in 2024, it said that the changes the Government had brought in would: “intensify the ‘triple squeeze’ charities face from increasing costs, reduced funding, and higher demand.” In fact, the NCVO wrote to the Chancellor to urge her to reimburse charities for those costs, as she committed to do for public sector organisations. That has not happened, and the 2025 spending review provided no respite from the increased pressures caused by this Chancellor. When Labour Members and Ministers say that they support civil society—and I have no doubt that many of them do have that passion in their community—the voluntary sector is right to ask why, as we have heard from Labour Members, it is being hit with higher employment costs at the very moment when it is trying to recruit staff, keep buildings open and meet rising demand, when it already provides more than £14 billion of public services on behalf of both central and local government. In a very stark contrast to this Government, the previous Conservative Government knew very well that communities need practical support—not just warm words read out by Ministers in this place. That is why, in the face of the coronavirus pandemic, we Conservatives pledged £750 million to make sure that voluntary, community and social enterprises could continue their vital work of supporting the country. In my community of Bexley, I saw this work in action first hand, with an army of community champion volunteers coming forward to support the elderly and those most in need across the community. Bexley was also one of the first areas in the country to launch a dedicated pot of funding, which supported pubs, amateur sports clubs and other groups that contribute so much to our way of life. The last Conservative Government went further, beyond the coronavirus outbreak, and in 2021 we established a £150 million community ownership fund to help communities to take ownership of assets at risk of closure and, with voluntary and community organisations, bid for match funding for the purchase and renovation of local community assets. That is exactly the kind of support that helps save a pub, village hall or clubhouse, or a variety of other community buildings, before they are lost forever. This Government closed that fund. The youth investment fund was established in 2022 and received more than £300 million of capital and revenue grants from the previous Conservative Government. However, for all the warm words from this Government, The Guardian reported last year that they have spent less on youth work than the Conservatives did. In 2023, the previous Conservative Government announced a community organisations cost of living fund, with a further £76 million for charities and community organisations carrying out vital work to help vulnerable groups. You guessed it, Ms McVey: this Government closed that fund as well. While we were in office, the Conservative party backed our voluntary groups, whereas this Government keep piling on the pressure and leaving many across the country at breaking point. That is by no means an exhaustive list of the support we provided, but almost £1.3 billion in funding and support over just the last four years from the previous Conservative Government is now at risk, thanks to the decisions taken by this Government. We have all heard from our local groups that since the election life is tougher than it used to be, and that they are facing a triple squeeze thanks to this Government’s actions. Costs increased—thanks to the Chancellor. Funding reduced—thanks to the Chancellor. Facing even higher demand—thanks to the Chancellor. Our voluntary sector across the nation, and the local organisations that all Members meet, deserve better than this Government and Chancellor. If this Government and the Minister are serious about supporting voluntary organisations, why is her Chancellor increasing their taxes? Why is the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero stopping cheap energy that could help to alleviate the cost pressures they are facing to keep the lights on? Who in this Government is actually on the side of voluntary organisations? In closing, I look forward to hearing the Minister, who I have a lot of respect for, explaining what her Department is doing to champion these vital groups within Government. What conversations have Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had with the Treasury regarding the additional costs that charities and voluntary groups are facing across the country? Surely, even the most tribal Labour MPs must see that their Government have made life harder for voluntary organisations and community groups across the country.
- Hansard source
Points of Order
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 9 February, I submitted a named day written question to the Cabinet Office asking if any taxpayer-funded Government payment would be made to Morgan McSweeney or Tim Allan, both of whom had just resigned in the wake of the Mandelson scandal. It was due for answer on 12 February, but the question was ignored. I tried again to solicit an answer as to whether Morgan McSweeney or Tim Allan would, or will, receive a payout by asking a further written parliamentary question on 17 March, asking specifically when an answer to the original question would be provided. This written parliamentary question was due for answer on Monday. Again, the deadline came and went, and that question was ignored. Ignoring scrutiny at Prime Minister’s questions is routine for this Prime Minister, but it appears that the broader Government are also showing total contempt for their responsibilities to be open and transparent with Members of this House. Can I please seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what recourse is available to Members whose written parliamentary questions are stonewalled by the Government?
- Hansard source
Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for coming to the House to talk about the importance of integrity in politics. However, as purdah arrives, in Sussex we are seeing a mess of dithering and delay and, frankly, blatant disregard of the original process for the changes in local government in Sussex. That is affecting my constituents, and indeed yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. Decisions are apparently taken on a case-by-case basis, but can I point out to the Secretary of State that people are saying that exactly this kind of political gerrymandering is happening in Sussex, which is exactly what he is seeking to prevent? Can he explain to the House how my constituents, and people more widely in Sussex, can have confidence in this process?
- Hansard source
Spring Forecast
Hospitality adds nearly £2 billion to Northern Ireland’s economy, supporting more than 75,000 jobs, but last year more than 2,000 hospitality workers in Northern Ireland lost their jobs. Does the Secretary of State agree with Unite the union, of which I know he is a member, that this is the result of the Government’s disastrous national insurance rises?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
1. What steps he is taking to replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
I associate myself with your comments, Mr Speaker, about the Table Clerk and I wish him happiness in his next steps. I also wish the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) many happy returns. Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill took place on 18 November, and the remedial order, which removed the protections from the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, was passed on 21 January, leaving our Northern Ireland veterans, of whom I am one, with no protections under the law. It feels rather like the Government have left our veterans in no man’s land, with no rounds in the magazine and no rounds in the chamber. How is that not a dereliction of duty?
- Hansard source
Engagements
Q2. Last week, I met my constituents Rob and Lizzie at the Kings Arms hotel in Melrose, which they run as part of a family business of 10 hotels across Scotland. They employ over 250 people, but their national insurance bill is going up by £280,000 because of Labour’s tax on jobs. We need to get Britain working again, but this Government’s policies are doing the opposite. Does the Prime Minister understand the damage that he is doing to our economy, and how does he expect businesses like this to survive?
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)
Q Why was it possible to get through two trials a day in the ’70s, but it is not now? Sir Brian Leveson: There are lots of reasons.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)
But jury trials are not the principal reason. Sir Brian Leveson: No, no, I do not and have never blamed jury trials at all. The reason is that the complexity has changed. Pace, disclosure of unused material, special measures, bad character, hearsay and data—cell site data, which is now critical to almost every single prosecution, and data taken from phones—have all added to the complexity and length of trials. I am not criticising juries at all, and I welcome jury trials, but the threshold must now be adjusted if we are to get justice for everybody in good time.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)
Q Victims say that they want to see greater diversity in the criminal justice system, and I agree with them. Which group of people is more diverse: juries, the British public or judges? Dame Vera Baird: Is it your only point? The answer would be that judges are not as diverse as juries.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)
Q So do the changes in the Bill reduce diversity in the criminal justice system? Dame Vera Baird: Not in the slightest. I assume you know that 73% of people who are entitled to a jury trial do not elect it and choose to stay in the magistrates court. That is men, women and black people. Black people and women disproportionately elect trial because they clearly feel that they will get a fairer trial with a diverse jury, but who says that is right? On the day, if you were a sex offender with some nasty allegations, for instance, you would have a better chance of acquittal in front of a judge than you ever would in front of a jury. It is just an opportunity to try to pick the best trial for yourself, but it is a punt in the dark. It is a go on the wheel of fortune. Sometimes it will work and sometimes it will not.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)
Q But we do agree that people with more diverse backgrounds elect jury trials and that option is being removed for them. Dame Vera Baird: Seventy-three per cent of people offered jury trials do not take the offer up. Are you sure that the term “elect” is correct? Is it not “demand”?
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)
Q May I ask for a clarification? Is Charlotte on her own in her views? Is she the only person who holds the views she has expressed? Dame Vera Baird: Of course not, and I did not intend to say that. I have been trying to think, since we discussed it, about how I would feel if my experience were being used for a political cause, and it had been a very nasty experience. I might feel the same sort of—I do not know whether it is resentment or disappointment, or whether it is that it was inappropriate. I can well understand that, but many other victims do not agree that this will not help. Women are waking up every morning, for three or four years, dreading the day when they will have to relive what happened to them in rape cases, or a man who has been very badly beaten up might wake every morning, worrying that he will have to relive it. It goes on and on like that, because there is a right to demand—as, I am afraid, I would phrase it—a trial for relatively small offences. I do not make little of them, but those will be in the queue. If Charlotte’s case is coming up next Monday, all the cases that have elected for trial before hers will be in the queue in front of it.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)
Q Thank you very much for sharing these very powerful experiences to help all of us here make better decisions. I would like to direct my questions not to the criminal court changes, but the family court changes. I should say that I was a practising family law solicitor and represented mothers who wanted to stop abusive fathers from seeing their children, and my wife is still a practising family law solicitor, registered with the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Law Society. I turn specifically to the removal of the presumption that a child should have involvement from both parents. What do you say to the overwhelming body of evidence that for most children—not all, but most—it is in their best interests to have some contact with both parents? Farah Nazeer: The point is about abusive relationships. If the court is set up to look at the welfare of the child primarily, if there is not a history of abuse or domestic abuse in that setting, that will invariably be the outcome. This is to protect those cases where there is abuse within the context of the relationship, so it is not a case of one thing or another thing; it clears the path so a court can look objectively at whether or not there is a safeguarding issue there for the child without the burden of the presumption of contact. You start with the welfare of the child.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)
Q But the law is really clear. Section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 says that “the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.” That is already there. Section 1(3)(e) says that the court must have regard to harm that a child “has suffered or is at risk of suffering”. Those two provisions will instantly knock out any presumption that it is in the child’s best interest to have some involvement—that does not even mean contact—of both parents. I am just trying to understand why you think this change is needed, given that those provisions are already in the law. Farah Nazeer: Primarily because those provisions have not saved the lives of the 63 children who have died since Women’s Aid has been working on this. In spite of known abuse, the court has granted unsafe contact, primarily to abusive fathers, and those children have died as a result. Last year we published a report called “Nineteen More Child Homicides”. Those child homicides were as a result of known perpetrators having unsafe child contact in spite of the court hearing about abuse by those fathers, predominantly—18 were fathers, one was a mother—who then murdered their children. The previous report some four years before also saw 19 children murdered in exactly the same set of circumstances. The report before that saw significantly more children murdered. What this does is set a very clear bar that you start with the welfare of the child. This is a response to the failure of that culture. That is why it is so important.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)
Q My point is that bar is already there. The Children Act starts with it—it is in section 1(1). I do not need to say this, but absolutely every death, particularly where the state has been involved and a court decision has been made, is a tragedy, but presumably you will agree that those tragedies will continue even with this change in the law if other things are not done within the family courts to deal with what are primarily safeguarding issues, rather than broad presumptions over children’s interests. Farah Nazeer: Absolutely. The presumption is a really important first step because without the presumption, we will automatically default to the status quo. That is where the training and an understanding of domestic abuse and coercive control come in. As you can hear, we are not in a situation where safeguarding is applied consistently or domestic abuse or sexual violence are understood consistently. That is where the mandatory training piece has to come in to accompany the change to the law.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting)
Q As a former family solicitor, I want to focus my questions on the proposal to remove the presumption that involvement by a parent in a child’s life is in the child’s best interest or good for the child’s welfare. Given that, in children’s proceedings, it is already the law that the child’s welfare shall be paramount, and given that, sometimes, children can be used as tokens between warring parents, I wonder, Samantha Hillas, whether you find it strange that we are going to hear evidence today only from parent groups, and not from groups representing children’s interests. Is that odd to you, as it is to me, given that we are dealing with changes to children’s proceedings, where a child’s welfare is paramount? Samantha Hillas: I have not made the arrangements for who is attending, so I do not find it odd. Whoever has been asked to attend is attending. I can talk a little bit about the repeal of the presumption—
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting)
Q Given that there is no one here representing children, as a children’s lawyer, can you help the Committee understand what a presumption of a parent’s involvement in a child’s life is, as compared with the overriding concern for a child’s welfare that must be uppermost in the court’s mind? Can you help the Committee understand what that means? Samantha Hillas: I am not quite sure I understand the question, so I will answer it like this. From the practitioner perspective, we have always found the insertion of the presumption fairly odd, because it goes without saying that it is usually in children’s best interest to have a relationship with both parents. Where there are circumstances in which it is not safe for a child to have a relationship with both parents, the child’s welfare is protected and is paramount under section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989. The insertion of section 1(2A) into that Act in 2014 came on the back of quite a lot of protest and demonstration by certain pressure groups for the amendment to be made, to try to promote a presumption of involvement that really is tacitly always there. For practitioners, it was probably something of an otiose insertion. The difficulty with it is that even though a review has demonstrated that it has not been the basis for judgments—the welfare principle has not been subordinate to it; the welfare principle has still been paramount—it has created a sort of pro-contact culture. You have to remember that when it came in, that coincided with basically the eradication of legal aid in family cases. Even though lawyers would advise that the welfare principle is paramount, if you are a litigant in person without the funds to afford legal fees, you might read that presumption and read a pro-contact culture into it, and might then be agreeing to situations that are not safe for a child. I have not answered your question, but—I am sorry that this is taking quite a long time—practitioners thought that it was a fairly redundant insertion, and it is sensible for it to be repealed.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting)
Q My questions cannot be answered because there is no one here representing children’s groups, but that part of the Children Act 1989 is not about presumption of contact, is it? It is about presumption in favour of involvement in a child’s life. Samantha Hillas: Yes. Well, there is a presumption that a child’s best interests would be served, as I said in the first place, by having a relationship with both parents. It is only where there would be a risk to that child that there would not be involvement.
- Hansard source
Public Baths and Lidos
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) on securing this important debate. Across the United Kingdom, public baths and lidos play an essential role in encouraging people of all ages to keep fit and healthy, as well as teaching them a vital life skill: how to swim. Although we often, rightly, discuss the critical importance of our indoor leisure centres, which provide year-round access for our schools and competitive clubs, I want to take the opportunity to focus on the unique cultural and economic value of our lidos and public baths. Around 12.5 million adults go swimming each year, and more than 4 million people enjoy swimming outdoors, including in our historical lidos. These venues offer a communal experience that is hard to replicate elsewhere. They are social and recreational spaces that act as a liquid town square, bringing together families and children in a controlled and safe environment. From a health perspective, lidos offer a unique form of blue health, supporting the prevention of ill health and, indeed, the Government’s own prevention agenda in health policy. The cold-water environment and the connection to the outdoors provide significant mental health benefits, while the low-impact nature of the exercise is particularly important for older generations and those with disabilities or musculoskeletal conditions. Beyond health, we must recognise the role of lidos in our tourism sector and visitor economy. A well-maintained lido is a destination in its own right, attracting visitors who support local cafés, shops, hotels and other businesses. In my constituency on the Isle of Wight, I am backing a campaign to get a new sea pool built in Sandown bay. That visionary, community-led initiative seeks to integrate an accessible, nature-based tidal pool directly into our coastal defences. By linking our traditional heritage of public baths with the natural blue health of the Solent, the project demonstrates how we can provide safe, year-round swimming that complements our UNESCO biosphere status. It will serve as a model for how coastal communities can reclaim their relationship with the water through sustainable, integrated solutions that offer health, tourism and regeneration all in one. In the spirit of dishing out invites during this debate, I invite the Minister to visit the new sea pool—but he may wish to put my invitation to the bottom of the pile, because it has not been built yet. We must confront the reality, however, that these facilities are under threat. More than 25% of children leaving primary school are unable to swim 25 metres. The facilities they use are now at risk due to their age and increased costs. Looking at pools in general built since 1960, the average age of a pool at the time of closure is 39 years. More than 1,200 pools operating in England are more than 40 years of age and therefore approaching the end of their lifespan. In fact, the average age of a pool among Community Leisure UK members is 55 years, making them older than the average Member of this House. This is a wider issue than only lidos. Every £1 invested in community sport and physical activity sees a return of £4.20, and swimming specifically generates £2.4 billion of social value each year. Those benefits can continue only if there is a genuine strategy for investment. I secured a similar debate on Government support for swimming facilities almost 300 days ago, yet we have had no plan or update since then. I endorse the questions put by the hon. Member for Peterborough to the Minister and I will also ask him some of my own. Will the Government commit to a long-term capital strategy for swimming pools and lidos, recognising the ageing condition of much of the current estate? What assessment has the Department made of the impact of rising operational costs, including employer national insurance increases and energy costs, on the financial sustainability of community pools? Finally, when will we see a joined-up strategy across DCMS, the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care to guarantee access to swimming for every child?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
2. What steps he is taking to replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
That answer will be of very little comfort to Northern Ireland veterans across the country, including the veteran from Turriff in my constituency who contacted me about this just last week. They are living in fear of vexatious claims, as I am sure the Secretary of State recognises, so why are the Government delaying bringing this legislation back to the House?
- Hansard source
Voluntary Groups and Community Centres
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. We will come to the Front Bench spokespeople just before 10.30 am.
- Hansard source
Voluntary Groups and Community Centres
If Members will allow me, I would like to congratulate my local rugby club, Lymm rugby club, which last week got the King’s award for voluntary service. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for voluntary groups and community centres.
- Hansard source
Engagements
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On 21 November last year, Robert Clancy, a hugely valued and much loved member of my staff, took his own life. He was 29. While successive Governments have done a great deal to deal with the scourge of suicide in this country, there is much more that can be done. Will the Prime Minister personally commit to meeting me to discuss how we can prevent others from experiencing the unimaginable pain that Rob’s family and friends have endured?
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)
Q I am Kieran Mullan, the shadow Minister and MP for Bexhill and Battle. I want to take you back to the process of your appointment and ask whether, prior to your appointment, you had any discussions with Ministers or officials about your views on the right to elect and the use of jury trials. Sir Brian Leveson: No, although I recognise that, in 2015, I looked at efficiency in criminal proceedings. Everybody says that was a wonderful time—no, it was not. I published a report that dealt with efficiency. It was not to incorporate anything that involved legislative change, but in chapter 10, “Out of Scope”, I discussed what Sir Robin Auld said in 2001. Anybody looking at that material would have seen that I was seriously concerned about the way in which criminal justice was proceeding and progressing, notwithstanding the backlog then because of an absence of police officers. What I visualised has actually come to pass.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)
Q I want to ask about the process of your review. Did you undertake any visits to Crown courts, and if so, which ones? Sir Brian Leveson: Well, I have been visiting Crown courts for 50 years. I personally visited Liverpool Crown court, and I am sure I went to another Crown court, but my team went a large number of Crown courts. I was assisted by three advisers: Professor David Ormerod, who is I think the foremost criminal academic lawyer in the country; Chris Mayer, a former chief executive of HM Courts Service; and Shaun McNally, a former director of crime at HMCS and a former chief executive of the Legal Aid Agency. I had plenty of expertise. I did not need to visit courts; they did. I spoke to a lot of judges, though.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)
I do not want to assume what you may or may not know about Liverpool, but are you aware that Liverpool does not have a backlog in its courts? Sir Brian Leveson: I am very aware of Liverpool: I am a Liverpudlian. I practised in Liverpool. I know all the judges in Liverpool extremely well. It would be a mistake to think that Liverpool is a microcosm of the country, for lots of reasons. Liverpool has a single Crown court. There are 20-odd courts in one building. It was opened in 1984—I was present. It has its problems, but it is still a very highly functioning court. There is one Crown Prosecution Service area. There is essentially one police force, although there is a second in Cheshire. There is one chief probation officer. Much more importantly, there is a small local Bar where everybody knows everybody else and they all get on with it. That is not the case in other parts of the country.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)
Q Are there any lessons that could be drawn out for the rest of the country? You have given us some that you think cannot be. Sir Brian Leveson: Yes, and I have made recommendations. It is critical that the systems join up: the police, the CPS, the defence community, the courts, the judiciary, and the prison and probation services. They all have their own budgets, their own problems and their own priorities. One of the recommendations I made in part 2 of my review—which is not considered in the Bill, obviously—was the creation of a criminal justice adviser whose only responsibility was co-ordinating the work of each of the agencies to try to make them work together. That is where it has worked in Liverpool. But doing that on its own would not be sufficient.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)
Q I want to move on to the references in your report to the modelling. I have various quotes from part 1 of your report, to refresh your memory of what you said. In paragraph 11, on page 34, you say: “I have no doubt that the MoJ will want and need to conduct more detailed modelling, including through impact assessments of any recommendations taken forward.” It is a common theme throughout the report that you say, repeatedly, that you expect that the Ministry of Justice will want to undertake more detailed modelling than the modelling you undertook. Are you aware of what, if any, more detailed modelling the MOJ did undertake? Sir Brian Leveson: That is not my responsibility. What I wanted to say about modelling was this: it is bordering on the speculative to think that you can model all the changes to get one set of results. I am very conscious, for example, of the modelling in relation to the time saved by a bench division. You will know, and doubtless quote it at me in a moment, that the modellers suggest 20%, which I believe is pessimistic. Let me say why I think that is so, because it is very important that the Committee understands this. How can modelling be undertaken in relation to systems that have never operated? The first question is, “What time would be saved?” The modellers—the analysts—looked to the court service: “How many minutes would be saved by not having to do this with a jury? How many by doing that, and the other?” They also spoke to some judges. I believe they came up with a figure that is far too pessimistic, as I said. Let me explain why. The dynamic of a criminal trial conducted with a jury is very different from the dynamic of a trial conducted without a jury. Take family work, for example. The judge gets involved. If there is a jury, he finds no facts—every fact that anybody wants to elicit or develop, unless it is inadmissible, they can—but if a judge is conducting a trial, he or she will say, “Well now, what’s the issue in this case? Let’s get down to it,” and, “I’ve got that point; what’s the next point?” That changes the dynamic of the trial entirely. Indeed, I have spoken to district judges who try rapes in the youth court and are also sex-ticketed recorders, so are trying rapes in the Crown court, and they say to me that trials in the Crown court are twice as long as for the same sort of acquaintance-type rape in the youth court. Canadian judges talk about 50%; I am concerned to achieve fair justice, and I need to speed that up because of the backlog.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)
Q I will take you through some further questions. Sir Brian Leveson: Fine.
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)
On the right to elect, your report—we are not talking about further work that you are not responsible for—says: “It has been assumed that disposals per day in the magistrates’ court are in line with the current average.” So if we change the system, disposals will remain at the current rate. If we are trying more complex, more serious cases, is it reasonable to assume that the disposal time will be the same as for those currently seen for less serious cases? Sir Brian Leveson: Why do you say they are more complex? They are not necessarily more complex at all.