Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

   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
2. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Mims Davies

   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
3. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Mike Wood

   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
4. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   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
5. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

   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
6. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

   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
7. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

   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
8. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

   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
9. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

   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
10. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    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
11. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    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
12. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)

    I am asking the questions.

    Hansard source
13. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    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
14. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    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
15. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    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
16. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    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
17. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    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
18. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    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
19. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    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
20. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Second sitting)

    But the Government want to remove that.

    Hansard source
21. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    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
22. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    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
23. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    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
24. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    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
25. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    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
26. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    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
27. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    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
28. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    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
29. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)

    Q You mentioned that you visited Liverpool. Sir Brian Leveson: Yes.

    Hansard source
30. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    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
31. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    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
32. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    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
33. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)

    Q I will take you through some further questions. Sir Brian Leveson: Fine.

    Hansard source
34. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    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.

    Hansard source
35. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)

    If they are being given sentences of potentially up three years versus, for example, six months, you do not think that will have any impact on the time, complexity or seriousness of the cases? Sir Brian Leveson: I am not suggesting it will not have any impact; I am suggesting that the time cases take is not necessarily governed by the nature of the charge or, indeed, the eventual sentence. In the 1970s, I could conduct two trials in a day; nobody ever conducts a trial in a day these days.

    Hansard source
36. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)

    Q I am being pressed for time, so I have just one final question. Sir Brian Leveson: Keep going.

    Hansard source
37. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)

    The most specific element of modelling that the MOJ undertook was something called a structured elicitation workshop, which found that the time saved would be between 10% and 30%. At the lower the end, that is half of the 20% estimate that you put forward. Would you accept that? Sir Brian Leveson: No. I think that is wrong. As far as I am concerned, there will be a considerable time saving and, much more importantly, there will be a cultural shift. At the moment, if you can put your trial off until 2028, what is not to like?

    Hansard source
38. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)

    Q Okay, so it would be fair to say that your report points to the need to do further modelling, the MOJ has undertaken that modelling, and you reject the modelling that your report says the MOJ needs to undertake to better understand the impact. Sir Brian Leveson: I do not accept that characterisation at all. I believe that savings in a Crown court will be dramatic, for cultural and involvement reasons, in the same way that family judges get through cases more quickly. If you ask those who are opposed to any change what they think will happen as a result of change, they are going to be—

    Hansard source
39. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)

    Sorry, but to correct the record: those people were not opposed. There was an MOJ-orchestrated workshop of neutral parties and judges, and they said it would be 10% to 30%. That is massively different to your estimate. Sir Brian Leveson: Judges?

    Hansard source
40. 25 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)

    Yes. A whole series of stakeholders were invited by the MOJ and they potentially strongly disagree with your central conclusion of 20%. I have no further questions.

    Hansard source