Sarah Sackman

Spoke in debate: Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Parliamentary appearance by Sarah Sackman

Voted AYE on: Draft Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Sarah Sackman voted AYE on 'Draft Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026' (308-81, passed)

Voted AYE on: Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insist on Amendments 88C, 88E to 88P, 88R, 88S and 88W, and propose Amendments (a) to (j) in lieu of Amendments 88A, 88T, 88U and 88V

Sarah Sackman voted AYE on 'Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insist on Amendments 88C, 88E to 88P, 88R, 88S and 88W, and propose Amendments (a) to (j) in lieu of Amendments 88A, 88T, 88U and 88V' (335-158, passed)

Voted NO on: Privilege

Sarah Sackman voted NO on 'Privilege' (223-335, defeated)

Voted NO on: Privilege

Sarah Sackman voted NO on 'Privilege' (223-335, defeated)

Voted AYE on: Draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Sarah Sackman voted AYE on 'Draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026' (304-28, passed)

Voted AYE on: Draft Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Sarah Sackman voted AYE on 'Draft Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026' (308-81, passed)

Voted AYE on: Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insist on Amendments 88C, 88E to 88P, 88R, 88S and 88W, and propose Amendments (a) to (j) in lieu of Amendments 88A, 88T, 88U and 88V

Sarah Sackman voted AYE on 'Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insist on Amendments 88C, 88E to 88P, 88R, 88S and 88W, and propose Amendments (a) to (j) in lieu of Amendments 88A, 88T, 88U and 88V' (335-158, passed)

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting)

As I have said, we have precedent. The pilots showed that there was precious little improvement. Extending sitting hours might make things worse if, for example, one is stuck in extended hours on one trial, meaning that one is not available to be in other parts of the country.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting)

We heard evidence from Sir Brian Leveson about how in his earlier years sitting in the Crown court it was not unusual to hear a couple of trials in a day. One of his insights was that part of the changing nature of what we are grappling with here is that Crown court trials are just taking longer. That ability to hear multiple trials within the court day has been impeded by the fact that trials are taking longer because of the nature of the evidence and the procedural safeguards. I understand the

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

I do have confidence in the changes. Look at the levers in the Government’s gift: we can get more money for the system—tick. We can try to drive performance and govern the system to be more efficient—we are doing everything we can, but I refuse to be over-optimistic about that. The other lever I can pull is reform, based on the recommendations we have had. The hon. Lady asks me why we are not piloting, being more cautious or waiting for the efficiencies to work themselves through the system rath

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Let me begin, as we all have in this Committee, by acknowledging the challenges that victims face in accessing the information and support they need. We have talked about the Government’s drive to centre victims in the criminal justice process. I have a couple of things to say in response to new clause 7. First, there is lots of work under way. For example, on 5 February this year we launched a consultation on a new victims code to ensure that we get the foundations right for victims. Through th

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

I absolutely recognise what the hon. Lady says. That is why I come back to this: swifter justice for victims is the guiding principle behind all these reforms. As she says, the longer people are stuck waiting for their day in court, the longer they need to be supported. It becomes a vicious cycle, because we must expend more resource on victim support to keep them engaged in the process. It is not just that we do that for longer; it gets harder the longer they are stuck in the backlog. I very mu

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

The Committee will not be surprised to hear that the Government do not support a sunset clause, for two primary reasons. First, these reforms address a challenge in our system that not only is acute—because of the crisis, which we inherited from the previous Government, that has been allowed to run out of control—but has long-term drivers, meaning that the demand pressures on our court system are not going away. Of course we want to get the backlog down to a sustainable level, but that will not

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

I agree with the sentiment behind the new clause to ensure that we are monitoring efficiency, effectiveness and performance across our criminal courts system. However, as the shadow Justice Minister just said, the best mechanisms for holding the system to account in terms of performance and judicial accountability merit greater reflection. We are taking the time to consider the IRCC’s recommendations. The hon. Member for Chichester alluded to the history, and that there has previously been an in

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

I think the hon. Member thinks that I rose to make some really brilliant, devastating party political point. I did not; I was just rehearsing the history of how we got here. At the time, the view was taken by those who finally took the axe to the inspectorate that it did not represent value for money and was not working in an effective way. I make that point to say that, if we are going to have an inspectorate that does some of the things we want it to do, or whatever system we alight on, we all

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

These clauses are in part 3 of the general provisions of the Bill. They provide the position on the commencement of measures in the Bill, the powers to make consequential, transitional and other provisions in connection with the coming into force of the provisions of the Bill, and the Bill’s territorial extent and short title. Clause 21 is a technical clause that will allow the Secretary of State to make any further consequential amendments or legislative changes where required to implement the

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Twelfth sitting)

I commend clauses 21 to 27 to the Committee. I did not specifically mention the House staff and all our wonderful Chairs. I add my thanks to everybody for their hard work. I also thank my team of officials—those watching at home and those in the room—who have worked very hard. Question put and agreed to. Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 22 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Spoke in debate: Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Parliamentary appearance by Sarah Sackman

Voted AYE on: Draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Sarah Sackman voted AYE on 'Draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026' (304-28, passed)