“(1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint such number of inspectors of criminal court administration as he considers appropriate.

(2) Inspectors under this section are collectively known as ‘His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Criminal Court Administration’ (‘the Inspectorate’).

(3) The Lord Chancellor must appoint one of the persons so appointed to be His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Criminal Court Administration.

(4) The Lord Chancellor may make to or in respect of inspectors of court administration such payments by way of remuneration, allowances or otherwise as he may determine.

(5) It is the duty of the Inspectorate to inspect and report to the Lord Chancellor on—

(a) the administration and operation of the system that supports the carrying on of the business of—

(i) the Crown Court, and

(ii) the magistrates’ courts;

(b) the efficiency, effectiveness and accessibility of those courts and their services, having particular regard to the experience of witnesses and victims.

(6) Any report under subsection (5) must make recommendations to the Lord Chancellor in respect of subsection (5).

(7) The Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament—

(a) any report under this section within one month of receiving it; and

(b) his response to the recommendations of a report within six months beginning on the day on which the report in question is laid.

(8) A response under subsection (7)(b) must describe—

(a) any action the Lord Chancellor proposes to take, and

(b) where the Lord Chancellor does not propose to take any action, a reason why he proposes not to take action.

(9) The Lord Chancellor may not issue any direction to the Inspectorate in relation to its duty under subsection (5).

(10) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations make further provision about the Inspectorate.”—

This new clause establishes His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Criminal Court Administration as an independent statutory body responsible for inspecting and reporting on the administration of criminal courts, with a particular regard to the experience of victims and witnesses.

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

New clause 35, which I tabled last week after a conversation with the Victims’ Commissioner, would reinstate an inspectorate body for the criminal courts in England and Wales. The Courts Act 2003 introduced His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Court Administration, which was established in 2005. The inspectorate was then closed in 2010, with the then Government arguing that audits of HMCTS, combined with the inspection regimes of the current justice inspectorates and the National Audit Office, negated the need for HMICA. However, a 2022 Justice Committee report found that that argument had not stood the test of time, and it called for the re-establishment of an inspectorate body. The report stated:

“A Courts’ Inspectorate, which is independent from Government, could make a substantial difference to the accountability and transparency of the justice system. It could use inspections and the promised improvements to the quality of the data to make recommendations that can inform policy and guidance in both criminal and civil justice. An inspectorate could also help to monitor the use of technology in the courts.”

This is a really important time to introduce the additional level of having a courts’ inspectorate, especially when the use of technology will play a much larger role in the criminal justice system, as well as the quality of the data coming out, which the Committee has debated various times. The proposal was backed by Andrew Cayley KC, then chief inspector for the Crown Prosecution Service. He favoured an even broader court inspection regime to scrutinise the operation of the disjointed parts of the system, particularly regarding the listing of cases. The re-establishment of a courts inspectorate was also recommended by Sir Brian Leveson in part 2 of his independent review of the criminal courts; it was recommendation 58. While there are four criminal justice inspectorates, Sir Brian notes:

“There is, however, no one body that is responsible for the inspection of the criminal courts in England and Wales.”

Due to limitations to the scope of this Bill, our new clause proposes a criminal courts inspectorate that would inspect and report on the administration and operation of the criminal courts. The new clause stipulates that that inspectorate must have

“particular regard to the experience of witnesses and victims” when assessing

“the efficiency, effectiveness and accessibility of those courts”.

An inspectorate would identify inefficiencies and monitor victims’ experience in the system.

When debating an earlier group, the Minister mentioned what I think she called a public governance board that she is exploring. It would be helpful if she could outline whether she sees my new clause as different from that, or whether she is looking to create an additional level of inspection and scrutiny in the criminal courts system.

As I have alluded to several times, the Conservative party is considering more broadly how we tackle judicial accountability in all its different elements. It would be premature for us to settle on this new Clause if, as the hon. Member for Chichester pointed out, it had to be necessarily narrow to fit in the Bill. On that basis we will not vote for it. We are not against it as an idea, but we need greater time to think about accountability and performance in the justice system in a more comprehensive way.

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 inspectorate of court administration; that of course ceased operation under the coalition Government, who found it unnecessary at the time.

The Minister is absolutely right that it ceased operation, but the report that led to that decision was published under a Labour Government. Does she recognise that that report was actually tabled in 2009, and that it was the coalition Government that carried out the function of the report that the Labour Government put forward?

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 want to ensure that it represents value for money and drives better performance. Clearly, the Government of the day did not think that it did.

No inspectorate would have scope to scrutinise judicial decisions. It is also important to say—there have been improvements in this regard—that extensive operational data and metrics, which everyone is welcome to look at, provide an insight into the performance of our criminal courts, whether in terms of case timeliness, conviction rates or sentencing outcomes. That is exactly as it should be.

At this point, my focus is on driving reform, modernisation and the proper delivery of the investment that we are making, rather than on the inspection landscape, but I do not disagree with the sentiment that lies behind the hon. Member for Chichester’s new Clause. Getting the mechanism right and taking our time to think about what form it should take, and how it could be properly resourced and as effective as we want it to be is something that we all want to take our time over, so I urge the hon. Member to withdraw her new clause.

In the tradition of the last five days in Committee, I will push the new Clause to a vote because I would like to see greater scrutiny of the way that our court system functions.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.