Speeches by Cox.

“For all offences?”

“Sure. We are in a situation where we need to maintain criminal records, but that need not have a cumulative disadvantaging effect on people over time. That is where I guess we want to get to. What two or three headline reforms do you want to see?”

“Chair, I would quite like the Committee to write to the service to find out what its role is relative to what we are hearing here.”

“That would be interesting to know, given the scale of the challenge. If one in four people have a criminal record, as we are told in the brief and by you, some people must function with a criminal record. How does that happen? Where are the stories where people have been able to negotiate? It is important for us to be …”

“What advice does it give?”

“Good afternoon. I am the MP for Colchester. My interests are as declared on the register and I am the Chair of the APPG for penal affairs.”

“Like so many Members who have spoken in this debate—and I have heard every contribution—I wish to pay tribute to those who serve, to veterans, and to their family members. Those who serve do an extraordinary job, and they do so at our direction and on our behalf. It is therefore our moral duty, which we are reaffirming…”

“I welcome the amendments that deal with IPP sentences. This is a matter of concern to many Members on both sides of the House. Can the Minister assure us that following the changes to IPP licence termination, these sentences will continue to provide for community rehabilitation, while protecting communities from harm? …”

“I had finished.”

“I am talking about our legal history. There is a lot of talk here about there being an ancient right to jury trial. I am looking at that to ask whether there is.”

“Good afternoon. I am Pam Cox, a former historian of the criminal justice system. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on penal affairs and my other interests are as declared.”

“Thank you. I think that is probably all I need on that; I will move on to the hearing question. The Leveson review and the Government have both stressed that jury trials for the most serious indictable-only offences have more than doubled in hearing time since 2001. Why do you think that has occurred?”

“You can.”

“The Leveson review states: “There exists no such constitutional or common law right to a trial by jury.” The context for the report saying that is linked to Lord Justice Auld’s work when he looked into the history of jury trials and the rights to jury trials and concluded that “a free man’s right to the lawful judgment…”

“You can.”

“If this is public data—the model that you are using—why can’t it be anonymised and shared?”

“If this is public data—the model that you are using—why can’t it be anonymised and shared?”

“What is the difference between the modelling the MOJ is currently doing on this and the modelling that Leveson’s team did, in a nutshell?”

“The role and remit of juries has changed over time, so the governance of juries has a history. One might argue—whatever one thinks about the rights and wrongs of this—that this is another phase in the transitional governance of juries through democratic processes. Would you agree with that?”

“The right to elect has also changed over time; it has had different forms in different periods. Does that have any bearing on your thinking on this matter?”