Courts and Tribunals Bill

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The reasoned amendment in the name of the loyal Opposition has been selected.

13:37

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)]

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

I am very proud to bring this Bill back before the House, because it will drive long-overdue reform to effectively evolve our 20th-century criminal justice system so that it is fit for the 21st century. This House will recognise that a particular kind of silence now echoes through the corridors of our courts. It is not the silence of a jury carefully weighing the evidence, or the hush as a judge delivers their verdict; it is the silence of waiting. It is the silence of victims who have been told, sometimes for the third or fourth time, that their trial has been adjourned because there is no judge, no courtroom, and no capacity to hear it. It is the silence of people like Katie, who reported her partner for actual bodily harm and rape in 2017 but, staggeringly, did not see justice until 2024, after waiting seven years. Her life fell apart over that period—it left her mental health in tatters and caused her to lose her job. This is an injustice. It is Katie’s injustice and the injustice of thousands of victims across the country, and this Bill seeks to redress that today. It builds on Sir Brian Leveson’s thoughtful and considered review. I am grateful to Sir Brian for all his work, particularly in getting us to this point with part 1 and part 2 of this Bill.

This Government inherited a justice system close to breaking point from the previous Government, who could and should have reformed it. The consequences of their inaction are clear: we have nearly 80,000 cases in the Crown court backlog. That is more than double the number in 2019. More than 20,000 cases wait for more than a year, and that includes around 2,000 rape cases. It is an average of 255 days before a Crown court case gets heard and finishes. For rape, it is a staggering 423 days. If we do nothing, the backlog is projected to reach 200,000 within the next decade. That is five times what it was in 2019. This is not a matter of efficiency; the progressive case for court reform is about whether the institutions of the British state can still deliver justice. For the people we were elected to represent in Parliament, when we speak about the rule of law, we do so as though it is a lofty constitutional principle, but the rule of law is not abstract. It is a public service. If that service cannot be delivered in a timeframe that allows victims to move on with their lives, the law is not ruling, but failing.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that the rule of law is a living thing, and the connection between the public and the exercise of criminal justice is fundamental. Central to that is the age-old principle of juries and jury service. It is a direct engagement of the public in something that otherwise would be remote from the vast bulk of them. Does he retain my view that jury service is critical, and that juries should play a continuing part in the criminal justice system, or is he determined to minimise the number of jury trials? That is certainly what his proposal looks like to the vast majority of people in the Chamber.

[Mr Lammy]

I absolutely retain the right hon. Gentleman’s view that juries are a cornerstone of our system. They are fundamental. This Bill is about protecting them. All Governments put thresholds on where juries sit. He will recall that one of his great heroes, Margaret Thatcher, made such a change in 1989.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the progress he is making. I am for reform. My concern, as his own review in 2017 highlighted, is that this will fall on people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds and the inequalities that they already face. Can he reassure me, my constituents in Bradford West and people more widely that he will robustly review the impact of this Bill on people from minority ethnic backgrounds? Will he ensure that it is a meaningful review that holds weight?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend probably has more lived experience of the criminal justice system than many others in this Chamber. She has been a doughty campaigner on issues for ethnic minorities across our country for many years. I can give her that reassurance, and I will come to that point a little later in my speech. It is right that there will be a review, so that we understand exactly how our reforms—and, indeed, our criminal justice system in a deeper and better way—are affecting ethnic minority populations. I hope that she will engage in the ambit, scope and direction of that review.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is right to set out the importance of jury trials as a cornerstone of our democracy and justice system. They are in place for a very good reason. In the Lammy review, he previously emphasised the importance of jury trials and, in particular, the disproportionate impact on BAME communities. What has changed?

[Mr Lammy]

I know that when my hon. Friend is upset, his baritone deepens—it was not quite as deep today as it has been on other occasions. He will know that I take very seriously the review I did. I will say more about disparities in a moment, but if we look at that review, we see that it was clear that there is tremendous public trust in our juries. When I was asked by David Cameron to do the review, there was concern in some towns and cities and among some ethnic minority populations about situations where they perceived they had an all-white jury. They asked whether it was still fair. Broadly, it was found to still be fair, and there was no evidence that there were unfair trials in our magistrates courts, which do 90% of the work, or if a single judge is sitting on their own. For the reasons that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), it is right that we review how the system is working and fully understand how these changes will affect the system.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister and the Government are caught between a rock and a hard place. They have to address the backlog while trying to ensure that jury trials are retained. The general public have deep concern that speed cannot come at the expense of fundamental rights. I know that the Secretary of State will ensure that does not happen, but can he reassure me that any reforms will preserve the right to have a jury trial where that is essential to justice, rather than making piecemeal changes that will, I suspect, prevent people who need jury trials from having them?

[Mr Lammy]

Juries remain a cornerstone, and I reassure the hon. Gentleman that what we are proposing is about protecting juries. Let us be clear, however, that the Bill is not just about juries; it is a whole package, and that is why I set out just a few weeks ago that investment was key. This is £2.78 billion of investment. As Sir Brian told us in part 2 of his reforms, modernisation and dealing with efficiencies in the system are fundamental.

Victims are worn down, people simply give up, cases collapse and offenders remain free to roam the streets, to commit more crimes and to create more victims. To restore swift and fair justice, we are pulling every lever available, with essential investment, modernisation and reform. Let me start by addressing the reform that has provoked the fiercest debate. The new Crown court bench division, or our so-called swift courts, are dealt with in clause 3 of the Bill. The new division will hear cases with a likely custodial sentence of up to three years, to be heard by a judge sitting alone. The independent review of the criminal courts predicts that this will reduce trial times by at least 20%, and Sir Brian believes that the gains could be greater still. It will free up thousands of hearing days for the more serious cases. That is not just Sir Brian’s view; analysis published today by the Institute for Government supports the modelling behind these reforms, and the predicted time savings that they will deliver. Let me be absolutely clear: indictable-only offences will remain for juries. The most serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery and grievous bodily harm with intent will never be heard in the new division.

This is not a new principle. Judge-alone trials operate successfully in countries such as Canada, where judges told me that such trials were as much as twice as fast as jury trials, and they are already a normal, everyday part of our justice system. District judges sit alone in magistrates courts every single day, youth courts operate without juries, and family courts deciding whether a parent can see their child always sit without juries.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

When the Justice Secretary talks about juries, is it not right to point out that 0.4% of cases from the magistrates courts are appealed against, and that of that 0.4%, which is about 5,000, 41% are successful on appeal? What does he say about that?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is entirely right: 41% are successful, and that, of course, means that 59% are not. With the new permission stage, those 41% would still get through. It seems to me absolutely right that, in order to make the system properly efficient, we have the same set of standards. As is set out in the Bill, people would appeal from a Crown court beyond, as they appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown courts.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

The Lord Chancellor has quite properly recognised the Government’s debt of gratitude to Sir Brian Leveson, but will he accept that the Government have been somewhat selective in adopting Sir Brian’s recommendations? He knows that Sir Brian did not recommend that all cases that are triable either way should have the right to elect for jury trial to be removed from them. He also knows, incidentally, that Sir Brian did not propose an increase in magistrates’ sentencing powers to up to two years; he suggested that it remain at 12 months. What the Lord Chancellor has not done is adopt some of Sir Brian’s recommendations in relation to encouraging early guilty pleas, which would have a significant impact on the backlog. Why have the Government selected for priority purposes the recommendations that would have an impact on the right of jury trial, and not some other recommendations that would have a similar effect on the backlog?

[Mr Lammy]

We have, of course, accepted the thrust of Sir Brian’s recommendations, but there are areas in which we have chosen to go further—the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right about that—because of the modelling, and what it says the effect on the backlog will be. He will recognise, when presented with the evidence, that the backlog would be heading to 200,000 by 2035—notwithstanding all that has been said about investment, which we are putting in, and notwithstanding all that has been said about modernisation and the efficiencies about which Sir Brian went into such detail in part 2 of his review—because, with all good will, the reform proposed in the Bill will not get through this Parliament until towards the end of the year, we felt that there were some areas in which we wanted to go further.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Lammy]

I will, and then I will make some progress.

[Ms Creasy]

I think we all share my right hon. Friend’s passionate desire to support the victims who are waiting too long to get to court, but that means that we also owe them a debt of truth. The concern highlighted in the Institute for Government report is that magistrates courts will struggle to absorb such a large increase in demand, so we may not see the faster justice that he is promising under these proposals. Will he recognise that those of us who cannot support the Bill as it currently stands think that the way forward is to look at the data and consider whether juries are actually a red herring when it comes to the investment that we so sorely need because of the damage done by the previous Government?

[Mr Lammy]

That is why we have uncapped sitting days for the Crown Court, and that is why I am proposing further investment in our magistrates. I want to get the number of magistrates back to more or less where it was when the Labour party was last in government. It was 29,000 then, and it dropped to 21,000 under the previous Government. My hon. Friend is right—we will have to invest, and increase the number of magistrates—but I hope that, given her long-standing record of working with victims in particular, she will look hard at the Bill as it continues its passage, and will ultimately feel able to support it.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Lammy]

I am going to make some progress, because I think that otherwise I will upset you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I recognise that some argue that the reform risks eroding trial by jury, but let me make it clear that juries will remain the cornerstone of our democracy under these reforms. Far from diminishing juries, the Bill protects them, enabling them to be used in a timely fashion when it matters most. What we are proposing changes the threshold for juries; it does not change the fundamental right to a fair trial, which remains absolute. Since the Magna Carta, no part of our justice system has stood still. Governments of all stripes have changed jury thresholds—it has been business as usual for Governments. James Callaghan removed automatic jury trials for theft, burglary, actual bodily harm and certain drug offences in 1977, and Margaret Thatcher did the same in 1988 in relation to criminal damage.

There is not, and never has been, an automatic right to a trial by jury. In the current system, only 3% of criminal trial cases go before a jury. More than 90% of all cases are already heard, fairly, by magistrates and district judges across the country. Following our changes, about three quarters of Crown court trials will still be heard by a jury, including the vast majority of serious youth cases. We will also introduce judge-alone trials for complex and technical cases that tie up judges, juries and courtrooms for months—time that could be spent hearing violent and sexual offence trials. Our changes will ensure swifter justice and avoid undue burden on juries.

As the author of the Lammy review and a child of the Windrush generation, as a black man who has been stopped and searched repeatedly because of the colour of my skin, I know as well as anyone in the House that disproportionality in the justice system must be addressed, and now, since I published my review, 21% of judges come from an ethnic minority background. However, we must recognise that the status quo of the broken system does produce injustice, and the burden of that delay is not evenly shared.

Black people are 14% more likely to be victims of crime, and people from mixed ethnic backgrounds, such as my children, are 43% more likely. Defendants from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds are statistically more likely than white defendants to be held on remand before trial. As the backlog has grown, remand waits have increased from 16 to 23 weeks. There is nothing progressive about a young working-class black or white man sitting in a cell for months on end, with no judge, no jury, no end in sight. There is nothing progressive about a rape victim waiting years for their day in court. There is nothing progressive about the Tory status quo. That is why tackling delay is in itself a progressive cause.

Following extensive engagement with Members of this House to ensure that the full impacts of my reforms are properly scrutinised, I am, as I have said, committing myself to a full independent review, which will look at how our new reforms will affect particular groups—working-class people as well as ethnic minorities—and assess more broadly whether justice is being delivered, not just in our new division but in all parts of our courts system, in a way in which no Government have ever done before, because sunlight is, of course, the best disinfectant.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I think that all of us across the House share the Justice Secretary’s passion for delivering justice more quickly for victims. I visited Isleworth Crown court at lunch time on Friday and spoke to barristers there. They impressed upon me that it is extremely rare that juries and jurors are the cause of delays to court cases. Recently, there have been delays because the cells have been too cold for defendants or Serco staff to use. Defendants are routinely delivered late by Serco, and there are no contractual penalties. That is pushing cases back repeatedly. Why will the Justice Secretary not take action on those things, rather than restricting trial by jury, which will make a limited difference?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Lord Chancellor responds, let me say that many Back Benchers wish to contribute. No doubt he is coming close to a conclusion sometime soon-ish.

[Mr Lammy]

We are piloting the national listing scheme at Isleworth Crown court. I refer the hon. Lady to my speech setting out what we are doing in relation to part 2 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review. She is absolutely right: we have to address all of the problem. Sir Brian was absolutely clear that we need investment, that we have to deal with the inefficiencies that the hon. Lady has talked about, and that we have to modernise our courts, but we also need reform. Look at the tables and graphs that the Institute for Government has corroborated today. If we are to see the backlog fall by the next election, we have to do all three things, not just cherry-pick.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Will the Lord Chancellor give way?

[Mr Lammy]

I will not, given what has just been said by Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Bill will remove the ability of defendants to elect a jury trial for either-way offences. That is too often done by criminals to delay proceedings and wear down victims, preventing justice from being secured. Under our changes, the decision about where a case is heard will rest where it belongs: with a judge. It will be determined by the matter’s seriousness and suitability for jury trial, not by criminals gaming the system.

This Bill also strengthens the role of magistrates. As has been said today, magistrates’ sentencing powers are capped at 12 months, and cases that could be concluded quickly are too often pushed up to the Crown court, clogging up capacity that would be better focused on more serious crimes. We will extend magistrates’ sentencing powers to 18 months for offences that are triable either way. The Bill does not increase the maximum penalty for offences; it simply lets cases be heard by magistrates without unnecessary escalation, saving Crown court time for the most serious cases.

[Joy Morrissey]

Will the Lord Chancellor give way?

[Mr Lammy]

I will not, given what has been said by Madam Deputy Speaker. I have to make some progress.

We will also reform the appeals process from the magistrates court to the Crown court. At present, an automatic right to a full rehearing forces victims and witnesses to endure the ordeal of their case over and over again, even when there is little merit to an appeal. The Bill will introduce a new permission stage, which will allow judges to filter appeals and decide whether there are genuine points of law that require an appeal hearing. That mirrors the process for appeals from the Crown court to the Court of Appeal. To support that, we will allow audio recording in all magistrates courts for the first time, so that the record is clear and accurate, should an appeal be necessary.

Alongside reform, we are investing. There is a record £2.78 billion settlement for the coming year. That includes £287 million for vital repairs, digital upgrades and unlimited sitting days in the Crown court next year—the most ever funded in the history of our courts. We are modernising, investing in artificial intelligence and other technology, and expanding the use of video hearings to speed up justice. Working with the judiciary, we will bring in a new national listing system to end what some victims justifiably describe as a postcode lottery that has left some waiting longer than others. We will expand blitz courts to clear cases that are stuck in the system, and introduce new case co-ordinators in every Crown court to free up judges’ time.

Even with record investment and ambitious efficiencies, an unreformed justice system has a structural ceiling. That is why the third lever, reform, is essential. The projections are crystal clear: if we do nothing, we will have a backlog of 200,000 cases; if we invest and tackle the inefficiencies, as suggested by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), the backlog will be 133,000; if we pull all three levers, the backlog will be 49,000. The difference is 84,000 more lives on hold. Even if we implement all our measures, the backlog will get worse before it gets better—it will rise before we begin to turn the corner, prior to the end of this Parliament. It is important to be honest with the House: because of the seriousness of the situation, we must proceed with the full, undiluted package. If we step back from or water down action on any of the three levers, victims will continue to be forgotten.

This Bill puts victims first, as well as delivering the swift justice that they deserve. It will also strengthen protections for victims in court. In response to a Law Commission recommendation, clauses 8 and 9 tighten the rules of evidence in sexual offences cases, so that information about a complainant’s past can be used only when it genuinely matters, and cannot be used to fuel myths, to make insinuations, or to humiliate victims, as has been the case. Clauses 12 to 16 strengthen and clarify the use of special measures, ensuring that victims have access to screens, live links and support, so that they can give their best evidence and, importantly, stay in the justice system and the family courts. Clause 17 repeals the presumption of parental involvement—something that many people have campaigned for. That measure was created with good intentions, but it has contributed to a culture in which contact is prioritised.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

The campaign to introduce clause 17 was supported by my Conservative predecessor, Kate Kniveton, who bravely spoke about her experience of sexual violence. Will the Justice Secretary join me in congratulating Kate and all the other campaigners who have been involved in this change?

[Mr Lammy]

Absolutely. I also want to refer to the case of Claire Throssell—she is in the Gallery—and her sons, Jack and Paul. Claire’s loss is beyond words. She is with us today, and I know that the whole House joins me in paying tribute to her for her courage and her tireless campaign to ensure that others do not suffer as she has done.

Finally, the Bill brings the leadership of our tribunals in England and Wales, which have until now been separate, into the 21st century. The Bill brings tribunals into a judicial structure headed by the Lady Chief Justice. It modernises magistrates’ expenses rules, so that they reflect modern working life; that will help us to increase the number of magistrates across the country. The Bill also preserves the unique status of the Old Bailey as the central criminal court.

At its best, Labour has always been a party of institutional renewal. We do not worship at the altar of how things have always been; we ask how things can work better. We have a record of reforming public services that are failing working people. Despite opposition from small-c conservative institutions at the time, our movement delivered trade union legislation before we ended up in government. Bevan created the national health service, despite fierce opposition from the British Medical Association. Against economic orthodoxy, we introduced the minimum wage. Labour has a proud record of putting victims’ voices into the system. We introduced the victims code; we introduced the Victims’ Commissioner; and we bring experiences to this House, including those of Morwenna Loughman, Katie Catt, Vicki Crawford, Jade Blue and Charlotte Schreurs, some of whom are in the Public Gallery. Since taking office again in 2024, we have put victims first. We are introducing protections, so that therapy notes cannot be used against women. The tightened safeguards around how we use their sexual history are important and fundamental to this Bill.

The choice before the House is stark, and we cannot continue with the rising backlog. Clause 40 of Magna Carta is clear:

“To no one will we…deny or delay the right to justice.”

Today, that promise will ring hollow if we do nothing. Let us be the Parliament that chose to act. Let us be the Parliament that turned the tide. Let us be the Parliament that restored swift and fair justice to this country. I urge the House to support this Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Lord Chancellor.

14:09

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Courts and Tribunals Bill because trial by jury is a fundamental part of the United Kingdom’s constitution and democracy; it is wrong to remove defendants’ right to elect for trial in the Crown Court for all triable either-way offences; extending magistrates courts’ sentencing powers, and restricting the right to appeal against sentences and convictions in the magistrates courts, compounds the fundamental injustice at the heart of the Bill; reducing public participation in the justice system will undermine confidence in it; eroding the right to trial by jury will not make a meaningful impact, if any, on the backlog of court cases; and it calls on the Government to instead tackle the court backlog by improving case management and encouraging earlier pleas, increasing sitting days in the Crown Court, and increasing the hours per day that courts are able to sit by improving the use of technology and the efficiency of prisoner transport.”

Today, the Government attack an ancient English right that runs through our constitution, from Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights to trials taking place at this very moment in courts across the land. That right—that nobody should be seized, imprisoned or deprived of his standing in any way, except by the lawful judgment of his equals—is an essential part of our national inheritance. It is part of what makes our legal system the envy of the world. It is admired by jurists and legislators from all around, and it has been copied by all those countries—success stories, like America and Australia—that have followed our common law model.

However, this Government—without a mandate, without a case and without any evidence to justify their actions—have decided that our ancient rights are little more than an inconvenience that this Justice Secretary thinks he can sweep away with only the briefest consideration. Why? He says this is about efficiency and protecting the rule of law, but that is nonsense. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, reducing jury trials will cut the Crown court workload by about 3.5%, but even that number, as I will explain, is wrong. According to the Institute for Government, this Bill will reduce the Crown court workload by only 1% or 2%. In other words, rape victims, who are waiting for a year for their case to be heard at present, would have their cases heard just one week earlier. From the basics, such as getting defendants to court on time, to intensive case management, there is much more that can be done to make the courts more efficient without attacking jury trials.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Has the hon. Member, since writing his speech, seen the updated information available about the percentage reduction in our courts?

[Nick Timothy]

The Institute for Government has made it absolutely clear that the figures that the Government have produced are based on assumptions that are not necessarily shared by anybody who knows what we are talking about.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

Would the hon. Member agree that legal judgment by peers or equals can include legal judgment by magistrates, and that indeed there is no ancient right to jury trial? To say so is to misrepresent the case.

[Nick Timothy]

Magistrates have their place in the system, but jury trials are fundamental to our inheritance, and to public confidence in the criminal justice system.

If the reason is not efficiency, why are the Government doing this? There are only two plausible explanations. The first is that this left-wing Government—determined to censor free speech, and indifferent to public concern about two-tier justice—simply want to do away with the hassle of juries. The second is that the civil service has long sought to do this, and after a line of wiser Secretaries of State than this one, they finally found a Secretary of State foolish enough to go along with it.

We can imagine the scene in the Ministry of Justice. A reshuffle is under way, and the Cabinet Secretary tips off Sir Humphrey, who promptly gathers his officials and asks them what the new Justice Secretary is all about. A private secretary plays the now notorious episode of “Celebrity Mastermind”. “What blue cheese is paired with port?”, asks the quizmaster. “Red Leicester”, says the right hon. Gentleman. Sir Humphrey’s eyebrow arches. “Which Marie won the Nobel prize for physics?” “Antoinette”, comes the answer. Sir Humphrey smiles a wry smile. “Which English King followed Henry VIII?” “Henry VII,” cries the right hon. Gentleman. Sir Humphrey looks around at his trusted officials, and says, “Finally, I think this time we’ve found our man.”

For this is not a new idea. Officials have been itching to do this for years, but wiser Secretaries of State have always said no. Under this explanation of events, the Justice Secretary accepted the advice of his officials, failed to interrogate their arguments, and without so much as a second thought, decided to do what was rejected even during the pandemic, when lockdown and social distancing rules meant criminal trials were postponed.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I appreciate that the hon. Member is into storytelling—it may be his next job—but what did he think was going to happen to the courts system when there was a 23% cut under the last Government? It was going to crumble. Does he not agree?

[Nick Timothy]

Crown court waiting times were actually lower under the Conservatives until the pandemic. It is true that the backlog grew during the pandemic, but the pandemic came before the general election, so why, if it was so necessary, was this measure not in the Labour party manifesto?

I am willing to accept that my account may be unfair. Despite all the evidence provided by the Justice Secretary over the years, the policy might not be explained by his incompetence. Just as plausible is ideological vandalism, and we should take Ministers at their word. To be clear, I do not mean the occasion when the Justice Secretary insisted:

“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.”

No, I mean the explanation given by the Minister for Courts. She said, “This is ideological.” Asked if the Government would be doing this for reasons other than efficiency, she said yes. If we join the dots, this does make sense, because Labour Governments have tried to do it before—in 1999, 2003 and 2007. [Interruption.] The Justice Secretary says Margaret Thatcher did it. Not only is that not true, but if he reads “The Downing Street Years” he will get a lesson in conviction politics and strong leadership, which this Government do not understand.

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nick Timothy]

I will not give way.

Of course, when the Justice Secretary’s predecessor, the Home Secretary, commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to conduct a review of the criminal courts, she knew what she was doing, because in an earlier review Sir Brian had already said that jury trials should be restricted, with magistrates deciding the mode of trial and appeals made to a circuit judge. Perhaps the Justice Secretary sees this, like the early release scheme, as another hospital pass from his predecessor, who like the hardened criminals she let out of prison early, got out of the MOJ before facing the consequences of her actions. If he does think that, he should not feel that he has to go ahead with it.

Yet here the Justice Secretary is today proposing not only what Sir Brian Leveson recommended, but an even more radical change. He is telling the House that he has no choice but to rush this very serious legislation through Parliament at breakneck speed. The Bill was published less than two weeks ago, after no consultation at all, and today he is already asking hon. Members to approve its Second Reading. He is allowing only five days for Members to scrutinise the Bill line by line in Committee. That is less than the Government allowed for the Railways Bill, the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill and the Pension Schemes Bill. It is about the same time the House once spent scrutinising the Salmon Act 1986, which introduced the offence of handling salmon in suspicious circumstances. It is less time than the 44 debates, statements and urgent questions this House has heard on Israel, Palestine and Lebanon since the election.

We are not talking about legislating to recognise the sentience of crustacea or regulate travelling circuses; we are talking about a fundamental change to our constitution, the operation of our courts and the rights of our people. In the words of His Honour Geoffrey Rivlin KC, this Bill is

“one of the most radical and revolutionary events in English legal history. Yet it has not appeared in any manifesto; it has not been put out for consultation; it has not been recommended by Leveson”.

He says that it

“has been ‘published’ with virtually no notice to anyone”.

What arrogance, Madam Deputy Speaker—what a disgrace!

If this Bill had been the subject of consultation and this Justice Secretary had spent any time listening to judges, lawyers and the public, he would know that it will fail on its own terms. He says that it will deliver justice for more victims, but in Canada and Australia—jurisdictions he cites as an inspiration—judge-only trials have seen more acquittals than jury trials. Indeed, the impact assessment predicts that fewer people will go to prison as a result of these changes. That should be no surprise: asking judges sitting alone to take responsibility for depriving somebody of their liberty is far more onerous than asking 12 fellow citizens who can discuss the evidence, argue the case and share the burden between them.

A corresponding danger to justice is posed by the proposals to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers to two years and to limit the right to appeal their rulings. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) said earlier, no fewer than 40% of appeals against verdicts and 47% of appeals against sentences issued by magistrates are successful. Incredibly, the Justice Secretary seemed to suggest just now that these figures are not a cause for concern, but a cause for celebration.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

On appeals against magistrates’ rulings, is the shadow Minister aware—as I am, through my experience—that appeals are essentially a retrial in the magistrates court, and that many appeals are successful simply because the victim cannot face giving evidence for a second time and being retraumatised? Defendants will use that to retraumatise the victim all over again, particularly in circumstances where there is domestic abuse.

[Nick Timothy]

I do not accept that characterisation of magistrates courts. If that were a true cause for concern for the hon. Lady, this Bill would perhaps try to address what she says, yet it does not.

The Government’s claims about what the Bill will achieve are hopelessly confused. The Justice Secretary leans heavily on Sir Brian Leveson, who says that limiting jury trials will save 20% of court time, but there has been no modelling to justify this number, and Sir Brian has admitted that it is little more than a guess. When challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), the Justice Secretary said,

“We will…publish our modelling alongside the…Bill”.—[Official Report, 3 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 109.]

Yet no modelling worthy of the name has been published. The impact assessment takes Sir Brian’s guess and uses it as the median estimate. This is fiction masquerading as science.

The Criminal Bar Association calls the impact assessment “meaningless verbiage”, “total gibberish” and something that

“would make the script writer of ‘In the Thick of it’ wince with embarrassment”.

It concludes:

“If anyone can make any sense of this, please get in touch.”

If the Justice Secretary wanted to accept that invitation right now, I would be willing to give way to him—but he does not.

The Government have overstated the length of trials for cases in scope of the proposed change by more than 100%. The better estimate has been made by the Institute for Government, where researchers have listened to judges and lawyers and understood that only 20% of Crown court time is spent trying either-way offences. Of course, half of those cases will remain jury trials because the likely sentence is above three years. The cases in scope therefore take up only 5% to 10% of Crown court time, so even if they could be tried 20% faster, it would save only 1% or 2% of court time.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend is making the point that consultation on and discussion of the Bill may be fruitful if we are to properly understand its effects. One difference the Bill will make is that when a judge tries a case on his or her own, in the absence of a jury, they will be required by the Bill to give reasons for any conviction that they conclude is appropriate. Does my hon. Friend think that the Government have considered the potential impact of that on likely appeals of those decisions to the Court of Appeal?

[Nick Timothy]

My right hon. and learned Friend is exactly right. I was planning to turn to that point, because the Bill creates a problem not only in the burden of time it creates, but in the politicisation of our judiciary.

The Bill does create new time burdens. When juries deliberate, judges do other work in court, including on other trials. If judges deliberate instead, the court time used to hear other cases is lost. Because a defendant’s right to a jury trial will depend on the likely custodial sentence if he is found guilty, if the Bill becomes law, a judge will, for the first time, be needed to first conduct a hearing to determine the likely sentence. The Bill says that the parties involved should make representations; in cases with several defendants, the judge would need to hear from all their representatives and the prosecutor, taking up hours of time. There is more: defendants often plead guilty after the plea and trial preparation hearing, but before trial. In these cases, the sentencing judge—possibly not the same as the allocating judge—will have to hear the submissions all over again.

Then there are the reasons for conviction or acquittal, as my right hon. and learned Friend has just said. Juries do not have to provide reasons, but the Bill says that judges must. That will inevitably take many hours per case—time that right now is used to try cases.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nick Timothy]

I will make some progress.

This opens up new risks. The publication of judges’ reasons is likely to lead to more appeals and more court time being taken up. As questions are posed about judges’ reasons, we are likely to see the politicisation of judges and judicial appointments—something that will be made worse by the blurring of our adversarial model and the European inquisitorial role of judges. Under our model, judges are entitled to intervene and seek further information to help the jury with their assessment; in a judge-only trial, where the judge inevitably takes on a more inquisitorial role, those interventions and requests will inevitably be portrayed as the display of bias.

This will be made worse when it comes to the role of the judge in deciding on the admissibility of evidence. A judge usually sees all manner of material that is prejudicial to the defendant but deemed inadmissible, which does not matter when it is a jury who decides innocence or guilt. When a judge sees prejudicial material and deems it inadmissible, however, it will be difficult for anybody to believe that the information was simply erased from their mind. Judges may be professional and fully committed to their impartiality, but they are not superhuman.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nick Timothy]

I will not.

It is not difficult to see how this, too, will undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system and put judges in an impossible situation.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making some very important points. There is a more fundamental point about public perception, which he may come on to in a moment. If we pass this legislation at a time when confidence in this place and in conventional politics is at an exceedingly low ebb, we will be sending a signal to people that this place does not trust 12 good men and true to make decisions, and, in fact, that we want to take that decision away from them. Does he agree that that will further erode confidence in conventional mainstream politics?

[Nick Timothy]

I completely—

[Natalie Fleet]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Nick Timothy]

I give way.

[Natalie Fleet]

The right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) is absolutely right to talk about confidence in public institutions, because that is what we are addressing today. I stand before the House as a victim who would not report because I do not want to be retraumatised over years. I speak on behalf of the victims in the Gallery and the victims out there in the country. That is where I want us to restore confidence. That is what we need to do today.

[Nick Timothy]

I totally understand what the hon. Lady says, and we are all interested in the best interests of victims. [Interruption.] To suggest otherwise is absolutely appalling, and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) should withdraw that comment.

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden). I was concerned by the Justice Secretary saying that he is proud of the fact that his party does not just look to the past and to how things have been; I think one of the problems with Labour is that it is too careless with how things have always been. This is exactly what we are talking about. This is an ancient constitutional and legal right, and Labour is being careless about it.

[Pam Cox]

rose—

[Nick Timothy]

I will not give way again.

We are talking about a fundamental change in the way that we try criminal cases, and the cases in scope are not minor; they are cases where the likely sentence is between 18 months and three years in prison. Before Government Members decide how to vote this evening, they need to search their souls and ask themselves three vital questions. Is this Bill just? Is it thought through? Is it going to make our courts more efficient? If they are honest with themselves, and if they ask judges, lawyers and their own colleagues, such as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, they will know that the answer to all three questions is no. None of the great Labour Prime Ministers would ask them to take this step—not Clement Attlee, not Harold Wilson, and not James Callaghan, as the Justice Secretary earlier claimed. As Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins would never have invited MPs to put their conscience aside and vote for what they believe, deep down, to be wrong—and, as I understand it from the media briefings, neither would the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner).

Government Members know the policy was not in their manifesto, they know that there has not even been a consultation, and they know that it is wrong to rush this through the House after just five days of scrutiny in Committee. They know, too, that in perhaps just a few months, this Prime Minister will be gone. I do not believe that they wish to look back in the years ahead and remember voting to attack an ancient English right and to undermine what makes ours the best legal system in the world, all for a Prime Minister who takes them for granted and who they will soon replace. We will vote against this terrible Bill today, and so should they.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

There are shy of 60 people wishing to contribute. I urge Members to keep their contributions brief.

14:35

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I have been friends for some time. I think you were elected in 2015. Soon after that, your talents were recognised and you were quickly given a ministerial brief. You know my politics, as we have crossed swords many a time, so you know it pains me to congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), the shadow Justice Secretary, on his outstanding contribution; there was really nothing in it that I could disagree with. None the less, I do welcome the intervention of my right hon. Friend, the Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister, because it is true that since he has been in post, he has secured the biggest investment for the criminal justice system in decades, amounting to something in the region of £2.5 billion. I commend my dear friend for that work, which I know will have taken some serious graft with the Treasury officials and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

It is true that much of this Bill is absolutely critical, including the actions to reduce the backlog. No Member of this House wants to see victims of crime languishing, waiting for months and years for their cases to be heard. The Labour Government’s policy on reducing violence against women and girls is crucial as well. It is also right to say that the previous Government savaged the criminal justice system, underfunding it during the austerity years. But I have to be honest: it was not just the previous Tory Government who did that. The criminal justice system has been badly treated and badly funded for decades.

There are parts of this Bill, though, that are unworkable, unjust, unpopular and unnecessary, including jury trial curtailment, the extended powers for sentencing in the magistrates courts, and the removal of the right to elect jury trial for offences with less than three years’ tariff. It is concerning that the Government are doing away with the automatic right of appeal in the magistrates courts—that is essentially what is happening—because, as I said in an intervention, about 0.4%, or around 5,000 cases, go to appeal and 41% of those appeals are successful.

I am afraid to say that the analogy used by the Justice Secretary, of somebody stealing a bottle of whisky, is an unfortunate one. I do not pretend to be a terribly eminent lawyer—I was prosecuting and defending the theft of Mars bars in my second six pupillage before I was elected to this House in May 2010—but never did I see a situation in the magistrates court in which a defendant was advised to elect for a trial when they had allegedly nicked a bottle of whisky. That scenario is for the birds, to be perfectly honest. It is on the same level as the Justice Secretary, in his MOJ video, referring to a scraped knee in an A&E triage situation—it is unfortunate and disappointing, and he could do much better. The Institute for Government report, published today, states that the MOJ modelling is sound, but that it relies on several uncertain assumptions. That is a very grave concern.

I am not going to detain the House terribly long. Yesterday evening, I had what I can only describe as an incredibly honest and robust, but constructive, discussion with the Deputy Prime Minister, and I am glad to say that that discussion produced something of an offer. I think it is absolutely imperative that one of our number—one of those of us who are opposed to these changes for principled reasons—has a seat on the Public Bill Committee. Colleagues told me that this was impossible. They said, “It’s never going to happen.” They said that the Chief Whip would never concede to allowing one of the so-called rebels on to the Bill Committee. But, following the Deputy Prime Minister’s representations to the Chief Whip, that guarantee was made. For that reason and for that reason alone, I will abstain from voting on the Bill today.

Let me put it in this way: I will abstain today because I think there is a possibility of making progress, and because I trust my right hon. Friend to negotiate in good faith with colleagues who are opposed to the Bill. What I do not appreciate is MOJ officials spinning the line that “even Karl Turner was unable to persuade enough people to rebel against this Bill.” That is not right, it is unfair and, frankly, it is unbecoming of a Secretary of State in any Department. None the less, I abstain today and I sincerely urge my colleagues to abstain as well. I am more confident now than ever before that the worst parts of the Bill will be defeated by amendments. I sincerely ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to let the Bill pass its Second Reading, so that we can make progress on getting rid of the bits of this Bill that are completely unworkable, unpopular, unjust and unnecessary.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

14:39

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats will be voting against the Bill, and we have tabled a reasoned amendment that sets out why we fundamentally disagree with the approach of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Courts Minister to tackling the Crown court backlog. Our views have been well aired in this place over the last few months, but today is an opportunity for us to lay out the reasons why the Bill should not progress in its current form.

Something that we agree on is that the current backlog is unacceptable, untenable and unsustainable. We agree with the Government that that is because of the historic and monumental failings of the previous Conservative Government, whose complacency and mismanagement of the justice system left the criminal justice system on the brink of collapse. It is a shameful legacy.

The backlog in our criminal courts now stands at 80,000. That disgraceful situation deprives victims and defendants of justice for years—cases are now being listed for the end of this decade. This has a huge impact on the quality of evidence, and it even causes victims to pull out of cases because so long has passed since the crime and they just want to move on with their lives. It also leaves defendants’ lives on pause while they await the opportunity to prove their innocence. The system as it stands fails everyone. Something must be done about this crisis, and it must be done now.

Sir Brian Leveson was clear in his report that the fundamental drivers of the ever-increasing backlog were systematic underfunding, the readiness of defence and prosecution teams, and the availability of witnesses, victims and defendants, but he did not identify juries as the cause of the problem. Between 2016 and 2024, the number of ineffective trials increased from 15% to 25%. In that time, the average court sitting time fell from 3.8 hours per sitting day to 3.2 hours. Juries are not the problem; inefficiencies are.

In my Crown court in Chichester, all cases were suspended for a fortnight in January because the heating system failed and it was too cold in the building. Across the country, there are stories of courts closing due to crumbling roofs, water pouring into courtrooms, gas leaks and general poor maintenance over many years. Juries are not the problem; crumbling infrastructure is.

[Dr Chambers]

I visited the Winchester courts recently and spoke to about a dozen barriers, who were all concerned about us taking a sledgehammer to jury trials, not only because they are a fundamental part of our justice system, but because doing so will not even help to clear the backlog, as jury trials are not the limiting factor. They reiterated that it is about defendants and prisoners getting to court on time, the number of sitting days and the crumbling infrastructure. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should listen to the professionals, who know what the problems are?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Joanna Hardy-Susskind put it well today, when she said:

“I have seen the adjournment of two rape trials this year. It’s only March. Nothing in Lammy’s proposed Bill would have saved the trial dates in either case. Nothing.”

Barristers across England and Wales are reporting delays to their cases because of the failed prisoner escort and custody services contracts—something I have asked the Justice Secretary about many times. These issues regularly cause cases to run late because the defendant has not been delivered on time from prison, or because there is nobody on site to bring them up from the holding cells. Juries are not the problem; Government contracts are the problem.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

I have been a civil and a criminal law practitioner. The civil courts are not that far from the criminal courts when it comes to delays, but there are no juries in the civil courts, so does the hon. Lady agree that the delays are due to a lack of investment?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention; I have also seen the amendment that his group has tabled, and I agree with that.

Trial by jury is deeply enshrined in our conscience and constitution, and it is respected all over the world.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the original clause 39 of Magna Carta has guaranteed an individual’s right to due process in the court for 800 years, and that trial by jury is at its heart? This Bill asks the right question but gives a reckless answer. There is no modelling or evidence to show that this move will reduce the backlog.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I agree with some of what my hon. Friend said. I do agree that trial by jury is one of the only parts of our justice system that is still actually trusted. The possibility of being tried by one’s peers is fundamental to a fair trial in this country. The Deputy Prime Minister himself recognised that point in the Lammy review in 2017, and then again during the pandemic when curtailing the right to a jury trial was proposed to deal with the increasing backlog.

[Emily Darlington]

I am trying to understand the hon. Lady’s point. Is she saying that we should now extend jury trial to all trials, or that we should keep the status quo? Is she saying that it is sacrosanct and so should in fact be extended? I am confused.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I am happy to make it absolutely clear for the hon. Member. If I was allowed to get on, I could make that point. Trial by jury is not the problem. We agree that there is a problem that needs to be solved, but curtailing the right to a jury trial will not achieve what the Government and the Opposition want: the backlog coming down.

Leveson’s report proposed a bench division with a judge and two magistrates. The Government have gone further and proposed a swift court with just one sitting judge. Did they choose to ignore Sir Brian Leveson’s proposal of a Crown court bench division with a judge and two magistrates because, although they agree—I think—that the lay element to a trial is an important part of the system, they know that they do not have enough magistrates and are likely to struggle to find enough willing to preside over lengthy cases? Does the Courts Minister really believe that defendants opt for a Crown court trial because they want their cases to be heard in a Crown court building—because of the facilities or because it might have better coffee—rather than because they want a trial by jury?

[Pam Cox]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I will make some progress.

If the Deputy Prime Minister and the Courts Minister believe that this is fundamentally the right thing to do practically and ideologically, why did it not feature in the Labour party manifesto? Like many Members, I take issue with the Deputy Prime Minister’s messaging around the Bill. He chose to describe defendants as “offenders”, rather than applying the principle of innocent until guilt is proven. He also described a case that carries a sentence of up to three years as akin to having a grazed knee and seeing a consultant. I think most of the public outside this building would argue that three years’ imprisonment is a life-changing sentence. If I were tried for a crime that I was arguing that I did not commit, I would like that to be in front of a jury of my peers.

I believe the Government are wasting severely limited political capital on something that will not shift the dial. They stated themselves that they expect all the measures in the Bill to show just a 5% decrease in the backlog by the end of this Parliament and a return to pre-covid backlog levels only in a decade.

Instead of these drastic changes, we are urging the Government to look at alternative options to reduce the Crown court backlog. We should look at measures that have been tried and tested before, such as those piloted during the pandemic to supercharge the Crown courts, when extended sitting hours allowed am and pm trials. Used in select courtrooms, that method can funnel through cases that have been stuck in the backlog for years. In the original pilots, the approach cleared 3.5 cases per courtroom each week, compared to fewer than one in courts operating standard hours. That is how we can begin to reduce the backlog without removing liberties that we should all hold as sacred. Will the Government please give consideration to the Liberal Democrat proposals, which would not only boost efficiencies in the Crown courts but would make the experience for jurors, victims and judges better, and could attract retired judges back into the system to preside over half-day cases?

Another glaring flaw in the Bill is that more serious cases will be heard in the magistrates court, where there is a higher income threshold to qualify for legal aid. Many more defendants who could be accused of crimes that carry sentences of up to 24 months will be unrepresented and defending themselves. That is very likely to drag out hearings, which will lower the overall savings that the Government claim to be making with these reforms. How will the Government respond when magistrates courts start pushing cases with longer sentences back to the Crown court as they struggle to absorb the additional work, as happened with the previous reform of magistrates’ sentencing powers?

The Government are also proposing to abolish the right of appeal from the magistrates court. Why does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that should be done when 42% of appeals from the magistrates court are successful? If the Government are willing to include an important clause on the presumption against parental responsibility in the Bill, why will they not extend the scope of the Bill to address the fundamental reforms needed in the broken family court system?

The Government’s proposals are opposed by the Criminal Bar Association, the chair of the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Four Bars, the Secret Barrister, Judge Rob Rinder, Jo Hamilton OBE, many Labour Members and 3,200 legal professionals, who have written to the Deputy Prime Minister today. If they will not listen to all those organisations and people who have spent their lives committed to making the criminal justice system, which has been poorly managed by successive Governments, as effective as possible for victims and defendants, who will they listen to?

I have a huge amount of respect for the Courts Minister and for the Deputy Prime Minister, which is why I am disappointed to be here making this speech. It is not too late for them to change course.

14:50

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The number of outstanding cases in the Crown court is 79,619. The outgoing Conservative Government promised to reduce the backlog; it should have been 53,000 by April last year. Their abject failures led the present Government to ask one of the country’s most foremost experts on the criminal courts, Sir Brian Leveson, to propose comprehensive court reforms—reforms without precedent in half a century. Sir Brian produced his review in two parts, totalling over 1,000 pages and 180 recommendations. The Bill legislates where legislation is necessary to implement parts of Sir Brian’s review.

Given the current dire situation, with many victims waiting two or more years for their cases to be resolved and defendants spending far too long in custodial remand, the Government are right to propose structural change; otherwise, they would be endorsing perpetual delay.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

Not yet; I am conscious of the time.

The removal of the right to elect for either way offences in clause 1 is the single most significant measure in reducing the caseload of the Crown court, with the Bill’s impact assessment indicating that that change will see 16,000 fewer sitting days in the Crown court each year.

In clause 6, the Government propose to increase the maximum sentencing power of the magistrates court to 18 months. We are told that will save a further 8,000 sitting days in the Crown court. Taken together, those two measures—ending election and extending magistrates’ powers—represent a sizeable shift of the caseload out of the Crown court and into the magistrates court. That will deliver on the main objective of these reforms, which is to ensure the capacity of the Crown court to try the most serious criminal cases in a fair and timely manner. There has been less scrutiny on how magistrates will cope with their new responsibilities; I will deal with that in a moment.

Clauses 3 to 5—the provisions that have attracted the most debate—will establish the Crown court bench division to enable cases with a likely sentence of three years or less to be tried on indictment without a jury. Clause 4 will allow trial by judge alone for some complex and lengthy cases. Compared to the other measures in part 1 of the Bill, those will have a less significant effect on the backlog, but a still substantial 5,000 Crown court days will be saved.

I accept the Government’s argument that there is a strong case for modernising how the Crown court operates. Some improvement will be achieved through adopting the measures on efficiency set out in part 2 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review, or the additional resources promised under the concordat with the Lady Chief Justice that will remove restrictions on court sitting days, but those are unlikely to be enough on their own. Given the crisis that the criminal courts are facing, I am willing to support the creation of the Crown court bench division and the other measures in part 1 of the Bill.

I do not accept the case made by some that the proposals represent the end for jury trial and that the Bill should be opposed on that basis. Of the 3% of criminal cases that currently go before a jury, about a third—some 4,000—of the less serious of those offences, such as possession of class A drugs, car theft, affray and large-scale waste dumping, will now go before a judge alone. I do not believe that undermines the jury system, although it will undoubtedly change how some cases are tried. Therefore, arrangements for judge-only trials in the Crown court need to be carefully reviewed once they are in force to test whether they deliver the time saving promised without undermining the right to a fair trial.

I turn to my reservations on the proposals. I am concerned that magistrates courts will not be able to cope with the increase in caseload envisaged by the Bill. The work of the magistrates court is delivered by a range of dedicated public servants: magistrates, district judges, legal advisers, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff, probation, the Crown Prosecution Service and legal aid lawyers. However, we know that recruiting and retaining many of those key personnel are long-standing problems.

The Lord Chancellor wrote to the Justice Committee last week and told us that the Ministry of Justice hopes to recruit thousands of magistrates and hundreds of legal advisers and district judges over the next year or two. I am concerned that those are very ambitious targets, and that even if the recruitment bear fruit, they will not meet the challenge of diverting 24,000 days of complex hearings from the Crown court each year while dealing with the existing problems in the magistrates court, which has its own backlog.

Clause 7, which seeks to reform appeals from the magistrates court, will require electronic recording of proceedings. That strikes me as a significant change. The impact assessment is not clear about how much that will cost, but I doubt whether it can be delivered either quickly or cheaply.

Another area of concern is the process for allocating cases for judge-only trials. Prosecution and defence lawyers will wish to make written and oral submissions, and some may seek to challenge decisions on allocation by judicial review. To those concerns should be added the differing eligibility for legal aid in the Crown and magistrates courts and concerns that the loss of a lay presence in determining innocence or guilt risks losing diversity and adding unconscious bias.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

In the magistrates court, only those who earn less than £21,000 a year—less than a full-time job at real living wage rates—are entitled to legal aid. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is real danger in that in terms of access to justice?

[Andy Slaughter]

That is exactly the point that I somewhat briefly alluded to; I am glad that my hon. Friend outlined it in more detail. The Government really must address that before the Bill concludes its passage through this House and the other place.

In relation to both restriction of jury trials and the decision not to accept Sir Brian’s recommendation that a judge should sit with lay magistrates in the Crown court bench division, the point has been made that the lay element is being limited too far. I could say a lot more, but I am conscious of the time. Many details need to be worked out. I see why the Government are giving themselves until March 2028 to implement the Bill’s proposals.

As the Bill progresses, I hope that the Government will listen to Members of this House and the other place and to those with an interest in the criminal justice system—from lawyers to victims—on how it can be clarified and improved. The Justice Committee has held evidence sessions and been in detailed correspondence with the Lord Chancellor, the Courts Minister and Sir Brian for several months. Our current call for evidence closes tomorrow, and on 17 March we will hold a further evidence session.

I do not have time to cover the other important but less controversial parts of the Bill, but I would like to recognise the Law Commission, which has done the hard work on the proposals on evidence in sexual offence prosecutions that lies behind clauses 8 to 12. I also pay tribute to the campaigners who worked tirelessly for the removal of the presumption of parental involvement. Those measures will help to ensure that some of the most vulnerable in our society are protected by our courts.

Finally, I know that the Lady Chief Justice will be pleased that the Government have found a legislative vehicle to bring the leadership of tribunals within the wider courts structure. That is a good thing. Overall, this is a necessary package of reforms. I look forward to working with the Government to improve it as it progresses through Parliament.

14:58

[Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)]

I should declare an interest at the beginning. I am a member of the Bar—that is not uncommonly known—I still practise at the Bar, and I have the honour to be a criminal barrister and a member of the Criminal Bar Association. I have spent 44 years at the Bar. I have defended and prosecuted in some of the largest criminal trials that this country has ever seen—and some of the longest.

I have been experienced in seeing how juries react to circumstances of adversity and circumstances that challenge and test the very boundaries of humanity in the appalling nature of the crimes they are forced to adjudicate upon. Without exception, they have responded in a manner that I think generally gives rise to the hugest admiration, not to say awe, from those who are otherwise engaged in the administration of justice.

There is something about the gathering of 12 ordinary citizens, chosen at random and brought together into the crucible that a criminal trial produces, that strips away ideological and racial prejudice or preconception, and that causes them to focus upon a single question: is the allegation true, or is it not; and can we be sure, or is there any doubt?

Again and again, throughout our legal history, the wisdom and capacity of juries have been repeatedly vindicated every time they have been analysed, tested or sought to be examined by those who research these matters.

[Pam Cox]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

Not just now, but I will come back to the hon. Member.

We in this House are engaged in ideological strife. Every day of our lives we are engaged in a political battle, and frankly, sometimes we do not always live up to the highest standards that even our own parties have set. In the course of my legal career, I have been led—when I say “led”, I mean that I was a junior in the courts—by some distinguished Labour Members of Parliament who continued to practise in the criminal courts and regarded it is a noble honour to do so. Peter Archer, the former Solicitor General, led me in the early 1980s; John Morris led me just eight weeks before the ’97 election, when the Blair landslide swept in—oh, halcyon days to those across the aisle, or some of them, anyway; and Bob Marshall-Andrews led me right up to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. What remarkable men they were.

Those men would never have countenanced—not for a single second—the compromise of principle that Government and Opposition Members are now being asked to make. I knew these people, and I knew them well. John Morris would never have countenanced it. Peter Archer would never have countenanced it. Bob Marshall-Andrews would never have countenanced it.

[Pam Cox]

Will he give way?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

Not now—later. I will.

I want to appeal to Labour Members. We are engaged in ideological strife. But in the Venn diagram that any society depends upon for the sustaining of sufficient points of common ground to keep a society together, jury trial is one of those that appear in a point of intersection between the vast numbers of this House and outside it.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) first, if she can give me just two seconds. I want to develop this theme, because it is very important to me.

There are some things that have to be above politics. If there are not, we have no society to defend. Jury trial is one of those institutions that have been defended by those across the aisle from me, on the opposite extreme of the political spectrum, and by those on our side of the House, out to the furthest waters of the right. Why is that? Because the administration of justice must be a non-ideological space. Jury trial unites us all for a simple reason: it is the most powerful instrument and engine of social justice that this country has ever invented. It is a safeguard against oppression. It is a built-in defence against establishment and administrative power.

[Catherine Atkinson]

On that point—

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Colchester first.

[Pam Cox]

We could think of this exchange as Cox v. Cox. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentions legal history. I have more than a passing interest in that and am minded to think of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879, which moved a lot of cases from a jury system into the magistrates system. The architect of that was Disraeli, a former Conservative Prime Minister. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that many politicians across this House have acted to shape jury trials over time?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

There has always been a summary jurisdiction—invariably never for offences of dishonesty, and invariably never for offences that might lead to the destruction of the reputation of those who are facing it.

If one Member of this House, who must be disqualified if there is a sentence of imprisonment of more than 12 months, after the passage of this Bill is arraigned before a court on a case that might involve 12 months and one day, he or she will lose the right to a trial by jury, despite the fact that that might be an offence of protest. It might well be an offence where the Member of the House has felt so powerfully that they must breach the law that they are arrested and arraigned on a potential sentence of up to three years. Three years is a long time. As that could easily be an offence of protest, are we therefore saying that those who seek to go to jail, such as the suffragettes, should lose their right to trial by jury—a jury that is not obliged to follow the diktats or directions of a judge on the law; a jury that is entitled to reach its decision on its judgment about what is fair? I say—

[Catherine Atkinson]

Will he give way?

[Andrew Cooper]

Will he give way?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

Not just now.

I say to the House, in all conscience, that jury trial is precious. Why? It is precious because it unites all parts of the political spectrum. It is precious because it allows the people of this country to be directly engaged in the adjudication of guilt or innocence in thousands of cases across the country.

At a time, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) pointed out when he rose to intervene, when our institutions are under unprecedented attack, is now the time to transfer a massive chunk of the administration of criminal justice and the decisions on the guilt or innocence of a fellow citizen to a representative who unquestionably will be seen as a representative of the state? It is the jury that protects us from the allegation that the state is deciding upon that citizen’s future. That is what protects, preserves and enhances the reputation of the administration of justice.

[Karl Turner]

It was telling when Jo Hamilton OBE wrote to the Justice Secretary—I think it was yesterday—to respectfully remind him that, as a victim of the Post Office Horizon scandal, under the legislation proposed, not one of the 900 sub-postmasters who were convicted would have been entitled to a trial before their peers. What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman say to that?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Postmasters, postmistresses, postmen—those whose honesty and integrity are integral to their employment and who, for a breach of trust, would not receive three years’ imprisonment—would all be deprived of their jury trial, and at a time when the sharks and the vultures are circling around the institutions of this country. We are now on the brink of undermining—I believe irredeemably—one of the most precious of those institutions, which commands almost universal assent. Let me say why.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

No, I am not giving way. I am mindful of time and I must complete what I have to say.

This is a time when not just this House but the judiciary and the courts are under attack. The unprecedented attacks upon the judiciary and the legal profession are deplorable. Institutional trust is under siege, and now is not the time—[Interruption.] I am trying to make a speech that is non-partisan—[Interruption.] It really is not. I remember vividly when I sat where the Lord Chancellor now sits and he was on this side of the House. I remember the fire that breathed from his soul as he spoke about justice. I can hear him now, in my mind’s eye, speaking on this subject, and I know that he would have been saying the direct polar opposite of what he is advancing today in the House. I would say that he was his wiser self in those days. He was his best self then, because at that time he was motivated by those who were oppressed, who were poor and who faced the full phalanx of the state reined against them. It was this Secretary of State in a different guise who was their champion and their voice.

A jury trial is the most potent weapon and instrument against oppression and injustice. It serves not just those who are wealthy but those who are poor, and not just those who have a voice but those who do not. It is the 12 members of a jury who will give a hearing to people who otherwise have no hearing—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

I will not take interventions now, and certainly not if they are of the quality that we have had up till now.

The reality is that jury trial is the cornerstone of our justice system. Do away with it and we are in trouble. Let us look at the way in which this Bill operates. It automatically presumes jury trial for everything that will have a likely sentence of three years, and those will involve some grave offences. However, in relation to serious, complex or lengthy cases, it could cover any allegation, so long as a judge concludes that it is appropriate that it should be dealt with without a jury. Apart from the excluded offences, which I accept exist, it is not just fraud trials but all kinds of trials that will be tried without a jury if a judge concludes that is appropriate.

The moment we make jury trials subject to the individual view of a judge as to whether that is appropriate or not, we drive a hole through the fundamental, accepted right that all of us on both sides of the House have accepted over so many years, which is that if someone is accused of a serious crime that could destroy their reputation, disqualify them from the House of Commons, wreck their professional reputation or result in the loss of their employment—as with the postmasters and postmistresses—they should be able to be judged by 12 people.

There is a reason why summary justice is called “summary”. There is a reason that summary justice was always subject to a complete rehearing. It has been suggested that there is no right to a jury trial. Of course there is no written right, but there has always been an accepted consensus, on both sides of this House and throughout the system of this country, that jury trials are precious for those kinds of cases, particularly those involving allegations of dishonesty. The right to elect is crucial. That is what this Bill is undermining. That is what is so dangerous about it. And undermining it on what basis? Arbitrary rules and arbitrary divisions. Why three years? Why not next year four or five? Why not extend it gradually, little by little, until we reduce—

[Catherine Atkinson]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

No, I am not giving way. Let me make that clear now. I want to finish in a moment.

The reality is that jury trial is too precious a thing to lose. We are faced with a question of principle here. The savings that the Government claim will be made are contested by many expert analyses from the profession, the Institute for Government and others. They are based on questionable assumptions. Are those savings sufficient for us to abrogate a fundamental principle that attracts almost universal assent across the political spectrum, which is so rare in our institutional and political life? Are they sufficient for us to take this highly unprecedented and questionable step? I would submit that they are not.

I would submit to the House that we should pause long and hard before we encroach upon this fundamental principle. I have seen it work in practice over 40 years and, as I have said, I have never failed to be awe-inspired by the sheer quality of attention and fairness that a jury brings to its deliberations. Summary justice can never replicate that. We are about to take a step that will irretrievably damage the quality of justice in this country.

I do not watch television much, but sometimes I watch something called “Digging for Britain”. It is apparent from that programme that we can tell when a civilisation starts to degrade when the quality of its architectural constructions changes; they start to look cheaper, and there is less attention to detail. If we take this step, we will be degrading our system of justice. A summary justice trial is summary—the clue is in the name—but that has always been corrected by the power to have a full rehearing in the court above: the Crown court. The Bill is even taking that away. We are ensuring that many thousands of people will be dealt with summarily in cases of great importance to their life and reputation.

I can only appeal to the House—ineffectually, perhaps; and I regret that I have attracted comments from Labour Members suggesting that my comments are controversial. They come from the heart, and from my 44 years’ experience of a system and a profession that I love. If I have attracted the ire of Labour Members, I apologise for that; I was hoping to induce reflection on the sheer importance of the institution about which we are to take this important decision.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We are now on a speaking limit of six minutes. I call Catherine West.

15:18

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)]

I hope to be a little more brief and less pompous than previous speakers. I am indebted to the many who serve, day to day, in the Wood Green courts, and in other parts of the London circuit. I thank them for their hard work in this rather thankless legal environment. I commend the Minister for Courts and Legal Services on her active engagement with Members across the House on these principles and proposals. I also thank the Select Committee for its important work scrutinising the Bill. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) say that he was looking to abstain in the vote on Second Reading, so that he could hear more debate as the Bill passes through the House. That is the spirit in which debate on the Bill should be listened to; there should be less bombast, and more practical solutions for victims of crime.

We need to end the court backlog and ensure access to justice for all. We also need to properly fund our justice system. Congratulations to the team who have got £2 billion out of the Treasury to fix our courts. I welcome the recent announcement of the investment in criminal legal aid—the 24% overall uplift in funding—and of the £287 million to be invested in vital repairs and digital upgrades to court buildings. The day I visited Wood Green, it was a heatwave. We were sitting there—everyone had all their legal coats, dresses and wigs on—and I had the most ordinary plate of fish and chips from the canteen that I have ever had. Given the basic conditions that victims, security teams and legal personnel experience when they go to court, we need to get this money out the door and spent on improving the estate, so that we can have more confidence in the system.

We need to be aware that the legal aid funding for magistrates court cases often barely covers costs. That is one of the serious concerns that I know Labour Members have about what is being proposed. As it stands, there is an automatic right to appeal a magistrates court conviction in the Crown court. Forty per cent of appeals against conviction from the magistrates court to the Crown court are successful. The Bill would end the automatic right to appeal a magistrates court conviction, which is one of the concerns raised by the eminent legal constituents who contacted me yesterday.

Thinking more in depth about the legal aid question, the means-tested threshold is just £22,000. Those in full-time, minimum-wage jobs may not qualify for that in a high-value, expensive city like London. If the Bill becomes law as it stands, will our defendants who are not eligible for legal aid, but who barely manage to keep their heads above water, be expected to draft their own grounds of appeal? I suspect that might lead to more costs in the long term, so we need to look at that.

Why is the court backlog so great? Will the Minister say more about defendants? I am sure that some people will make points about defendants possibly gaming the system—that is what I have been hearing. I have no doubt that there is an element of that, which has to be clamped down on, but let us not ignore the delays in police investigations, often due to the cuts that the police endured over the previous decade, and the sheer churn. If a woman has to wait four years for her case, how many police officers does she see? How many times does she have to repeat her dreadful situation to them? That is a trauma in itself. How many victims’ champions have had to listen to story after story?

Let us not ignore all the other elements of this system, such as delays to do with the police, and sometimes the Crown Prosecution Service. There is also a large churn in expertise there; it has become an unattractive place to work, due to the stretch on the service provided. Decisions are therefore being made at a slow pace; it is quite frustrating, on all counts.

One of my constituents, a practising legal aid solicitor of many decades’ standing, recently told me that his 19-year-old client was just sentenced for an incident that occurred in November 2024 when he was 17 years old. The client was not gaming the system; he pleaded guilty, yet he faced all those delays, so the delays are very real.

The preferred option, from my point of view, would be to have a pilot scheme, and to see after three or four years which system is best: the pilot scheme, or the scheme that we have. Of course, for that to happen, I would have to vote for the Bill’s Second Reading, wouldn’t I? I am being pragmatic and helpful, and am following the lead of Members who have given a lot of thought to this, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East, as well as the Select Committee. I look forward to following the Bill closely as it goes through its stages, including in the upper House, and to coming up with a good solution at the end of this process.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House.

11:30

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Quite unusually, I have served as a practising barrister in courts and have also served on juries. I never fail to be impressed by the extraordinary care that juries take in deciding a case. Undoubtedly, the stand-out speech of the debate so far has been by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox). He addressed us like a jury; it was actually rather wonderful. He posed a question to us that is always posed to a jury, and which is emphasised by the judge at the end of the case: are you certain? Are we sure that trial by jury is guilty? Frankly, I do not think that the Government have made the case so strongly that we can be certain of the outcome.

We are debating something of deep and fundamental seriousness. No one doubts that the backlog in the criminal courts is serious. Everybody agrees—I follow the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) in saying this—that justice delayed is justice denied for victims, whom we would certainly always put first, and for defendants alike. We know that Parliament has a duty to act. The question before us, however, is not whether we solve the backlog, but how we solve it. The concern many of us have is that we may be tempted to treat trial by jury as just some procedural device that can be adjusted for administrative convenience. Leaving aside the fact that there was no mention of this measure in any manifesto, trial by jury is not merely a procedure of the courts; it is one of the constitutional foundations of our liberty.

As William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century,

“Trial by jury ever has been, and I trust ever will be, looked upon as the glory of the English law”.

It would have been inconceivable to Blackstone that what he called the “grand bulwark” of an Englishman’s liberties might be voluntarily and needlessly surrendered.

[Sarah Russell]

What does the right hon. Gentleman say about the freedom of women to walk the streets without fearing for their physical safety? What does he say about the freedom of women who have made allegations of rape, and who are waiting six years between reporting to the police and having a trial? Does he recognise that those are liberties that matter, too?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course that is an important point—we are not debating that. Of course the backlog is wrong, but this is not the right way to correct it. The backlog is caused by administrative delays or, if hon. Members want, cuts to the judicial system; it is not caused by trial by jury. Of course we put defendants first.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I may give way in a moment.

Others, not necessarily in our country, have commented on this. Alexis de Tocqueville observed in the 19th century that the jury

“places the real direction of society in the hands of the governed”.

That was in his book, “Democracy in America”, and the great republic has followed our example.

[Pam Cox]

Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Bill preserves jury trials? It does not abolish them, and to say that it does is to misrepresent the case.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am not suggesting that jury trials have been abolished. If the hon. Member listens to my speech, she will hear me talk later about jury trials for people who are accused of, for instance, shoplifting.

The freedom of the citizen is not solely determined by the state, but by his or her peers—that is the important point. The senior judge and legal philosopher Lord Devlin captured this perfectly when he wrote:

“Each jury is a little parliament.”

The jury trial is the point at which ordinary citizens participate directly in the administration of the King’s justice. The existence of the jury tells a citizen that the determination of justice ultimately belongs to free people of good character, not to bureaucrats, officials or state-appointed mandarins. That is why the principle has deep historical roots in our constitutional tradition, and why this debate is so fundamental.

As long ago as 1215, Magna Carta declared that

“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned…except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”

For more than eight centuries, that principle has stood as a reminder that liberty must always be guarded against the power of the state. Today we are told that this safeguard must be weakened because the courts face a serious backlog. A temporary administrative crisis should not lead us to dismantle a permanent constitutional protection; that is the point. It would be the height of folly.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me, but Madam Deputy Speaker wants me to proceed.

The backlog did not arise because juries exist; it arose because the system itself has been placed under strain for many years. Opposition Members, like others, have a responsibility here. If the courts are struggling, the answer is to repair the system rather than weaken the principle. Many sensible proposals have been suggested, such as restoring bigger and longer court sitting patterns, opening additional courtrooms, and treating the backlog as a genuine national crisis that requires urgent resources.

Many people have pointed out the flaws in the Lord Chancellor’s plan. Several senior legal figures have written to The Times explaining that the proposals are “unworkable”. Perhaps there is one possible compromise: to at least preserve the absolute right of those of good character to a jury trial. If a person of good character—perhaps a Member of Parliament—is accused of something such as shoplifting, which would be quite a minor case, it can have a devastating impact on their career and life.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

The other logical absurdity is that, under the Government’s proposed reforms, somebody with a previous conviction may well go above the three-year threshold, so those who have a string of previous convictions will get a right to jury trial, but a person of good character will not.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a very fair point.

I ask Members to look to their conscience. If they, a Member of Parliament—a person of good character—were accused of shoplifting, what would they choose? They would choose trial by jury, would they not? They would not choose to be tried by a magistrate. The task before us is to solve this practical problem without undermining our constitutional safeguards. The danger that we face is the temptation to sacrifice a long-standing liberty for the sake of short-term administrative convenience.

The Lord Chancellor is a friend of mine and a good man. He is not a villain; he approaches things with the best of intentions—I say that without doubt. The problem is that we may not always have individuals as good natured and well intentioned as him. We accept that he is genuinely trying to solve a problem, but I fear that he is doing it with the wrong mindset. Constitutional safeguards are not designed for moments when power is exercised by good men; they exist precisely because future holders of power may not always be so wise or so restrained. We have become so used to our state of freedom that we are in danger of imagining that it is the natural state of mankind. History teaches us that it is not. We have reached our advanced state of structured freedom, responsible government and parliamentary democracy through centuries of slow, organic growth. They grew through the common law, through Magna Carta, through Parliament and through the principle that the community—the people—participate in justice.

15:31

[Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)]

The right to a fair trial is fundamental to our democracy. For certain offences, a fair trial will always be a trial by jury. However, it has been long been the case that the right to a trial by jury is contingent on the offence. The Interpretation Act 1978 set out the three-tier classification of criminal offences, and created a category for less serious offences that would be tried only by a magistrates court—without a jury.

The question of which crimes fall into that category has been revisited periodically. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 reclassified three groups of offences—common assault, taking vehicles without consent, and criminal damage under a certain value—as summary-only offences to be dealt with in magistrates courts, without a jury. In the same year, the Thatcher Government passed the Road Traffic Act 1988, which made driving while disqualified a summary offence. It is not new for a Government to make choices about who can access a jury trial by reclassifying offences to reflect changes in wider society and technology.

This Government face important choices about how to address the urgent problem of the backlog in our Crown courts. As hon. Members have powerfully illustrated, justice is being delayed for far too many victims, witnesses and defendants. The scale of the problem demands ambitious and radical reforms, and to deny the need for them is to downplay the impact that our broken criminal justice system has had on the lives of so many people. One measure at the Government’s disposal to tackle the backlog is restricting the right to a jury trial to a smaller number of offences. Although jury trials account only for about 3% of criminal trials, they take up 60% of Crown court hearing time. The Government’s increased investment in magistrates courts, and the expansion of their powers, would also help to reduce the burden on Crown courts.

However, magistrates courts are feeling the effects of 20 years of under-investment, and have an open caseload of over 370,000 cases and counting. Turning the tide on capacity pressures will take time. High conviction rates in magistrates courts, as well as increased sentencing powers and the reduced right to appeal proposed in clauses 6 and 7, risk lengthier sentences and adding to our ballooning prison population. Reducing the burden on the Crown court is vital, but the Government must be careful not to rely too heavily on lay magistrates in doing so.

There is a practical middle way that could see swift and effective reductions to the Crown court backlog and avoid overloading the lay magistrates courts: give district judges greater powers to try criminal cases. District judges are valuable and experienced members of our criminal justice system, and they have years of professional experience behind them. Many sit as recorders in the Crown court and go on to become Crown court judges themselves. Many also have experience of trying the most serious cases, such as rape, when sitting in the youth court, so why should they not be trusted to hear more serious adult cases? If their jurisdiction were increased to offences carrying up to three years’ imprisonment, they could take on cases such as assaulting an emergency worker, dangerous driving and indecent exposure.

To make this work, the right to elect to have a jury trial would need to be limited to offences with a maximum penalty above three years. That is slightly more than Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendation of two years, and the effect would be immediate: far fewer cases sent to the Crown court, quicker hearings before experienced district judges, fewer unnecessary referrals to the Crown court and more time for the Crown court to focus on more serious crime. This would still require important choices to made about the right to a jury trial itself. The Government could reduce the maximum sentence for certain offences that are currently set between three and five years—offences where sentences above three years are rarely imposed. That would allow them to fall within the jurisdiction of district judges.

Critics may say that this looks soft on crime, but in truth it simply reflects sentencing reality. For example, actual bodily harm carries five years under section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, but 98% of custodial sentences between 2020 and 2024 were for three years or less. For knife and offensive weapon offences, the average sentence is just eight months. Those offences could also reasonably have their maximum sentence reduced to three years, thus restricting the right to elect to have a jury trial.

I refer to Scotland’s sheriff courts as a useful model. Like district judges, sheriffs are legally qualified and experienced and have the capacity to handle both low and mid-level offences. Between sheriff courts and the lay justice of the peace courts, the majority of local criminal business is covered, reserving the High Court for more serious cases.

If we want justice delivered quickly and fairly, we must use every tool at our disposal, so I ask my right hon. Friend: will he consider expanding the powers of district judges as part of this Government’s ambitious plan to invest in and reform our justice system?

13:09

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on defending trial by jury, which is a long-standing right that people have enjoyed—albeit only in certain circumstances—and we should think very seriously before taking it away. One hundred senior barristers and KCs have written to the Secretary of State to say that taking away this right for those cases would be an “irremediable error”, and many others have criticised the move.

When I visited the magistrates court in my constituency, magistrates told me of their challenges in recruiting, which must place serious doubts on the assumptions that have been made about the time savings that would result from this Bill. I also have serious concerns about the removal of the right to appeal those cases in the Crown court.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Criminal Bar Association says it is “fundamentally opposed” to restricting jury trials, with around 90% of criminal barristers being against these proposals. This was not in Labour’s manifesto, and there has been an admission that the plans are ideological rather than practical. Does the hon. Member agree that weakening trial by jury will not solve the crisis in our courts and risks undermining a safeguard that has protected our justice system for over 800 years?

[Gideon Amos]

I do. The hon. Member is right: the problem with these reforms is that they are not going to speed up the criminal justice system or solve the backlog issues. We have rehearsed all the challenges that the system faces—we know what they are, and they need to be addressed, but abolishing trial by jury for those affected will not do that.

Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may, I would like to spend a few minutes on a missed opportunity in this Bill: dealing with the state of our immigration and asylum system, which we all know the Conservatives left in an appalling state. The asylum backlog more than doubled in just two years, from 70,000 to 166,000 people waiting in 2022. Instead of processing those claims, the Conservatives opened over 400 asylum hotels. As the Government began clearing up the—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might like to stay within the scope of this Bill rather than discussing asylum hotels.

[Gideon Amos]

The point I wish to make, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that this Bill should address the challenge faced by the immigration system. Alongside the Bill, the Government have a parallel proposal to abolish the current system and to replace immigration tribunals with a new appeals system. I believe that that should be debated in the House and that it is relevant to this Bill, but I will move quickly through my points about this issue so as not to irritate you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This Bill offers an important opportunity to address the immigration system. I am concerned that the creation of a new body and the abolition of the appeals tribunal is not the right approach, and that it will devalue the tribunal judges who are ready and available to sit and hear more cases. I genuinely welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of an extra 26,000 sitting days for that chamber, but extra days will not be useful if there are not enough judges to sit for them. In the words of a judge who wrote to me,

“there are not enough judges and if the Home Office does not do the work quicker at their end, which is where the delay is, it makes no difference.”

There are enough immigration and asylum tribunal judges, but we need them to be allowed to sit for more than 220 capped days to deal with the backlog. I tabled a written question on this point. Those judges are prevented from being paid more than salaried judges, and therefore there is an effective cap on their sitting. Those are the kinds of issues that we need to deal with, as well as dealing with the backlog in the criminal courts and allowing our courts to be used for two sittings each day—am and pm—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester explained. Those are the kinds of measures that would speed up the criminal justice system, not the abolition of trial by jury for those cases that would be affected.

Some hon. Members have made the point that trial by jury is not necessarily a constitutional right in all cases, and we understand that. However, denigrating trial by jury as unimportant or a minor right does not help the argument of those who are seeking to abolish it for certain cases. Looking back, it has been called in case law a

“highly valued part of our unwritten constitution.”

Going back to the 18th century, Lord Justice Camden said that it was

“the foundation of our free constitution”.

In the 20th century, Lord Justice Devlin said that

“it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives”.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I fully agree that jury trials are a hugely important part of our justice system, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the way that summary offences, either-way offences and indictable-only offences are classified has altered over the years? That classification was changed in the 1970s and in the 1980s, and it is incorrect to try to portray our legal system as one that is unchanged in 800 years.

[Gideon Amos]

Of course I accept that the legal system has evolved and changed, and that the right to trial by jury has changed, but my concern is that in serious cases, where someone could be imprisoned for up to two years and their reputation destroyed, people would want to be tried by jury. Our legal system currently protects that right, but that would be swept away by this Bill.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

We already have judges who make decisions on cases where children are taken away from parents, so does the hon. Gentleman not consider those to be serious cases? Some 90% of cases are dealt with by magistrates, so does he say that justice is not achieved in those cases?

[Gideon Amos]

Of course magistrates do a vital job, but when I visited magistrates in my constituency, they explained that they seriously doubt that it will be possible to recruit sufficient people to meet Ministry of Justice estimates about cost saving and time saving.

To conclude, for me cases that will result in imprisonment of up to three years—or up to two years if they come before a magistrate—are serious enough to warrant the right of defendants to request a trial by jury. Those are the protections currently in place in law. We should hold on to those protections and defend them as a guarantee of our liberty in this House and in the country.

15:44

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

I want to start by pointing out that in this debate, we have called more barristers to speak than we have called women. It would be wrong of us not to realise that we are the absolute epitome of the British establishment. I have never come across as many barristers in my life; before I came here, the only time I ever saw a barrister was when I was helping a loved one who faced trial. This is about the reality of the real world, but we are more likely to have victims watching on than we are to have victims on these Benches. The voices of victims have been lacking from this debate. We have heard about the Bar Council and we have heard lots of references to men, but Claire Waxman emailed every single MP and said, “I want you to listen to the victims—their voices, their stories and the realities of the waits that they endure.”

We have a system in this country where you can rape somebody and get away with it. It happens every single day. For too long, society has told women that it is their fault that they have been raped and that nobody will believe them if they do report, so five out of six of them do not. And if they do go to trial, they will face years of re-traumatisation, which is why 60% drop out. You know what is worse than being raped? I can tell you from personal experience: facing years of waiting to see if people believe you.

We all have a role to play in eradicating our rape culture, but today we see the state stepping up for victims. This is about making sure that they are supported and believed by our institutions, harnessing the nation’s sense of urgency to do more, and smashing the status quo by cutting the standard half-a-decade wait for justice. We know that if we do not invest and modernise our courts system, everything else is just tinkering around the edges. A young woman named Sienna came up to me last week and said, “Natalie, I just don’t get it, but you do. What is happening? This is just complete common sense to everybody I speak to and everybody at work—I am a police officer. I just don’t get it. Where is the catch? Why are people so angry?” So what I want to do now is talk the House through the arguments for the status quo to remain.

We keep hearing that we need more money. We are having record investment—and—I’ll tell you what—it is not enough. Trials by jury are part of our history, but we have to adapt. When trials are taking twice as long as they did in the year 2000, we need to keep up. Judges alone cannot hear trials. We have already heard about district judges and the work that they do; we need a jury of peers. I want to point out that nobody questioned the legitimacy of the trial of Gisèle Pelicot, the bravest woman I look up to. I am not saying that we should abolish jury trials. What I am saying is that if we create capacity and protect juries for the most serious trials, I will do everything I can to get as many rapists as I can into those courts.

Hon. Members will hear that this is a class issue—and, yes, it is. This is about victims versus the establishment, which we are hearing far too much from today. Instead of putting themselves in the place of the defendant and imagining how that would feel, I am asking Members to put themselves in the shoes of the victim, because a quarter of us women become one. Imagine if this was you. This is not about denying anybody justice; it is about enabling victims and innocent parties to have a more efficient path to getting that justice.

Once again, courage calls to courage everywhere. I call on our Government to replicate the courage of victims and use it to get our justice system moving. Show that we can be bold disruptors, smashing the status quo, taking the difficult choices, taking on the arguments, delivering for victims across the land, who need leadership and decisive action, and rebalancing power between victims and perpetrators.

I back these reforms not because I am made to, but because they are right—because I want my granddaughter to grow up in a world where women can be believed, get fast justice and move on with their lives. I tell the 200 women in this country who will be raped today: I am sorry that you will have to wait until 2030 for a trial, but today we are doing something about it, and I am so proud to walk through the Lobby on your behalf.

15:49

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet). Although she is on the opposite side of the debate from me, she always speaks with huge passion on these issues. I should start with a couple of declarations. First, my wife is a sitting employment judge, and therefore the tribunal element of the Bill pertains to her. Secondly, like many right hon. and hon. Members in this Chamber, I was a barrister immediately prior to coming into this place, and I maintain my practising certificate. I hope the hon. Lady will indulge me if I pontificate on this issue for a few moments.

While I was not a criminal barrister, I did a significant amount of inquest work, so I had face-to-face, first-hand experience with jurors, and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that they are the most remarkable, ordinary people, who give up their time for civic engagement. They sit there quietly, listening to the evidence; they take their role seriously; and they sit in judgment and make findings of fact. That is a huge constitutional principle. We have talked about rights, and I am not going to pretend that there is an innate right to a trial by jury, but there is a firm constitutional principle of ensuring that justice is not merely done to the public, but that it is done with the public.

We all know about the problem of court backlogs. It would be a farce to pretend that this is not a significant and serious issue—it is a failure of the state that we have got to this place. It is a failure of successive Governments, and we recognise that across the board, but the question we have to ask ourselves is not whether trial by jury should be abandoned; it is whether the reforms that are before this House, with the scrutiny that has been undertaken and the impact assessment that accompanies the Bill, constitute sufficient evidence for making such a reform to this country’s constitution.

What the Bill asks for is very clear, and we have to be honest about it. We are asking for a shift in the balance between the state and its people, and that may lead to inequality before the law. Take the prime example raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox): that of two individuals who, on a factual matrix, committed precisely the same crime. Those individuals appear before the court, but one has a string of previous convictions. Are we really saying that a person should be denied the opportunity of a jury trial if they have not previously been of bad character? That is a nonsense, and it does not achieve what we should be seeking to achieve.

The further point, of course, is that if we are making such a constitutional change on the basis that it will enable us to deal with the backlog in the criminal courts, why is there no sunset clause in the Bill? Why are we not saying that the purpose of the Bill is to shift the dial and make progress, but that we recognise that it should not be a blank cheque for the state? We should recognise that if this change has to be made—although I do not believe it does—it should be made on a limited basis, because if we are to change a right that is older than most institutions in this country, the least Parliament should do is base its decision on more than just an assumption in the impact assessment.

Let me turn to the modelling, which was also raised by the shadow Justice Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy). In this House on 3 February, I asked the Lord Chancellor a question about the 20% reduction in the time taken by court hearings. He gave me a very clear answer—that he accepted Sir Brian Leveson’s findings, but that the Government would publish their own modelling alongside the Bill. However, page 10 of the impact assessment is very clear that the Government have adopted Sir Brian’s assumption. That is an assumption; it is not modelling. There is a distinct difference. Analysis is helpful, but modelling is critical, and if we are weighing up the evidence base for the Bill, we have to have more than analysis alone.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend give us his views as a practitioner on something that has not yet been mentioned in the debate, which is the usefulness of juries in protecting the institution of the judiciary? At the moment, if there is a string of sentencing that the Government or politicians do not like, there is not a lot they can do about it. If it is judges who are handing out those sentences, they will come under direct political attack, as we unfortunately see from time to time. The distance and insulation that a jury gives is not just a protection for the citizen, but a protection for the judiciary and its ongoing integrity.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My right hon. Friend is right. There is a reason that judges wear a wig and barristers wear a wig and gown. It provides a shield between the arm of the law and the citizen. To dilute that would fundamentally upset the settlement that has been reached over hundreds and hundreds of years.

[Alicia Kearns]

Drawing on my hon. Friend’s point, we have also heard much argument that somehow reducing down to one judge would be a fairer and less biased system. As a woman, I do not feel that one person—we have to be honest with ourselves, they will likely be a man—who does not share my life experiences is more likely to be less biased than a jury of my peers. If the Government really want to tackle this issue, they need simply to turn to page 67 of their own manifesto, where they promise fast-track rape cases with specialist courts for every Crown court location. Surely that would be a better policy. It would make sure that women, when they give evidence, are hearing from a jury of their peers, who are more likely together to understand life experiences than one individual.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend is right. First, there is the argument that this is of such constitutional significance that it should have been in a manifesto. Secondly, there is the argument that there was a proposal within the manifesto that the Government are not bringing forward. Thirdly, this is about getting the right settlement for the public, where they are judged by a body of their peers on the evidence before them. That is as opposed to a distant judge, who perhaps at times appears aloof, which fails to achieve that balance. We are being asked today to curtail a constitutional safeguard that has been apparent for so many years, and it goes much further than Sir Brian’s report. There were many good things in that report, but this legislation goes much further than any of his suggestions.

We have to ask what the real issues are. They are plain to see. There are too few judges and too few advocates able to prosecute or defend the cases. There are too few functioning courtrooms. Removing jury trials will not fix any of that. There is a further issue that the Government have failed to address, which is around the recruitment of magistrates. We know that in this country, recruitment cycles of magistrates have often not returned the numbers required. The presumption must be that the reason the Government did not adopt Sir Brian’s recommendation of having two magistrates as wing members was because they knew they could not recruit a sufficient number of magistrates to implement it. There is logic on that front, but if we are pushing more cases down to the magistrates court, who will be able to hear them and listen to them? Who will be able to draw those conclusions?

My final point, which I will make briefly, pertains to parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill will be rushed through this House and through Committee. It will get a mere five days in Committee, but it is of such constitutional importance. There is strong feeling across the House both for and against these proposals. Would it not be wiser in such circumstances to adopt an approach similar to what we do for armed forces Bills, for example, where we have a Select Committee of the House? Members with experience within the law and with experience of being victims could scrutinise the legislation and come back with a report. We could then do Report stage on the Floor of the House. That way, the country can know that we have given this legislation the due regard that it deserves.

There is a reason that jury trials have endured, and it is because they command the trust of the public. They ensure that the law is exercised with public participation. If the Government believe in diluting that right, they must provide the evidence for that change, and thus far they have failed to do so.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I propose putting in place a five-minute time limit after the next speaker.

15:59

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I thought long and hard about speaking today. I will allow right hon. and hon. Members from the legal profession to make the legal arguments better than I can, and will allow Members who rightly have procedural or rights-based concerns for defendants, which I share, to raise them. I trust that those points will be satisfactorily covered. I want to focus my remarks on a particular perspective that I feel has been too often ventriloquised in this debate, and I hope that the House will be gentle with me as I do so.

I have spoken before in this place about having post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of being the victim of a crime, but I have never specified the nature of that crime, and in doing so now I am aware that I am waiving my right to anonymity, and aware of the personal consequences that come along with that.

I care profoundly about rape victims facing intolerable delays for their day in court. I know only too well what that feels like, because, after being raped at an event that I attended in my capacity as a Member of Parliament, I waited 1,088 days to go to court. Every single one of those days was agony, made worse by having a role in public life that meant that the mental health consequences of my trauma were played out in public, with the event that led to my eventual sectioning for my own safety still being something that I receive regular social media abuse about from strangers to this day.

But here is the kicker. In this debate, it feels as if experiences like mine have been weaponised and are being used for rhetorical misdirection in relation to what this Bill actually is. The violence against women and girls sector has not had the opportunity to come together to discuss it, and the Government’s framing and narrative has been to pit survivors and defendants against each other in a way that I think is deeply damaging.

We have been told that if we have concerns about the Bill, it is because we have not been raped, or because we do not care enough for rape victims. The opposite is true in my case; it is because I have been raped that I am as passionate as I am about what it means for a justice system to be truly victim-focused. It is because I have endured every indignity that our broken criminal justice system could mete out that I care about what kind of reform will actually deliver justice for survivors and victims of crime more widely. In our manifesto, we promised specialist rape courts. This Bill is not that.

The transition away from jury trials in certain cases might itself take up operational time, with changes to an already overstretched system entrenching issues and delays. The timeline for these changes to take effect is 2028-29. We know what works because it is already happening in a few key areas, including pioneering work in Liverpool and Preston Crown courts in the north-west. This is a bearing down on waiting lists that could be taking place in months, not years—proven, meaningful and significant reductions in waiting times for complainants and defendants, rather than speculative, unevidenced reductions that the Institute for Government says could be as little as 1% to 2%, and coming years down the track. It is worth saying that the Bar Council believes that even that 1% to 2% reduction is wishful thinking, so we risk offering false hope to rape victims, rather than real change.

We know that juries are more diverse than the judiciary, and an unintended consequence of these changes could be that women from minoritised backgrounds are less likely to come forward, not more. Juries do not make perfect decisions, but neither do judges. An unintended consequence of measures that enabled pre-recorded evidence has been significant slippage in case handling, which is where the most significant procedural delays are. A clear re-prioritisation is needed here, alongside the expansion of recorders in cases involving rape and serious sexual offences.

The second thing to say is that the Bill does little for instances in which a rape victim actually comes to court. I still have almost as many nightmares about my experience on the witness stand as I do about my rape. The defence barrister, who had previously faced investigation after a witness took her own life following cross- examination in a different rape case, does not seem to have learnt much from that experience, and went for me in a way that undermined all the progress I had made in therapy and led me to blame myself for the eventual acquittal. We need far greater safeguards for those giving evidence. Actually, we need a reframing of the fact that legally you are a “witness” at your own trial. It is wild to me that we are still arguing, after many years, about a person’s right to a free transcript of their own trial, particularly as the recent move to allow access to sentencing remarks does nothing to help with closure for those whose cases sadly do not end in a conviction.

[Ms Creasy]

I know at first hand the strength that my hon. Friend is showing in making this speech, and I know why it matters for us to be confident that what we bring forward actually will change this situation—that we will not go down rabbit holes and be distracted by changing juries, but will focus ruthlessly on the victim’s experience. I want to speak on behalf of everyone in the Chamber in saying that we are with my hon. Friend every step of the way, and we are so damn proud of her today.

[Charlotte Nichols]

I thank my hon. Friend.

The third thing to say is that, for me, closure began after a successful civil process following the acquittal. My rapist may not be considered to have met the criminal threshold for guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and is out there on the streets as a free man while I live with the life sentence of what he did to me, but what has been established, at a civil standard of proof, is what happened. It found that I had been raped, and a compensation order was made that recognises me as the blameless victim of a violent crime.

Despite the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, we are still nowhere on civil remedy, including movement on the criminal injuries compensation scheme reform. Shamefully, the tariffs have not been uprated in line with inflation since 2012 and have no eligibility for non-contact sexual offences, which can cause significant and lasting harm.

Finally, the VAWG sector has been under-invested in for such a significant period that the best things that we can do to drive down waiting times and improve the experience of victims require money, and the Treasury remains unwilling to adequately cough up. I welcome the announcement of independent legal advisers, but the £6 million that sits alongside this is woefully inadequate. I could not have made it all the way to trial without my independent sexual violence adviser, Jaz, whose support saved my life, but I had to wait seven months to be allocated one, given how under-resourced the system is. That is not good enough.

I have enormous respect for many of my Front-Bench colleagues, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), but from where I am sitting it feels that, despite their best efforts and the publication of our groundbreaking VAWG strategy, we could do so much for rape victims that does not involve the Lord Chancellor using them as a cudgel to drive through reforms that are not directly relevant to them. As a starting point, Rape Crisis England & Wales has called for five key demands in its “Living in Limbo” report. Do not say that this Bill helps deliver justice for rape victims until it actually, materially does.

16:06

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

I speak today in favour of the reasoned amendment standing in the names of Reform UK MPs. Although it has not been selected for debate, I would like to draw hon. Members’ attention to the wording, particularly where it says that

“the right to trial by one’s peers…has been an essential part of UK freedoms for centuries.”

As a magistrate of 20 years and a chairman of the court for 17 of those years, I hope that I have something to offer this debate. During those 20 years, I was part of a judicial process in which I, together with two fellow magistrates, sent many defendants to prison. I will never forget the first time I was part of a bench that sent someone to prison. I can still see that young man’s face, and see his distraught parents at the back of the court. I had to fight back my own tears, as a mother feeling for his mother and her pain, knowing the life-changing impact that our decision would have on that young man’s life. I should say that I toughened up pretty quickly.

On many occasions, I found myself chairing a trials court that would inevitably start late or end up with magistrates twiddling their thumbs when trials cracked or fell apart. That could be for a variety of reasons, but it was often due to last-minute pleas by defendants who had been presented with irrefutable evidence, or to the failure of the Crown Prosecution Service to prepare adequately for the case.

The process in the magistrates court is already inefficient, and a sizeable backlog of cases exist—reportedly, over 370,000. It is worth pointing out that a magistrates bench operates as a mini-jury, with three magistrates sitting on a trial to ensure a majority verdict, so it represents trial by the people, not the state. Be in no doubt: a prison sentence of up to three years will change someone’s life forever. A prison sentence of that length will mean the loss of employment, and therefore the loss of one’s ability to pay a mortgage or rent, often resulting in the loss of one’s home, which may in turn lead to a family being made homeless. A prison sentence often means the break-up of a family, with permanent damage inflicted on the partner and children in that family, whether by becoming outcasts in their community, being bullied at school, or adopting learned behaviour and offending themselves later in life.

For one individual—one judge—to have the power and to be the only perspective in administering a prison sentence is not justice. Furthermore, a single justice acting alone may come under pressure from politicians not to send defendants to prison due to a lack of prison space available, regardless of whether that defendant should in fact receive a custodial sentence. There may also be cases where a single justice is more lenient towards defendants from ethnic minorities for fear of being called racist if custodial sentences are frequently given by that judge to such defendants from ethnic minorities, regardless of the demographics of that court area.

With this Bill, there is no scrutiny of a judge, no ability to question that judge’s decision and no majority vote. A life-changing prison sentence can be given on the judgment of an individual with a single perspective and prejudice, without any checks and balances. The state will be administering justice, not the people. Everyone deserves the right to trial by their peers. In this Bill, the Government are removing trial by jury for serious crimes that attract prison sentences of up to three years. These could be serious domestic violence incidents, sexual assault, theft, fraud and so on.

This Bill is intended to speed up justice and cut court waiting lists, but there is no credible evidence to suggest that will be achieved by these changes. Courts need investment and to be run more efficiently to speed up justice. Solicitors need to be on time and ready for trial. So much of the delay is caused in the process before the case even comes before a jury. These proposals are the exact opposite of justice. These proposals go against the foundations of law and order in this country.

16:11

[Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)]

When I was working for a living as a building worker, rather than being here, if there was a backlog of work, we were told to work through the night and at weekends, and on not very much additional pay. I wonder how it is that, today in our country, one tenth of all the courts are not even sitting, despite the backlog that the Deputy Prime Minister has told us about and many others have spoken about. Why is it that, when there is a backlog, manual workers, as I was, are made to work hard, and rightly so, to catch up, but the barristers, judges, solicitors and all the other accoutrements of a court are simply told, “Well, we’ll make it easier for you by reducing the amount of jury trials that are going to be held.” It is rather odd.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

[Jon Trickett]

No. I have only five minutes, and I will have to move fast.

The Deputy Prime Minister did convince me, and I am sure all of us, that there is a backlog, and it is not reasonable or fair, in terms of justice, that people should wait so long. Obviously, today we have heard some very powerful speeches from victims that reinforce the case. However, he has not shown to my satisfaction that the cause of the backlog is the juries. In fact, there is much evidence to show that they have a marginal impact at the most. The cause of the backlog is all sorts of things, including the failure of the courts to meet for long enough hours, as other working people have to do all over the country.

Let me reflect for a moment—in a sense, going back to the basics—on why juries are in place, and I think it is to do with the fact that the Crown has the power, uniquely, to imprison people and deprive them of their liberty. No other organisation has that massively powerful capacity. The point is that, in a case where the Crown—or the Government, acting on behalf of the Crown—is operating in an unreasonable, unfair or even oppressive way, what the person facing imprisonment has is the jury system. Twelve people drawn from the citizenry of our country at random are able to speak together and make a final decision about whether the Crown has made out the case that that person should be imprisoned. That is a fundamental part of our constitutional system, and the idea that we should begin to abandon it is mistaken. Some hon. Members have said today that we have done similarly in the past, but making mistakes in the past does not at all justify continuing to make mistakes in the present. I have not heard the case made that juries are a bad thing in principle, although we are reducing them.

One further point I want to raise is the question of how the backlog occurred. Again, no one has made the case that the backlog occurred because of some sort of permanent, strategic problem with the way our judicial system works. It is the product of a series of cuts by Governments of both parties, to be honest, and of a number of failures—there was privatisation, and all sorts of other issues. If those changes are contingent, rather than permanent, and a temporary problem that can be resolved, why are we destroying an element of the jury system? If the Deputy Prime Minister had said that the world and the country had changed, and that our way of looking at the judicial system had to be reformed, he might have had a case, although I would not necessarily agree with it. However, he has not said that. He has said that this is a contingent problem.

When I was working for a living, I regularly used a ratchet—I do not know if the DPM has ever used one. A ratchet is a device that moves in only one direction. In the jury system, citizens have had, over centuries, a ratchet that gives protection from an oppressive Government. If the Deputy Prime Minister had come to the House and said that he was going to do some things that were extraordinary but temporary, to deal with the problems facing all victims, I might well have been prepared to listen to him. However, he has not said that; instead, he says that this will be a permanent change to the way that we do things. I am not convinced. This is oppressive, authoritarian and, quite honestly, much as I admire the Deputy Prime Minister, reactionary.

16:16

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

We have heard a great deal from Government Members about the necessity of these court reforms. They say that in order to tackle the backlog in our courts, we need to curb jury trials, but previous statements from Ministers betray the Government’s true intentions. On 7 January, standing at the Dispatch Box, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services said,

“People ask me, ‘Sarah, would you be doing this if there was not a crisis in our courts?’ I say yes”—[Official Report, 7 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 284.]

It would be bad enough to attack the time-honoured right to a jury trial in the name of administrative efficiency; to do so for ideological reasons, without candidly making that ideological case to the public, is a disgrace.

The British people can see what is really going on. The Government want to curb jury trials because they do not trust the public. They think that judges know best, and would rather the justice system was run entirely by them. We know this to be the case because whenever the Government have a choice to make between the British people and their friends in the legal profession, they are on the side of the lawyers, every single time. We saw this “judges know best” approach in the Prime Minister’s disastrous Chagos giveaway; we see it on asylum, immigration and the European convention on human rights; we see it in the Government’s plans to allow prosecutions of veterans who fought in Northern Ireland; and now, we see it in their plans to curb jury trials.

However, jury trials exist for a reason. They are designed to ensure that the judiciary can never stray too far from the public’s conception of justice and fairness. At a time when public trust in the judiciary is low, can it really be sensible to take away this crucial backstop?

I will take just a single example of the divergence between public morality and judicial opinion. According to research conducted by the Free Speech Union, there is a huge gap between the successes of defences based on the right to free speech in judge-led cases and in cases heard by a jury. In judge-only cases at magistrates courts, just 16% of free-speech defences succeeded; in Crown court cases, where juries very often sit, 28% of free-speech defences succeeded. There is a clear divergence between the public’s appreciation of justice and the views of the judicial establishment.

The result of this Government’s plans will be to further alienate the public, and to drag the justice system further away from the views of the British people. If that is what they want, they should at least be straightforward about it.

16:19

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

This has been an incredible debate. I pay tribute to those who have felt able and courageous enough to share their personal circumstances with the House, and to the campaigners in the Public Gallery who have come along to hear a debate that will help make a success of their campaigns.

I go back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) said: no Second Reading, no Bill. If we want to keep the good bits, we have to keep the Bill. If we want to change the bits that my hon. Friend mentioned, we have to give the Bill its Second Reading and get it into Committee. That is probably what we should do.

I was a magistrate for 20 years. I stood down in 2023, when I was selected as the candidate for Corby and East Northamptonshire. The case for reforming our justice system has been made. Every time a victim waits months for justice, they are being failed, and trust is lost. Justice delayed is justice diminished. I thank the Minister for spending some time with me, to discuss this issue. I welcome many of the things that we spoke about, including bringing the number of magistrates back up to previous levels. To bring down the backlog, we might have to look at the number of court buildings that the last Government closed, because once a magistrates court is full, it is full.

The courthouse in my constituency was closed, along with our police station. Kettering lost its courthouse, as did Daventry and Towcester. The reality is that justice no longer feels close to our people. I have some concerns, which I spoke to the Minister about, but let me come back on a couple of points. First, the amendment of the official Opposition talks about people’s right to elect which court they go to; if they are in a magistrates court, they can elect to go to Crown court. I was magistrate for 20 years and I never saw one person do that, because there are consequences: a judge in a Crown court has greater sentencing powers than a magistrates court. To those howling about this ability being taken away, I say this: in Scotland, defendants cannot elect what court they go to; the court decides that, so I do not see much wrong with that proposal.

Concerns have been raised, both today and previously, about defendants causing delays. I did not really see much evidence of that, but I do not see a need to stand in the way of the changes being proposed. The constitutional right to trial exists for offences with a sentence of more than three years, but we need to look at that, because that was not what Leveson recommended.

There are various other concerns that I have expressed, but let me say this to those who do not want any change at all: that position is not acceptable for victims, workers in the sector, or our constituents. Our system must deliver justice that is fair, timely and trusted. There are those who think that today is the end of the process. I have seen people saying, “This is D-day”, or “Today, MPs are going to scrap this, that and the other.” That is not the case. This is Second Reading. Once the Bill passes its Second Reading, as I think it will, we can start to look into the detail, and make the changes that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East mentioned.

I believe that there should be some changes, and I believe that is the view of Members from across the House. I hope that the Government will work with colleagues across the House to produce a Bill that Members can feel comfortable supporting, that strengthens trust in our justice system, and that delivers justice for victims.

16:23

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

We all know that years of underfunding and under-investment have caused a crisis across our legal and justice systems. I commend some of the people who spoke earlier about their experiences, particularly the hon. Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). It takes immense courage to stand up in the Chamber and put those experiences on record. They came at this from a different point of view. I have immense respect for them. Of course, they are doing what we should be doing here. Victims and survivors—their voices, stories and needs—should be at the heart of the justice system, and they are, as we know, facing unacceptable delays to justice. The Government, of course, must speed up the process. Only the state can do that. It is only through the state that the citizen can get justice, so there is an undeniable need for reform.

The second part of the Bill makes immensely important interventions that will make a real difference to victims. They include the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement, and measures relating to the admissibility of evidence and special measures in court, and they are to be welcomed. The question that we are debating, however, is the degree to which clauses 1 to 7 are the major reforms needed to speed up the process. Removing the right to jury trial for offences that are triable either way and imposing a single-judge model are serious changes to individual rights, as we have heard. They go beyond what Sir Brian Leveson recommended that the Government do to address court backlogs, and they increase the risk of bias and miscarriages of justice, increase the risk to the safety of judges, and increase pressure on legal aid services.

Although nobody denies that action is necessary, we have to bear in mind that the Institute for Government estimates that the Bill will save only between 7% and 10% of total court time, and that judge-only trials will save only 1.5% to 2.5%. There is little concrete evidence that these are the right sorts of changes to make, and we fear that they will not achieve what we want.

I turn to Wales, because the problems are not the same everywhere across the England and Wales jurisdiction. Welsh Crown courts make up only a small proportion of the overall court backlog. Indeed, the Lady Chief Justice said that Wales is disposing of—wait for it—

“more Crown Court cases than it receives”.

That suggests that our Crown court backlog is actually going down. The legal reform charity JUSTICE points to Welsh Crown court measures that were taken to increase efficiency when those courts faced covid-era backlogs as examples of practical steps that have helped to keep clearance rates high.

Rather than us restricting a fundamental public right in order to tackle a problem, what would be useful in Wales is action to tackle the operational issues that our courts face, which we all know about. We need better data tracking, modern systems, improved pay, measures to address the Tory court closures, and proper building maintenance. Some of those things are pretty boring, but we will not make a difference until we address them.

We fear that the Bill could make things worse in Wales. Although there were 2,663 outstanding cases at the Crown court in Wales as of December 2024, there were nearly 12,000 outstanding cases in magistrates courts; they have serious capacity challenges that look set to increase as a direct result of the Bill. We also have serious challenges in Wales in recruiting magistrates, especially Welsh-speaking magistrates.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) mentioned a pilot scheme. It seems to me that, rather than making a huge, untested change of this gravity, a pilot scheme is exactly what we should be looking at, if we are to make changes to jury trials, because then we would actually know the effect. We need a pilot scheme with a sunset clause, rather than changes that will break the system everywhere to address an urban English problem.

It is undeniable that there is a crisis in the court system, and that we need changes to address it, but we need different solutions to address different problems in different areas. We must not break something in which there is so much trust at a time when we should be doing everything in our power to protect trust in politics—and, I fear, trust in the law, too.

16:28

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have spoken in this place about my experience of being a magistrate before being elected. I remember the weight of responsibility vividly. I recall the mornings in courtrooms, as we weighed defendants’ circumstances and mitigations against the urgent need for public safety. I have seen the sheer graft of the staff who keep our legal gears turning, but I have also seen the cracks that turn into chasms. There is nothing more frustrating than sitting on a bench and seeing a case adjourned for the third or even fourth time, not because of legal complexity, but because the system simply could not cope.

This is not just about administrative efficiency; it is about people. For too long, victims have been the forgotten party in our courtrooms, treated more like pieces of evidence than human beings. I note the offence taken by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) at being reproached for not mentioning victims enough in his opening speech. I gently suggest that if he had devoted as much time to victims as he did to talking about “Mastermind”, he would probably not have received the charge in quite that way.

The Victims’ Commissioner has been clear that survivors are bearing the brunt of a system under unprecedented pressure. She rightly pointed out that delay is the enemy of recovery. Every day that we shave off the backlog is a day we give back to a survivor to rebuild their life. I particularly welcome the measures to remove bad character evidence and the removal of assumed parental contact. That is a huge step for domestic abuse and sexual violence survivors and campaigners, and it is no exaggeration to say that it will save lives.

Magistrates are the backbone of our legal system, but we are also the most human element of it. We are everyday people drawn from all walks of life—teachers, retirees and neighbours—volunteering to give something back to the community and to deliver justice locally. We move the system from feeling like something far removed and distant from our communities—a private club, even; alien and abstract from most people’s lives—towards what it should be, which is a public service for every citizen.

I note the remarks of the Magistrates’ Association that these proposals are a “vote of confidence” in our magistracy. It is therefore surprising to hear the Opposition’s sudden change of heart, as when they increased magistrates’ sentencing powers to 12 months back in 2022 the impact on the Crown court was undeniably positive. It leads us to wonder why Opposition Members are so vehemently against our increasing those powers further—is it a matter of principle, or is it simply because it was not their idea?

As anyone who has worked in the system knows, magistrates can implement changes quickly. We are the speedy end of the system and the key to unlocking the backlog.

The Government’s impact assessment is striking: increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers is projected to save 8,000 Crown court sitting days by 2029. Just think about that: 8,000 days of judicial time redirected to the most harrowing cases such as rapes, murders and serious assaults, ensuring that victims of the most complex crimes are not left languishing for years.

In my communities, local justice has too often felt like a distant concept, but my constituents deserve to see justice delivered by people who actually understand the streets they live on. Local justice delivered by local people is how we restore trust, and it is how we deliver the fair, swift justice that communities like mine rightly expect.

16:32

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I should first declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician who has given evidence in court in that capacity. The references to the Magna Carta are particularly profound for a Lincolnshire MP, because one of the copies of Magna Carta from 1215 is kept in Lincoln. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) talked eloquently and at length about jury trials, why they should remain, and why removing the right of appeal for magistrates court decisions is the wrong thing to do, so I will not focus on that in the few minutes I have.

I will focus on clause 17, which removes the presumption of involvement of parents in their child’s life. When there is dispute over who cares for a child, courts can make decisions: they can decide who a child is to live with; they can decide who has contact with the child, for how long, and when; they can decide what form that contact takes, whether it is by telephone, in a supervised contact centre or face to face; and they can make specific decrees such as where the child is to go to school.

The law is clear that when courts are making those decisions, the welfare of the child is paramount. They can take into account the child’s wishes if old enough and capable of making decisions in that respect. They can think about whether the child has been subject to any harm. They can talk about whether the child is at risk of further harm. They can talk about whether the parents are capable of providing for the needs of the child. However, section 1 of the Children Act 1989 is clear that the courts must presume, unless shown otherwise, that the involvement of both parents is in the child’s best interests.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that in 2020 the harm panel said that that section creates a “pro-contact culture” that puts children at risk, and that post the publication of that review, it received no response from her Government?

[Dr Johnson]

That is why I have explained that the presumption is that the parents have involvement. The court must take the risks to the child into consideration and, unless shown otherwise, give contact to both parents. If the child is at risk, however, the court has the absolute right to prevent the child from seeing those parents or to restrict contact to different forms and timeframes. The welfare of the child is key in those decisions.

That is in line with international law, which I know the Government are fond of. The UN convention on the rights of the child says that parents and children should maintain

“personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s…interests.”

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Johnson]

Not for the moment. Article 8 of the European convention on human rights provides the right to family life and suggests that consideration be given to all alternatives before ordering no contact. The Government, however—

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

Will she please give way?

[Dr Johnson]

I give way.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

In talking about the right to family life, the hon. Lady is talking not about the rights of the children, but about the rights of the abusers. If we start from the idea that an abuser has the right to contact their children, we end up with bad decisions. That is why, in the past 30 years, 67 children have died when contact should not have been granted. That is the change that we are making, those are the lives that we are saving and that is why it is important to do this today.

[Dr Johnson]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I will continue my speech and perhaps he will listen to what I have to say.

The purpose of court decisions is, as the hon. Gentleman said, to prevent unsafe contact and to prevent tragedies. As a paediatrician, I have seen situations where children have been given back to parents and have come to significant harm as a result. I have dealt with and looked after those children, and unfortunately they have not been protected or saved in every case. The law is there to prevent unsafe contact, but the children’s needs must be put first, with the power to restrict access where they are in danger. The court must listen to all the evidence available, but no system is infallible and sometimes judges get it wrong. When they do, the outcomes can be hugely tragic, leading to the loss or serious injury of a child.

I know that this legislation has been brought forward with good intentions. The test is whether it will prevent such harm and such tragedies. I think that it might not. The reason is that the impact assessment produced by the Government says that it is “unlikely to materially change” the outcome in court. If that is the case, what is the point of the legislation? Will it, on the other hand, reduce the likelihood of children seeing their parents? Will that, in and of itself, cause some harm? Will it prevent some children from having the contact they need with their family members? Will it prevent the tragedies that we wish to prevent or not? Will it isolate those children who will come to harm? Do we have the right risk assessments to do that?

Every single one of us in this House wants to protect children. We need to improve the risk assessments and ensure that social workers have time to make proper risk assessments so that they identify the children who may be at risk and separate them from those who are not. We also need to improve the representation of children in court. I was once in court, in the witness box, and the barrister who was representing the children got up to speak. He asked me a question, but he had forgotten the name of one of the two children in the family and I had to remind him from the witness box. We really need to improve the quality of the representation of children.

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Johnson]

I will not.

This legislation is potentially just a distraction—something that makes people feel like they are doing something and making a difference, when the impact assessment that the Government have produced suggests it will not. Is this change going to make any difference or not? Is this a lost opportunity to improve the risk assessments, children’s representation and social work and to actually make a difference?

16:39

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes my status as a barrister.

Let us remind ourselves of the issues here. It is unacceptable that criminal trials should be listed today for 2030. That is a failure of the state. It is a failure of the state to provide a fundamental public service—that of justice. So the Government have to act, and I do not accept the argument that things have to stay as they are. I welcome the Government’s £2 billion investment in the criminal justice system and the decisions to lift the cap on Crown court sitting days, to implement efficiencies, to invest in the estate and to streamline case management. All of that is overdue and should have been done by the Conservatives. This is about ensuring that trials actually go ahead. However, the Government believe that that will not be enough to address the backlog without structural change, and I have not heard any attempt to argue to the contrary.

I turn to the most contentious element, which is the permanent removal of the right to elect jury trial for either-way cases. As hon. Members have said, this rests heavily on Sir Brian Leveson’s assessment of a minimum 20% time saving in the Crown court. Sir Brian has been candid that his estimate is based on modelling and is an informed qualitative judgment, not a hard empirical fact. The Ministry itself accepts that this modelling might not fully reflect real-world operations, and when dealing with a safeguard as important as trial by one’s peers, where liberty is at stake, the distinction between modelling and hard data matters. Most people seem to agree that those measures will save time, but there is a dispute about how much they are likely to save.

[Karl Turner]

What does my hon. and learned Friend say about the fact that judges will have to give detailed reasons for their judgments and for why they have decided on a case in a particular way? I declare an interest: my wife is a judge and it takes her days, and often more than a week, to come up with the reasons for the decisions that she has taken.

[Tony Vaughan]

I practised as a civil lawyer for most of my career, and I have been challenging written reasons and decisions my whole career. I do not have a problem with judges issuing written reasons in the criminal jurisdiction. I think it is a way of getting more transparency about why those decisions have been made. That is my personal view.

Ideally, I would have piloted this system first and gathered the data, and only then, if that data showed that the measures were necessary to reduce the backlog, would it have been difficult to rebut. If Sir Brian is right and these reforms clearly cut waiting times, that will be good for victims and public confidence. However, if the proposals are rolled out nationwide and he and the Government are wrong, and the gains are negative or outweighed by harms to fairness, equalities or public trust, particularly for minority defendants, it will be important that this House should not have tied its hands.

Removing the right to elect jury trial takes out around half of our jury trials. It is a very real interference with existing safeguards and it should not be a permanent change before we know that it works in practice. That is why I believe there must be a clear statutory mechanism in the Bill allowing Parliament to reverse this change if it does not work. In my view, we need a time-limited mandatory review on the face of the Bill to track timeliness, conviction patterns and equalities impacts, with an explicit power to require Ministers to restore the right to elect if the reforms do not deliver. A clause of that nature would be a statement of confidence in Parliament’s oversight, rather than of a lack of faith in the reforms, as has been suggested.

Expanding judge-only trials requires us to address the fact that the judiciary do not reflect our country’s diversity. Replacing lay juries with a single judge demands an intense focus on how we improve judicial diversity, and particularly transparency in appointments. For example, judicial references must be disclosable so that there is accountability for providing objective, evidence-based references if we are to improve the recruitment and promotion pipeline for women and minority ethnic judges.

One of the last cases in the courts that I was involved in before I was elected to Parliament was a judicial review of a decision of the Judicial Appointments Commission not to promote a district judge into a more senior position. The whole case was about why she could not see the reasons that she was not promoted. That secrecy, which is behind what many campaigners believe has been a process of secret soundings or a tap on the shoulder, has resulted in the situation that we have of a bench recruiting in its own image. That concept was recognised by the Lammy review, and it is a very real thing that we must address if we are to expand judge-only trials.

We face a grave crisis, but if we are to curtail long-standing rights, we must build robust safeguards into the Bill. I hope that Ministers will work constructively with Members across the House to ensure that we tackle the backlog effectively while strengthening confidence in our justice system.

16:44

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

It was a privilege to be here for the powerful and effective speech from the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols).

When literally thousands of venerable members of the legal profession are saying so clearly that jury trial restrictions will not be effective or practical and may be counterproductive, and that they threaten our rights, surely the Government must listen. The Green party’s reasoned amendment sets out clear reasons for the awful court backlog that is letting down so many victims—it talks about Conservative underfunding over many years—and sets out the missing resources that will help to properly solve it. It is rare for us to agree with some colleagues on anything, but the fact is that we are all right on this point. We need alternatives to the restrictions on jury trials in the Bill, including intensive listings, more sitting days, legal aid investment, better buildings and better services to deliver defendants to court.

The Green amendment also raises the question of whether these measures are yet another part of the Government’s wider attack on civil liberties. They are building a toolkit for tyrants also out of digital ID, facial recognition surveillance on our streets and the erosion of fundamental asylum rights—all things contrary to our British values and which should not be packaged up for this or any future Government to use against minorities, protesters and dissidents. This is all so dangerous. Can the Minister truly deny that the growing acceptance by juries of defences of proportionality or necessity in some protest cases was not a factor in the inclusion of the unnecessary and dangerous curtailment of jury trials in the Bill?

The category of triable either-way cases where jury trials will be restricted includes several of the specific offences created or made more serious by successive Governments in the wake of successful non-violent protest action. By successful, I mean non-violent actions that have—yes—caused inconvenience but which did what non-violent direct action is for: directly aiming to prevent harm to people or the environment, or to create a stir that raises public awareness of serious injustice. Actions made into more serious offences have included interference with infrastructure, blocking roads or demonstrating in airports, specific tunnelling offences, conspiracy to lock on to each other during protests, or symbolically using statues in actions, as well as some kinds of noisy protests—for being annoying.

Along with the wider principle here, I am so concerned, in connection with rights and liberties around dissent and resistance to state power, that juries could no longer be able to judge the public interest or proportionality of the actions of defendants of these kinds of charges. Such people have achieved so much progress throughout our history—that, nobody can deny. The Bill should not affect our citizens’ rights in this way. It should be about real investment in our courts to ensure that justice is not delayed for the victims, who we all care about.

16:48

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

No one is denying that after 14 years of desecration by the Conservatives, the backlog in the Crown courts is out of control and stacked against victims, but curtailing jury trials is not necessary to tackle it. There is no evidence that these plans will fix the problems in our criminal justice system, and the Institute for Government has suggested that restricting juries could save less than 2% of court time.

It is no wonder, then, that thousands of lawyers have written to the Government to oppose these plans. They do acknowledge, like many of us, that the Bill contains some good provisions, including the repeal of the presumption of child contact, which has been long campaigned for by many of us in this House and by organisations such as Women’s Aid and Right to Equality, and led by the incredible Claire Throssell, who joins us in the Special Gallery. The Bill will also make transcripts available from the magistrates court, which has been long campaigned for by Charlotte and the team at Open Justice for All, among others, and supported by many of us in this House. However, on the curtailment of jury trials, I have spoken with many rape victims who feel that their trauma is being instrumentalised to undermine and restrict a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy—all for cost-cutting purposes. Of course, they want reform of the criminal justice system, but they want it to be evidence-led.

The value and importance of a jury system cannot be overstated. The House will be aware that I was cleared by a jury in 2021 after a vexatious trial driven by malicious intent. Originally, my case was set to be heard in a magistrates court. I am not saying that that would have led to a different outcome for sure, but for someone of my background—working class, Muslim, and a woman of Bangladeshi heritage—the risk of a miscarriage of justice would have been much higher, without a shadow of a doubt. Back in 2017, the now Justice Secretary said in his report:

“Juries are a success story of our justice system. Rigorous analysis shows that, on average, juries—including all white juries—do not deliver different results for BAME and White defendants…This positive story about the jury system is not matched by such a clear-cut story for magistrates’ verdicts… In particular, there were some worrying disparities for BAME women… Of those women tried at Magistrates’ Court, Black women, Asian women, Mixed ethnic women and Chinese/Other women were all more likely to be convicted than White women.”

The Bill will entrench structural discrimination, and I believe that Justice Secretary knows it. Indeed, I am also alarmed by the proposals to introduce trial by judge for some financial and fraud cases. As the Criminal Bar Association has highlighted, over 78% of barristers have said that it is important for juries to be able to evaluate complex evidence and prevent overreach in financial and fraud cases. In my case, the jury considered evidence over eight days—that was necessary, in my view.

[Karl Turner]

I have just looked at the recent stats. In 2025 there were 67 ethnic minority circuit judges and 42 judges of unknown ethnicity, while there were 637 white judges, the vast majority of whom were men. What does my hon. Friend say about that?

[Apsana Begum]

My hon. Friend highlights important and vital statistics that illustrate an issue in the legal system: it does not reflect the wider diversity of communities who experience and go through the criminal justice system.

The majority of women in prison are survivors of violence against women and girls; nearly 70% of women in prison report having experienced domestic abuse. They are more likely to have been tried in a magistrates court for either-way offences that could have been considered by a jury. I am very worried that the proposals in the Bill will result in more victims being jailed. This really matters. Three-year prison terms are life-altering sentences, but under the Bill they could be handed out by a judge.

The Government have no mandate for a decision of such magnitude—it was not in the Labour party’s 2024 manifesto. Instead of restricting jury trials, I urge them to invest in and properly fund our criminal justice system in order to address the issue of court backlogs. Everyone—every single one of us—should have equal rights in our legal and court systems. Jury trials are a fundamental legal safeguard against miscarriages of justice, and surely our society should be based on true fairness in the course of delivering justice.

16:54

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

We have heard some powerful speeches today, none more so than that from the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), and we heard something very striking from the Justice Secretary: he told us that juries are the “cornerstone” of our criminal justice system. What is a cornerstone? A cornerstone is the most important part of something, on which everything else depends. What is the cornerstone of democracy? It is voting. We would not think of getting rid of voting, but we are invited in this House to get rid of the cornerstone of jury trials in a huge spectrum of cases.

[Dr Tidball]

Does the hon. and learned Member agree that, in fact, we are getting rid of them in only a quarter of 3% of cases that go through the court process?

[Jim Allister]

We are getting rid of them in thousands of cases, which will deny to those who are accused in those cases the right that each one of us would claim for ourselves: to be judged by our peers. We are doing it in cases that involve a large sentence. Three years is no trifling sentence—it is a substantial sentence that is life-changing, and yet we are suggesting that we should move away from that cornerstone of justice in all those cases.

[Emma Foody]

I ask the hon. and learned Member two questions. First, does he not accept that magistrates are indeed peers? Secondly, does he agree that 12 months is a pretty considerable, life-changing sentence as it stands?

[Jim Allister]

Judges, no matter how intellectual, erudite or experienced they might be, do not have the life experiences of 12 jurors. I spent my professional life as a junior and senior counsel in the criminal courts of Northern Ireland, and therefore I have substantial experience of appearing in not just jury trials but judge-alone trials, because for decades we had Diplock courts. I can tell the hon. Lady from my experience that if I was charged with an offence, without doubt I would choose the jury rather than the judge alone, because whether we like it or not, the most experienced judge becomes case-hardened. You will get far more empathy, either as a victim of crime or as a person accused of crime, from a jury. Why? Because they have the lived experience and so are likely to show an affinity with you, be you the victim or the accused.

It is an immeasurable advantage in our justice system to have those deciding the facts of a case be those who have the feel for what it is to live in that community and know what it is to have empathy with either the person accused or the victim. They are in a far superior position to some case-hardened judge who has heard it all before and, frankly, cannot deliver the quality of dependable justice. I know from my experience that even many people who were convicted would have said, “Well, at least it was my peers who convicted me. I have more confidence in what they did than what a single judge would do.”

What is a jury? When we abolish juries, we are abolishing not just an established right going back 800 years. We are abolishing a protection against arbitrary power. We are abolishing the honest broker. Who brings a case against an accused? The state. Who is the honest broker in that? The jury. The jury, who have that affinity and that lived experience, are in a far better position to reach a sustainable and credible verdict. In the end, it is about public confidence in our criminal justice system, which matters hugely.

Far more public confidence is generated in our criminal justice system through jury trials than through judge-alone trials. The point was made earlier that around 41% of all summary trials that go to appeal are overturned. What does that tell us? It tells us of how case-hardened some of those who are hearing them are, it tells us of the summary nature and the speed with which some of the cases are heard, and it tells us that an injustice was done in 41% of those cases. Are we in the business of accentuating injustice? Surely not. Surely we are in the business of extracting injustice from our system, and we will do that far stronger and far better through maintaining, not diminishing, jury trials. As the Justice Secretary said, jury trials are indeed the cornerstone. Take away the cornerstone and you have begun to demolish the edifice in which we all have so much pride: our criminal justice system.

11:30

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

At the heart of the reforms before us today is one word and one simple question: the word is victims and the question is, how do we ensure that victims actually receive the justice that they are promised?

Hon. Members will know that before coming to this place I served as a police officer over three different forces. During that time I saw at first hand the impact that crime has on people’s lives. I met victims at some of the worst moments that they will ever experience, often after deeply traumatic incidents. What always stayed with me was the faith that victims place in our justice system. They believe that if they report what has happened, come forward and endure the stress of an investigation and a trial, the system will ultimately deliver justice. They believe that the institutions of this country—the police, the courts and the rule of law—will stand behind them.

When victims report a crime, they are making a promise to us and to the justice system that they will follow through and endure the issues that they have to endure. The least we can do is to ensure that the justice system keeps its promise to them. However, today that faith is being tested far too often. I regularly meet victims and victims’ groups who speak about the anxiety, uncertainty and sheer exhaustion that comes with waiting for their case to reach court. Many have done everything we have asked of them—reported the crime, given evidence and supported the investigation—only to be left waiting months and years for a conclusion.

Through my work on the Justice Committee, I have heard extensive evidence about the state of our courts. The reality is stark. The Crown court backlog has more than doubled since 2019. Trials are taking longer and for some of the most serious offences, particularly rape and sexual assault, victims are waiting well over a year on average for their cases to conclude. Behind those numbers are real people: victims who cannot move on with their lives, families left in limbo and witnesses forced to relive traumatic experiences as hearings are delayed or postponed. Justice delayed really does become justice denied.

Before going further, I want to recognise the people who keep our justice system running: the magistrates, judges and court staff all do extraordinary work. Magistrates in particular give up their time voluntarily to serve the public and uphold the rule of law in their communities. Too often we talk about the pressures on the justice system without recognising the people who are holding it together. They deserve our gratitude, but they also deserve a system that properly supports the work that they do, and that is why this reform is necessary.

The reality is that cases today are more complex than they once were. Digital evidence, mobile phone data, body-worn cameras and modern forensic techniques have all improved the fairness of trials, but they have also made cases longer and more demanding to process. The measures in the Bill seek to address that. Giving magistrates greater sentencing powers will allow more cases to be resolved in the magistrates courts, freeing up Crown court capacity for the most serious offences. Similarly, allowing courts greater flexibility in determining where cases should be heard helps to ensure that the most serious crimes are not competing for court time with cases that could be resolved more quickly elsewhere.

Another important aspect of the Bill is the modernisation of the courts. For too long, our justice system has lagged behind the technology available to it. Victims still face unnecessary barriers when trying to access transcripts or understand the progress of their case. Using technology more effectively can make the system faster, more transparent and more accessible.

Finally, I will briefly address the removal of the presumption of parental involvement from children. For many years, survivors of domestic abuse and campaigners have raised concerns about what has sometimes been described as a pro-contact culture in parts of the family courts system. Organisations, such as PEEPSA—Prevent, Educate and Eradicate Post Separation Abuse—that support survivors of post-separation abuse have welcomed the Government’s decision to repeal the presumption of parental involvement. They have long warned that a pro-contact culture can risk sidelining the safety of children and survivors.

[Kirith Entwistle]

Too many women have told me that the family courts felt like an extension of the abuse that they were trying to escape. Does my hon. Friend agree that ending the presumption of parental involvement is a crucial step towards ensuring that children’s safety, not the automatic assumption of contact, is the starting point in every case?

[Matt Bishop]

I completely agree. Children must never be used as a tool through which abuse can continue after separation.

Removing the presumption also sends a clear message that children’s safety and wellbeing must always come first. Reforms of this scale will rightly be scrutinised as the Bill progresses, but the alternative—doing nothing—is simply not acceptable. Without reform, the backlog will grow, victims will continue to wait and confidence in our justice system will continue to erode.

Justice is the foundation of public confidence in this country. When victims lose faith in the system, the rule of law itself begins to weaken. This Bill is about restoring the faith and ensuring that when victims come forward, the justice system is ready to stand behind them. For that reason, I am pleased to support the Bill today.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Members will be aware that a large number of people still wish to speak, so I will reduce the time limit to four minutes after the next speaker.

17:04

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I support the reasoned amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, which declines to give this Bill a Second Reading. I do so because while there are some useful measures in the Bill, at its heart is an unjust proposal. The Government’s plan to curtail jury trials is wrong.

[Sarah Russell]

I respect the hon. Gentleman and understand that his concerns about the Bill are genuinely rooted. None the less, the presumption of parental involvement being revoked in this Bill is absolutely critical, and I do not understand how he can proceed with a reasoned amendment that would kill the entire Bill on that basis.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The right to a trial by jury is central to the English legal system. It has its roots in Magna Carta. It ensures that the public participate in the administration of criminal justice and gives protection to citizens from politically inspired trials. It is regrettable that some parts of the Labour party seem to take delight in tearing up long-held principles that underpin our constitution simply because it is politically expedient to do so. They are shredding our constitution without much thought as to the consequences.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Removing jury trials is surely an erosion of the criminal justice system. As the hon. Gentleman has alluded to, one judge cannot provide the same scrutiny as 12 random jurors. If the need is to reduce the backlog, maybe we should consider using courtrooms 100% of the time to actually reduce the backlog in the first place.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s point. The Government are changing the balance of power between the citizen and the state, then pleading delays in Crown court trials as justification.

This policy of curtailing the right to jury trials is ideological. In January, the Courts Minister was asked about the plans to overhaul jury trials. She admitted that she would be scrapping jury trials even if there was no courts backlog. I wonder how many Labour colleagues agree with her. I think that is disgraceful, and I suspect that there are more than 80 Labour MPs who agree with me.

There is no doubt that the Crown court backlog is a serious issue. The Leveson report contains many useful proposals to improve the criminal justice system, and I will support them, but the backlog was not caused by the right to trial by jury, and it will not be alleviated by curtailing that right.

In my view, the solution is to increase the capacity of the Crown court, and in fairness, parts of the Bill aim to do that. However, why does the Lord Chancellor think that abolishing jury trials for those likely to receive a sentence of three years or less is the right thing to do? Senior judges, legal professionals, and even learned Labour MPs have all warned that removing juries will make only a marginal difference—if any—and as a former solicitor, I agree. Judges themselves have said that the supposed time savings are inherently uncertain. Single-judge trials still require full evidence, witnesses, legal argument and detailed, reasoned judgments. That takes time; in fact, the Bill risks leaving courtrooms empty while judges write up their decisions instead of hearing other cases.

There are other reforms that we should make before sacrificing the right to trial by jury. To take one example, the Lord Chancellor should look at the wider efficiency of the Ministry of Justice. For the past two years, the MOJ—which includes the courts service—lost the highest number of days to sickness and absence per member of staff in the whole of Whitehall. Each employee took an average of 10.7 days of sickness, which equates to over two working weeks a year for every member of staff. Not only is that 30% higher than the civil service average, but it is double the average of the private sector. I have always thought that sickness is a fairly good indication of how well a company, charity or Department is run, and perhaps if the Lord Chancellor focused his efforts on improving the efficiency of his own Department, he might start to see the whole system improve.

The Lord Chancellor should also look at the listing practices of different court circuits in England. The western circuit, which covers Somerset, has a much lower backlog than London does, and the Liverpool circuit is probably the most efficient in the country. Why does the Lord Chancellor not try to replicate the listing practices of the Liverpool circuit before taking this disastrous step? He has previously said that cutting jury trials would be a mistake—in the past, he thought that was wrong. I believe that his first judgment, according to his conscience, was the right one, and I urge him to reconsider his plans.

17:12

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

I welcome much in this Bill, including the investment in legal aid, the additional sitting days and the funding for our courts. However, I want to focus my remarks on two proposals within it: the restriction of jury trials for either-way offences, and the removal of the automatic right of appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown court.

I speak as someone who began their legal career as a prosecutor in the 1990s. The kind of backlogs we see today simply did not exist in those days, even though more cases were heard in the Crown court because magistrates had sentencing powers of only six months. The delays we face today are not caused by jury trials. I remember that as shadow Justice Minister I repeatedly challenged the previous Conservative Government about the consequences of the decisions they were making. Courts were closed, judicial sitting days were cut, court staff were reduced, and legal aid was placed under enormous strain. At the same time, the system had to cope with the demands of modern digital evidence, delays in disclosure, problems with prisoner transport and the disruption caused by covid.

The Government argue that these reforms are necessary to reduce the Crown court backlogs, and often point to the delays faced by victims of sexual and domestic abuse. I take those concerns very seriously—a substantial part of my career as a prosecutor was spent as a designated child and sexual abuse specialist and rape specialist. I worked closely with victims, witnesses and families affected by these traumatic offences. If I believed that the abolition of jury trials would genuinely allow those cases to be heard more quickly, I would support it, but I do not.

There is also the issue of removing the automatic right of appeal from the magistrates court to the Crown court. This change will disproportionately affect defendants from poorer backgrounds who may not have legal aid representation. We know that a significant proportion of those appeals succeed, which raises serious concerns about access to justice.

These two proposals will disproportionately impact the most vulnerable in our society, particularly those from socially, economically and educationally deprived backgrounds. My constituency ranks as the 38th most deprived in the country. For many of my constituents, the criminal justice system already feels distant and difficult to navigate. We should be careful not to introduce changes that risk criminalising and disadvantaging them even further.

There are real reforms that could address the delays. The first and foremost is the Labour party’s commitment to having properly funded specialist rape courts. I know that lawyers and judges will be prepared to sit at weekends to tackle those cases. Secondly, we could be more like the civil system, where timelines are set so that cases progress properly. If any of the parties do not act properly, there could be financial sanctions for them. I know we will be opening more courts and courtrooms, but we need to expand the number of judicial sitting days. We also need to review the contracts with Serco and other bodies that produce defendants in court, because a lot of delay is caused by defendants not being produced at court. The prosecution and the police need to be able to present their evidence to the defence as soon as possible, and the defendant needs to be legally represented, so that additional evidence can be considered. As a result, we could have pleas at a much earlier stage. We need to look at those things first, put them in place, and see what happens, before we get rid of or restrict jury trials.

17:16

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

There is absolutely no doubt that long delays in criminal court shake public confidence, and I can only imagine the distress of victims forced to wait years for justice. In my role as an MP, I have supported those who have experienced repeat offences as they wait for stalkers to face justice. It is tragic that cases collapse because victims cannot face reliving their experience, or witnesses’ memories fade. It is not just victims who are harmed by these delays. Defendants, who are innocent until proven guilty under the law, are also having their life suspended, and those defendants deserve fairness.

I am deeply worried about the income thresholds for legal aid in the magistrates court. It is ridiculous that someone in an entry-level minimum wage job will not automatically be eligible. How is that justice? Do the Government really believe that unless someone can afford to fund their defence, their freedom should be at stake? I hope that if this Bill passes Second Reading, the Government will put forward some substantial changes.

At the heart of my concern about this Bill is the fundamental shift in the role of the magistrate and the bench division. A typical magistrates trial lasts five to six hours; a similar case in the Crown court is likely to take three to four days. That is for good reason, as more legal direction ensures that victims and defendants understand the process and upholds the integrity of justice. I am deeply concerned that if complex cases carrying sentences of up to 24 months in prison are passed over to the magistrates court, they, too, will become longer, creating even bigger backlogs, and just shifting the problem somewhere else. What assessment has been carried out—I have asked this on several occasions—of the capacity of magistrates to sit in multi-day trials? Those trials require attendance day after day, so younger working magistrates will be far less likely to be able to take part in them.

The Magistrates Association has deemed that 17,000 magistrates are needed, and we have only 14,000. Previous recruitment drives have not generated enough applicants. Where is the evidence that our communities can find these extra people, who can give this extra time? The other problem is the age of magistrates. While there are some notable exceptions in the Chamber, 81% of magistrates are over 50. That is much higher than the average age of a judge. This proposal widens the demographic gap between the court and those facing justice. Juries provide broader diversity in age and background.

This Bill is a real diversion. We have an insufficient number of magistrates now; where is the evidence that people will be willing and able to fulfil this critical and increasingly difficult role, in which they can take someone’s liberty for up to two years? That is a huge responsibility for somebody who is not legally trained. Speaking of legally trained people, I have raised the issue of access to legal advisers before. The Lord Chancellor has indicated that there will be more money for legal advisers, but that was before this proposal came forward. I raised the matter after seeing the issues locally. I see no evidence that enough legal advisers are willing to work at this lowest rung of the court system to support magistrates.

I also wanted to raise the issue of the processes in the magistrates courts. One of my constituents, having been denied the right to go to the Crown court, has been told that she has just 27 minutes to plead her case, which she feels is a denial of her rights. We are talking about cases in which liberty is at risk, and a criminal conviction could lead to the loss of employment or travel rights, and could have a reputational impact for years to come, so we really must consider the effect of this significant move on both victims and defendants.

I wonder whether the Lord Chancellor can tell us who said that

“juries are representative of local populations”,

and

“a filter for prejudice”;

that

“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea”,

and that the Government should not fix backlogs by abandoning a

“valuable tradition for short term benefit”

in either-way trials.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Lady’s time is up.

17:20

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

In my previous work as a solicitor, I represented women who had suffered terrible violence, and people who had been pushed to the margins of society. I have seen at first hand how fragile access to justice can be, and how years of under-investment have taken a wrecking ball to our justice system. Change is clearly needed, but the reforms before us, removing the right of defendants to elect trial by jury, do not appear to be a proportionate answer to that problem. The evidence does not support the claim that the reforms will deliver the benefits suggested, with projections suggesting that the impact on the backlog may at best be modest. That raises an obvious question: if the contribution that these measures will make to reducing the backlog is uncertain, why are we being asked to make such a profound and permanent change to one of the central safeguards in our criminal justice system?

Members have spoken about a range of offences, from theft to drug-related crimes, but when people are taken to court over action to advance causes in which they believe—in the past it was the suffragettes; today it is the climate activists and Palestinian protesters—it is ordinary people, their peers, who recognise the moral imperative behind their actions to prevent greater harm. The freedoms that this system protects are not abstract. They exist precisely to safeguard individuals against the power of the state when they stand accused of a criminal offence, and that is why we should be cautious before curtailing them.

There is also a serious question about the impact that these reforms may have on black and ethnic minority defendants. The Justice Secretary’s own review, published in 2017, highlighted deep disparities and a troubling lack of trust in parts of our criminal justice system. One of his key messages was that fairness must not only exist, but must be seen to exist. Juries who are drawn from our communities play an important role in public confidence. Reducing access to jury trial could risk further eroding trust among certain communities who already feel disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system. It is therefore essential that if these reforms proceed, their impact on black and ethnic minority defendants is specifically examined, transparently and rigorously.

None of this is to deny the seriousness of the backlog crisis. The courts must function efficiently, and the victims should not have to wait years for justice. However, if the purpose of these reforms is to address the backlog, I suggest that we should understand why they are being introduced as a permanent alteration to our justice system, rather than a time-limited measure.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I will support the Government tonight, because it is clear that decisive action is needed to tackle the backlog that so many Members have described, but does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government are genuinely confident about the package of reforms that they are presenting, it would be fair and proportionate to add a review clause or the equivalent to ensure that we are clear about whether we actually need some of these measure?

[Abtisam Mohamed]

I do agree. The logical approach would be to treat this as a time-limited measure—or the Justice Secretary should consider a mandatory time-bound review, assessing the impact of these changes not only on the backlog but on trial outcomes, on equality before the law, on public confidence, and specifically on black and ethnic minority defendants. All those matters must be included in a review if it is to be robust. The review must not only allow Parliament to examine the evidence but, if the reforms fail to deliver the benefits claimed or produce serious unintended consequences, allow us to revisit and, if necessary, reverse them. That would be a constructive and responsible approach.

Efficiency in the courts is important, but justice is equally important. I say to the Justice Secretary that if we are to take a step as serious as limiting the right to jury trial, at the very least Parliament should have the right to rigorous scrutiny, a meaningful review, and the clear possibility of reversal if this policy does not work.

17:24

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

May I begin by paying a huge tribute to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her testimony to the House today? It was a privilege to be here to hear it, and it will last long in the memory.

I do not have a huge amount of experience of jury trials; in fact, what I have experience of is the antithesis. When we were training to go to Northern Ireland in 1992, the IRA was wont to put us on the horns of a dilemma, in terms of whether we could open fire or not. We used to do cine ranges, and they would pause the action. I remember saying to my trainer, “Can I fire?” He said to me, “That is a very difficult situation, sir. That is when you remind yourself that it is better to be tried by 12 men than to be carried by six.” It was quite chilling, particularly given that two of my guardsmen were involved in a judgmental shooting a few months later. It turned out that you do not get tried by 12 men; you get tried by one. Those guardsmen were convicted of murder and sent away for life, so I have seen this issue from the other side.

There has been something of a consensus in today’s debate that justice delayed is justice denied, and that the backlog needs to be reduced. I do not think that there is a consensus on whether halving the number of cases that go to jury trial, and removing from thousands of victims and defendants the right to jury trial, will actually reduce the backlog in the way that the Deputy Prime Minister suggested.

In the absence of my experience of jury trials, I want to spend some time outlining the concerns of a constituent who wrote to me. His name is Sir Ivan Lawrence KC, and he is a former Member of Parliament. He says:

“After 63 years conducting jury trials at the criminal bar, sitting as a Recorder, speaking to countless ex-jurors, and discussing with lawyers in other countries their jury systems, I can confidently say that, despite the waste of jurors’ time that often occurs, our system contributes to justice in almost certainly the fairest and most efficient way.

The great point about juries is that ordinary people trust the twelve members to spread their judgment and to use ordinary common sense. Those who have been accused of dishonesty, however small, or of violence, however petty, could have decent lives totally ruined, if common sense is replaced by the strictest application of the law which may be required of judges.

Jury trial is not merely an important and traditional human right, and a clear form of democracy. Juries are, like our judges, totally independent. Any wrongs that may occur are redressed by retrials or appeals to higher courts. Those accused of crimes are more likely to turn up for their trials and, when they do, are less likely to need handcuffs, leg-irons, or expensive incarceration.”

I have listened to Sir Ivan Lawrence, and I am reminded of my grandmother’s words: an ounce of experience is worth a tonne of enthusiasm.

17:28

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, pay tribute to those Members of the House who made exceptional contributions, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). Her bravery today will be the debate’s real stand-out moment.

As we all know, the backdrop to this Bill is a court system that is facing crisis; that has been the case throughout the criminal justice system for many years. People up and down the country are waiting years for their day in court. When the justice system breaks down, it is our constituents and victims in our areas who pay the price. Although I will not address the presumption of contact in my speech, I pay tribute to the campaigners in this House, in the Gallery and around the country who have made sure that a measure on the presumption of contact is included in the Bill. It is a really special moment.

In the last six months, a number of my surgeries have been attended by constituents who are bearing the brunt of court delays—victims of serious crime who have been waiting years without justice and without closure. That is why, in the House today, I will be supporting this Bill on behalf of my constituents, who deserve timely justice.

We also have to remember the remand population, which has not been talked about much today. It is well publicised that our prison estate is in absolute crisis, having reached capacity and been totally stretched. While the Government are making the necessary reforms to address that and are building up capacity, they can ill afford to have the remand population at its current level. Frankly, those people are entitled to their day in court, to get their verdict and to be able to get on with their lives one way or the other.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is nothing progressive about a working-class man spending a year on remand—without a judge or a jury, and without any end to his turmoil in sight—when he may in fact be innocent?

[Sally Jameson]

I completely agree. Whether they will be found innocent or guilty, people are entitled to their day in court, and within a reasonable amount of time, as are the victims who need to have their cases heard. Frankly, that also allows prisons to get on with the important work of punishing those who are guilty and focusing on rehabilitation.

I want to take the opportunity of this Bill to push for a further reform of courts policy—I know the Minister is aware of this issue. I understand the reasons it is not in the Bill, but there was a particular case in my constituency. Somebody arrived for their day in court and ready for their trial, but because one of the jurors went sick, the judge decided it would not go ahead, even though the minimum number of jurors was available. They had to wait for a new trial date, which was many months later and, sadly, in the time they were waiting, the defendant—the perpetrator—died. In that case, justice delayed really was justice denied. Will the Minister meet me at another time to discuss whether there can be, if not a legislative change, a policy change on the expectation on judges to carry out trials when the minimum number of jurors is in attendance, unless there are exceptional circumstances?

[Kirith Entwistle]

I recently met judges in Bolton who spoke about issues with prisoner transportation that are also causing serious delays. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should also look at that as a means of speeding things up and improving efficiency?

[Sally Jameson]

Yes, as someone who was regularly held back from going on my dinner break because we were waiting for prisoner transportation, I would always welcome further improvement of prisoner transportation. I am all for that.

To close, we are not the first Government to change the threshold for jury trials, and because of the scale of the crisis we face, the circumstances demand that we must do so again. I am backing this whole package of reforms, because I know from my constituents that they want a courts system that delivers timely justice, supports victims and, frankly, allows them to move on with their lives. The alternative—and I think it is important that we explore the alternative—is that we manage the slow decline of our courts and watch victims walk away and public confidence drain away. We can modernise the system so that justice is delivered swiftly, fairly and for everyone, and that is what I choose today.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Paulette Hamilton on a four-minute time limit, but after her I will be reducing it to a three-minute limit.

17:33

[Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)]

I rise to speak on a Bill that is both necessary and difficult. Let me start by saying that I support its intention to tackle a Crown court backlog that has more than doubled since the pandemic, leaving victims waiting years for justice. Let us be clear what the backlog means: as the Victims’ Commissioner has warned, some trials are now listed for 2030. The bench division serves a purpose by enabling judge-alone trials for lower level cases, which means we can free up capacity and expect hearings to take about 20% less time.

I represent Birmingham Erdington, a working-class constituency with a proud and diverse ethnic minority community. It is from the perspective of my constituents that I must scrutinise this Bill.

Clause 3 removes a defendant’s right to elect for a jury trial for either-way offences, replacing it with a judge-alone trial in a new bench division for offences likely to attract sentences of three years or less. Crucially, this is not a temporary pilot—it contains no sunset clause. This is a permanent structural change to one of the oldest rights in our justice system. The intention to speed up our justice is honourable, but my concern is about trust and perception.

[Pam Cox]

I very much respect what my hon. Friend is saying, but the right to elect is not an ancient right; it was introduced in 1855 and escaped reforms in the 1970s. It is therefore a relatively recent addition to the judicial armoury.

[Paulette Hamilton]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.

For ethnic minority communities, that right has been seen as a vital protection against fear of bias, whether conscious or unconscious. A diverse jury of 12 brings the common sense of the community into the room; a single judge, however learned, does not offer that same representation.

[Sarah Russell]

The Judicial Executive Board produced a report on judicial bullying and racism in 2022, but has never published it. Does my hon. Friend agree that that backs up her point that there are concerns about the judiciary?

[Paulette Hamilton]

I absolutely agree. That does back up what I am saying.

I am not suggesting that our judiciary is biased, but perception matters, so I ask the Minister for two specific assurances. First, the Bill contains no clear statutory review, and there is no start or end date. Clause 3 allows the new provisions to be brought into force by regulation with a three-month minimum lead-in time, but beyond that, scrutiny is absent. I welcome that the Justice Secretary has announced a review. Can the Minister confirm the exact timeframe for that review? When will it begin and, crucially, when will it end?

Secondly, if there is to be a review, I urge the Minister to make its scope explicit. Will the Minister commit today that any review will break down data by ethnicity? We need to know if this new system is leading to disproportionate outcomes for ethnic minority defendants.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech and putting victims at the heart of what she is saying. I share some of her concerns about the legislation as it stands, but does she agree that we should vote for it today, so that we have the opportunity to influence it and improve it in the interests of public trust as it passes through the House?

[Paulette Hamilton]

I agree absolutely. Unless we work together to sort this out, we will not get a decent Bill that everybody can be happy with. To just throw it out at this stage would serve no purpose for anyone.

The crisis in our courts demands action, and the Government are right to act. I urge the Minister to commit today to strengthening the scrutiny of these measures and putting a clear review on the face of the Bill. Let us prove to my constituents that their faith in justice is still well placed. I look forward to working with the Justice team on the Committee to strengthen this clause.

17:39

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

I am delighted to speak as an enthusiastic supporter of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. I wish to put on record my thanks to both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Courts and Legal Services for their excellent work before the Bill came to this place, which included consulting with Back Benchers at every opportunity.

This is a critical piece of legislation that will rebuild our buckling criminal justice system after years and years of neglect. I will keep my remarks focused on the important context within which this Bill should be considered. We must, in this place, be absolutely clear that the previous Government left the criminal justice system on the brink of collapse. It is important to acknowledge this challenging landscape, so that victims, those who work within the criminal justice system and the wider public can all appreciate exactly why this Government are taking forward the bold measures in the Bill.

Whichever part of the criminal justice system we inspect, we see the devastating impact of the swingeing cutbacks and gross mismanagement of the previous Government—cuts to prisons, cuts to the Probation Service, cuts to legal aid, cuts to the Crown courts, cuts to policing and cuts to the Crown Prosecution Service.

What I find most frustrating is that we too often forget our inheritance, and we must not do so when we go into the Lobbies this evening. We cannot forget the chronic backlog of cases in the Crown courts that we inherited. We must always understand that this is not a static problem, but a compounding one. If we do not proceed with the measures in the Bill, we will not be able to improve the situation in the Crown courts. Instead, it will deteriorate further and the backlog will spiral out of control. The situation is simply inexcusable. We must understand that it is impossible to defend the status quo. Without structural reform, the criminal justice system will continue to buckle, which is why I am such a keen advocate of it.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The hon. Member seems entirely ignorant of the success in Liverpool Crown court, where from 23 June, Operation Expedite reduced court delays by one third. Does he not think that it is worth replicating that experiment, which has been so successful in Liverpool, before curtailing the right to trial by jury?

[Lloyd Hatton]

I completely accept that there have been successes in some parts of the country, including in Liverpool, but that is not the case elsewhere, which is why a much wider package of structural reforms is essential. I firmly believe, in response to that point, that we must pull every lever at our disposal to stabilise the system and begin to turn the corner on the rising backlog in the Crown court. We need transformative change, backed up by investment and modernisation, to fix the problem. That is not optional; it is essential. That is why, in my view, the reforms in the Bill form a coherent package designed to deliver system-wide change. We cannot indulge in a game of pick and mix and simply implement the measures that we prefer. We must understand that, to relieve the scale of pressure currently facing the Crown courts and the wider criminal justice system, this Bill must make its way through this place.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

If the hon. Gentleman believes that we should not have a pick and mix approach to Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals, why does he think that the Government have chosen only some of the measures and not others?

[Lloyd Hatton]

The Government can put certain measures into one piece of primary legislation, but there could be others down the line to pick up the recommendations of the review.

We must remember that magistrates, prison and probation officers and police officers will not thank us if we preside over an unreformed system in which Crown courts are allowed to crumble and backlogs are allowed to balloon for years to come. Every aspect of reform is required, otherwise cutting the backlogs and providing more timely justice will never be achieved, and we in this place will have done too little.

Finally, I add my voice to the chorus of parliamentarians who have been speaking up for victims who have so far been failed by the status quo. At the heart of the criminal justice system are people waiting for justice—waiting for wrongs to be put right, for fairness, for their day in court and for closure.

The progressive case for court reform is not a technocratic exercise in efficiency; it is a fundamental argument about how our legal institutions serve the British people, because when the criminal justice system breaks down, it is the most vulnerable who always pay the highest price. We must not lose sight of that today. We can either manage the slow decline of our courts, watching as victims are neglected and abandoned, and public confidence drains away, or we can support the Bill and modernise and repair the system so that justice is delivered quickly and fairly. I enthusiastically choose the latter option.

17:44

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the Bar.

I rise to oppose the plan to curtail jury trials, because restricting jury trials is wrong in principle and wrong in practice. Trial by jury is not some quaint tradition that we can trade away when Ministers feel the pressure. As has been said, it is one of the great democratic safeguards in our justice system; it allows ordinary citizens to be judged by their peers and the power of the state to be held in check. It is dangerous to challenge that principle, because there is a reason for it: the balance between the state and the citizen. History teaches us that changing that balance in favour of the state is a dangerous road to go down. The power that we are giving the state is not simply the power for it to issue a fine; we are talking about people losing their liberty.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I, too, am a passionate believer in the jury system, but Sweden—which is No. 1 in the World Justice Project’s global rankings—does not use jury trials at all, and neither do Norway, Germany or the Netherlands. In France, Denmark and Canada, only the most serious cases are dealt with by juries. My hon. Friend is not suggesting that those countries do not have liberty, is he?

[Imran Hussain]

What I am saying is that there is a reason that we protect this liberty—this cornerstone of our system of justice and democracy. When we see this much of a change in state power, I will tell my hon. Friend who is at the receiving end first: it is black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, working-class communities, elderly communities and women who are disproportionately impacted.

[Warinder Juss]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the restriction of jury trials in some cases is just one among a whole range of measures, and that in order to protect really vulnerable victims—for example, rape victims, who will have a jury trial—we need to make the process quicker? That necessarily means that, for some other cases, the decision to take away juries is a measure to protect the most vulnerable.

[Imran Hussain]

These are not competing interests. I thank all hon. Members who have made brave and passionate speeches today—I salute their courage. Of course we want to see justice delivered to victims as soon as possible, but there is not a shred of evidence that suggests that curtailing jury trials will do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) addressed that point with great passion.

Let us be clear about what the proposals mean in practice. The Government are suggesting that people could face lengthy prison sentences following judge-only processes in a new category of so-called swift courts. Frankly, that should send a chill through every democrat in this country. Ministers claim that this is about efficiency, but no argument has been put forward in this debate to support that. Restricting jury trials would deliver only limited time savings in the Crown court system—hon. Members have made that case time and again today.

The core point is that undermining fundamental rights will not fix a backlog caused by years of under-investment, court closures, reduced capacity and a criminal justice system stretched to breaking point. Ministers have published impact assessments, but they have still not shown that curtailing jury trials will meaningfully solve a backlog caused by years of under-resourcing.

[Jonathan Davies]

My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. He is making important points about potential overreach of the state. Might I suggest that this is not the end for the Bill and that if there are concerns—people are rightly raising issues—we can progress them in Committee and at subsequent stages to ensure that the Bill is where it needs to be to retain public trust.

[Imran Hussain]

I will come to that point. I note, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I did not get an extra minute for taking an intervention—will I get one?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

indicated dissent.

[Imran Hussain]

Okay. Perhaps I have been too generous with my time.

The real fear is that these changes will not simply speed things up but change how justice is done. In the limited time I have—it is a tragedy that I have only three minutes to speak in a debate of this magnitude, amending cornerstones of our democracy—I ask the Justice Secretary to take advice from the Member he was a number of years ago, when he made some of the most powerful arguments for the jury system. I ask him to look back at his old self.

17:50

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

First, I pay tribute to all the hon. Members across the Chamber who have contributed to the debate with their life experiences, from barristers and prosecutors to criminal justice experts, as well as the powerful victim testimony we have heard. I welcome to the Gallery those victims who have put themselves forward and articulated their convictions to improve the lives of all our residents and communities; I thank them and salute them for their service.

I thank Sir Brian Leveson for the time he took in coming forward with his proposals and Ministers for the time they have given to me. I have held Westminster Hall debates concerning Kent court waiting times and found Ministers to be respectful and to engage on issues; I thank them for that.

As a former police officer, I always say that you should judge an individual on their patterns of behaviour, and as many of my hon. Friends have said, we inherited a terrible situation in our criminal justice system, with see-sawing numbers of police officers, morale at a record low and a rise in crime. We saw the botched privatisation of the Probation Service, and the prison system was left in a state of disrepair when we inherited it in July 2024. I am afraid that the Conservatives’ track record, which is in the dock today, is part of the reason we are debating these issues.

As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I know that the National Audit Office report, “Reducing the backlog in the Crown Court” was clear. The Leveson report gives a number of solutions to reducing the backlog. I will touch on a couple of points in the minute and a half I have remaining.

First, the criminal justice system has never been preserved in aspic. We have seen evolution over time as sentencing guidelines have changed, and we have seen different types of cases referred to and dealt with in the magistrates court. During the last Government, magistrates’ sentencing powers were extended to 12 months. We have also learned from Canada and Australia, which have gone through similar challenges on these issues and got into a stronger position. We should learn those international lessons. The criminal justice system is always evolving.

Secondly, I welcome the investment—an extra £2.2 billion —in the criminal justice system. That will reform our courts, with a removal of the cap on court sitting days, and digital improvements. Fundamentally, my constituents want to see justice delivered, and I cannot stand idly by when people in my surgeries are waiting three to four years for their court cases to be heard because of a failed system.

All these reforms should be debated in Committee. I am disappointed that the Opposition will not vote for the Bill to support that process.

17:53

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents tell me that they are disillusioned with politics and the institutions that shape their lives. They feel alienated, with the system appearing remote, unresponsive and unaccountable—here we are again. I fear that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary’s proposals to limit the right to trial by jury risk deepening and encouraging that mood of cynicism and distrust. Generally, 90% of the Bill is spot-on, but 10% of it needs to be looked at very closely in future stages.

There is a cultural importance to jury trials. For nearly two centuries, the legitimacy of the criminal justice system has rested on a simple idea: that guilt should be judged not by the state alone, but by a person’s peers. It is quite simple, really. The public sees trial by jury as a fundamental right—one that embodies fairness and equality before the law. There is an existing mistrust of judges and magistrates—and do you wonder why, when three quarters of the judges are Oxbridge graduates, the majority attended public schools, and only 10% of magistrates and judges are from ethnic minority backgrounds. That sort of thing has really got to change, because the situation is not acceptable.

There needs to be more scrutiny of the proposal to limit defendants’ rights to appeal a magistrates court conviction, because the current position is, quite frankly, indefensible. It is not acceptable. The right to appeal is fundamental to natural justice. If this proposal reaches the statute book, it will trigger—in my view and in the view of many experts—an avalanche of judicial reviews and appeals to the European Court.

There are commendable elements in the Bill, particularly those that strengthen protections for women who have survived sexual violence, as we have heard today, but the proposals to curtail the right to trial by jury offer no discernible benefit. They risk undermining centuries of legal tradition, damaging trust in our institutions, and threatening social stability at a time when the fabric of our society is already under strain.

17:56

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

Anyone who has worked on the frontline of the criminal justice system knows that the Crown court crisis has been years in the making. Underfunding, austerity, covid and the changing nature of crime, with cases becoming increasingly complex and evidential volumes growing exponentially, have compounded the issue.

The changes in the Bill offer a pragmatic solution, and it is important that we are all clear about what is being proposed. The Bill does not abolish jury trials; it simply adjusts the threshold at which a case warrants a jury’s involvement. Magistrates are absolutely capable of hearing cases commanding a sentence of up two years; they already do in the youth court and there has been no outcry that young people do not get justice because of it.

As the Crown court backlog has increased, so has the percentage of cases committed to that court, because defendants have overruled the magistrates’ decision, and that is despite the sentence, in the most serious version of the Crown’s case, not exceeding the magistrates’ maximum powers. One may wonder why a defendant would seek to take his case to a court with greater sentencing powers, but the calculation is clear. The longer the wait for a trial, the harder it will be for witnesses to have a clear recollection of events and the more likely it is for victims to withdraw. Indeed, in one of my cases, a defendant hoped that the 96-year-old victim of burglary would die before the trial took place.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

This is the crux of the issue that we are discussing today: how do make sure that justice is given to victims as quickly as possible? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill enables us to do that?

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that this is about getting justice to victims, which defendants game the system to prevent.

Arguments against the Crown court bench division seem to presuppose some measure of unfairness of having a single judge deciding guilt or innocence, but district judges have sat alone in the magistrates court for decades, and there have been no campaigns suggesting that they should be abolished on the grounds of unfairness or otherwise. The Crown court bench division is predicted to save 5,000 sitting days in 2028-29. As well as reducing the time spent in the courtroom, fewer jury trials will also free up administrative staff, who are feeling under immense pressure.

For those who suggest that greater investment and efficiencies alone will be sufficient, I remind them that Sir Brian Leveson has said that this alone cannot solve this crisis. That accords with my experience of working as a Crown prosecutor from 2003 right up until just before the general election, during which time countless efficiency initiatives were introduced but were ultimately unable to prevent the crisis from developing. Efficiencies alone cannot turn this around.

[Lloyd Hatton]

I thank my hon. Friend for making such an eloquent speech. Does she share my concern that if we were, heaven forfend, to walk away from the crucial reforms in this Bill, the police officers, prison officers, CPS staff and those who work in our Crown courts would not thank us for the mess that we would be leaving them, with the Crown court system grinding to a halt and backlogs ballooning?

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank all those people working in the criminal justice system who, frankly, have been propping up the system with the generosity of their time, working extra hours over and above, and giving everything. They have propped up the criminal justice system in that way for years.

If we do not act now, the wait time for cases to reach trial is projected to increase, and the consequences will be stark. First, justice will be delayed. That means victims waiting years for closure and a chance to heal, it means the wrongly accused waiting years for their name to be cleared, and it means those who have offended waiting years until they can be rehabilitated. Secondly, if we do not act, we will not fix the vicious cycle of interconnected crises: the staffing crisis, the prison crises, the recidivism crisis and the VAWG crisis.

We finally have a Government brave enough to grip these problems through record levels of investment, through the emergency early release scheme, through sentencing reform and through the measures in this Bill. The Bill rebalances the criminal justice system to ensure that jury trials are always available for the most serious cases, that cases are heard sooner, that victims are treated more fairly, that our criminal justice system continues to provide justice now, and that it is future-proofed for years to come. I wholeheartedly support the Government and this Bill.

18:02

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in favour of the Bill, but first I want to remind the House why these reforms matter to victims. When the powerful wave of the MeToo movement washed over us in 2017, almost 10 years after the incredible Tarana Burke began the MeToo programme in US schools and women began to share their stories, I froze when I heard on the radio what Harvey Weinstein had been doing in plain sight. I spent the rest of the day scrolling through courageous women’s stories online, and despite my horror at each of their experiences, I felt relief and hope. I felt relief that we could share our stories of experiences that I know every woman in this Chamber and, unfortunately, every woman and girl in the UK, has at some level had to endure. And I felt hope that this would be a watershed moment and that there would be no more Harvey Weinsteins. Recently, however, we have come to learn of the monstrous abuses committed by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates, reminding us that this fight is by no means over.

Regardless of whether a victim has survived a high-profile repeat offender or abuse from someone they knew and trusted at home or at work, they deserve justice. The Tories utterly failed victims in their 14 years. They ran up a huge backlog. Some women victims have said recently that they have waited 10 years, and that is a 10-year sentence for them. We cannot accept these delays. Over 90% of all criminal cases are already heard fairly without a jury by magistrates.

Clause 8 of the Bill puts restrictions on evidence or questions about a survivor’s sexual history. That should never have been part of the trial in the first place. Clause 17 will mean that courts will no longer have to start from the presumption that parental involvement will always be in the interests of a child. Women’s Aid has called this

“a significant shift in the ‘pro-contact’ culture”

that puts children at risk. This change will be incredibly encouraging for one of my constituents whose ex-partner was convicted of child sex offences and who has seen her children’s wellbeing massively impacted. I pay tribute to the campaigners here today, who have worked so hard to make this happen. Today we can move the dial towards a system that does not unfairly advantage perpetrators and does not retraumatise victims.

[Sarah Russell]

On that point, there is a backlog in the family courts of 110,000 cases, more than what we are discussing, and legal aid rates for family law have not gone up since 1997. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an important move but we need to do more?

[Catherine Fookes]

I agree that we need to do more. As a recipient of legal aid myself in the past, I know how important it is that its budget is increased.

It is almost 10 years since the birth of the MeToo movement. We must now ensure that we deliver on the hope that it engendered. Real change is needed. I back survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence, and I therefore back the Bill.

16:26

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

When debating justice, I am first minded of the victim’s right to a process producing a fair and timely verdict and the defendant’s right to know that justice has been served fairly and without delay. There is much to commend in the Bill, including the removal of the presumption of parental involvement, protecting children from becoming the proxy target of a perpetrator’s abuse and the better handling of evidence.

The listing backlog is not universal. York Crown court’s cases are being listed for 2026-27. The Government must learn from successful courts and think about instituting things like Nightingale courts to deal with the backlog. When I visited York Crown court, I was told about the dysfunctional IT system and how difficult it was to connect to achieving best evidence videos. I was told about the PECS contracts. I say to the Government that we should in-source that work to ensure that we do not see those delays. Estate improvements are also vital, not least in a Crown court built in 1777, like York.

I want to focus on the removal of jury trials. We know that the judiciary lacks diversity, as we have heard, and I fear that is the result of unconscious bias, as academic papers have pointed out. We need to ensure that we have stronger deliberations of trials, and therefore to hand that to a jury would give more security.

The final point I want to impress upon the Justice Secretary is a political one. When victims and defendants have lost confidence in the establishment and the elite, including the judiciary, a bridge to maintain confidence between them and their communities and the justice system is vital. As has been put to me, without that, a victim is less likely to have confidence in someone whose experiences are a million miles from their own. The same is true for a defendant, having been failed by the establishment time and again. Maintaining the bridge to justice with people who have walked in their shoes, grown up on their street and faced the same challenges enables the victim and the defendant to know that at least the court understands, even if it has not found in their favour.

For someone to have their truth told to those from their community serving on a jury, and to know that the evidence has been deliberated well, upholds confidence in the courts and in justice, but to break that trust breaks justice and builds barriers. Justice must not only be done but be seen and felt to be done. It is easy for Ministers to get lost in the data and miss the purpose of justice, and I believe that it is this miscalculation that we wrestle with today. It is about who holds power and, ultimately, trusting that power.

16:26

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

A foundational principle of our constitution is that everyone is bound by and entitled to the benefit of the law, but the long-running crisis in our justice system has stretched that principle to breaking point. Other right hon. and hon. Members have covered in depth the disastrous decisions by the previous Government that have got us to this point. I would only add that on my visit to Chester Crown court last month, they told me about a recent trial that had to finish at 3 pm each day because they could not get the light bulbs in the court replaced.

The Government have invested significantly in court infrastructure, legal aid and uncapping sitting days, but it is clear that investment alone will not be enough to deal with this crisis. We also need to reform the system and make it fit for how criminal justice operates today. A raft of measures in the Bill will do that, alongside important reforms such as the removal of the presumption of contact.

I intend to focus specifically on the proposals for the Crown court bench division. Parliament has taken a view on where the line should be drawn between offences disposed of by magistrates and offences that require a full Crown court trial with a jury, owing to a different level of severity and jeopardy for the defendant. Elsewhere in our system, it is not unprecedented for serious matters to be decided by a judge alone, such as in the family court. The question is whether the Government have struck the correct balance in their proposals, and whether there are sufficient safeguards for defendants. I have two points to make in that respect.

Although Sir Brian Leveson intended for the three-year threshold in the presumption on whether a case should be allocated to the bench division, judicial discretion would be maintained for exceptional circumstances. It is not difficult to imagine cases in which the broader public interest is best served by a jury trial. One wonders how the Colston four would have fared in a judge-only trial. The last word on where such cases should be tried should sit with a judge who has considered all the arguments and nuances.

Leveson recommended that the bench division consist not only of a judge but of two magistrates, in order to retain community involvement in the judgment, as well as to address the diversity gap in the judiciary. The Bill’s proposal to try by judge alone eliminates all community involvement for that class of defendant, treating them differently from those facing charges of both lesser and greater severity. The 2022 University of Manchester study “Racial Bias and the Bench” found that over half of respondents had witnessed one or more judges acting in a racially biased way towards a defendant in their judicial rulings, summing up, sentencing, bail, comments or directions.

I have listened carefully to Ministers’ arguments, but I am nevertheless concerned that significant risks remain. I intend to support the Bill’s Second Reading, because it contains important reforms to our criminal justice system, and it is essential that we deal with the crisis that has failed victims for too long, but I also intend to continue engaging with Ministers, and I look forward to my concerns being addressed as the Bill progresses.

18:11

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I was recently contacted by a constituent who was raped more than three years ago. Her initial court date was set for February last year, more than two years after the offence. She prepared for that day practically, mentally and emotionally, only for the hearing to be pushed back by 24 hours at the last minute. That happened three times in a row—three nights without sleep, three mornings of preparation, three days of reliving her trauma with no progress being made. The case was then postponed again, this time for an entire year. She went through another 12 months of stress and uncertainty, hoping to close this painful chapter of her life in January of this year, but the date was once again pushed back, this time until November. All my constituent wants is to receive the justice that she deserves and move on with her life. Our justice system is failing victims by delaying justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.

[Rachel Taylor]

I really feel for my hon. Friend’s constituent. Warwickshire police used to have one of the worst records in the country for charging in rape cases, but they have turned that around and now have one of the best. Does he agree that, for the police to continue doing their work investigating the accused, our court system must support fair and timely trials? Only then will we restore public trust in our justice system.

[Warinder Juss]

Yes, the measures are all about getting timely justice, which is why I will support the Bill.

This Labour Government inherited a system on the brink of collapse, and in which cases like my constituent’s are all too common. We must all recognise that action is sorely needed, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to reform. I thank Sir Brian Leveson for his detailed and thoughtful review—part 1 was completed last July, so the Bill is not being rushed. His review has played a significant role in shaping the reforms in the Bill. I know that there are mixed opinions about the proposed changes to jury trials, but the independent review of the criminal courts was carried out because of the truly appalling backlog in our criminal justice system. I have heard of trials in the most seriously affected courts being listed into 2030. I heard this morning that victims are saying that waiting three years for their case to come to court was worse than the rape itself. Jury trials do take longer, and I would have preferred the Government to follow Sir Brian’s recommendation that a new bench division be created, in which a judge and two magistrates try cases without a jury.

However, I trust this Government to take the necessary steps to repair our justice system while preserving the sanctity, fairness and integrity that underpin justice in this country. Any proportionate and appropriate amendments to the Bill can be made in Committee. I also welcome the investment that this Government have made in modernising our court system, to try to reduce the backlog while ensuring that victims do not face unnecessary delays and inefficient processes when seeking justice.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I recently visited Leeds Crown court, where I saw the benefits of some of that investment in a victim support suite, which ensured that victims, particularly of violence against women and girls, were safe and secure. Does my hon. Friend agree that both the investment and the reforms that we are considering are necessary to deliver swift and fair justice for victims?

[Warinder Juss]

Absolutely. I have had discussions with Sir Brian Leveson on a number of occasions, and he confirms that no one measure will achieve the reforms we need; we need to take a number of measures, of which the restriction in jury trials is just one, to achieve what we are trying to achieve.

I also welcome the additional safeguards for victims in rape and serious sexual offences cases, drawing on recommendations from the Law Commission. These new procedures will ensure that vulnerable victims of these horrific crimes are protected throughout the justice process, prevent further trauma, and ensure a move away from lines of questioning that perpetuate harmful rape myths and stereotypes.

The backlog in our courts and the delays denying justice to victims require bold and drastic action, and we need to take that action now. I therefore welcome this Government taking concrete steps to address the crisis that we have inherited, and I will support this Bill. Although I have concentrated on jury trials, there are other measures in the Bill that I welcome, such as the move away from the presumption of parental involvement in family courts, which will allow the Government to put the best interests of children first. We need drastic action, and we need to take it now, so I welcome everything the Government are doing.

18:14

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

There is lots in this Bill that I really support, but I am ideologically opposed to restricting the right to jury trial, because it undermines the foundations of our democracy, and I have not seen any evidence to show that it will go anywhere near tackling the backlog.

Madam Deputy Speaker,

“Our jury system may be centuries old, but it is still fit for purpose today. Successive studies have shown that, on average, jury verdicts are not affected by ethnicity… including in cases with all-white juries… ‘one stage in the criminal justice system where B[A]ME groups do not face persistent disproportionality is when a jury reaches a verdict.’”

Those are not my words—they are the words of the Justice Secretary, written in his seminal 2017 review. While the findings are nearly a decade old, the research by Cheryl Thomas on which those conclusions are based still holds true today.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that after enduring 14 years of Conservative government, now is the opportunity to implement the Lammy review in full?

[Kim Johnson]

I really appreciate my good friend’s intervention, and I do agree. The review was a great piece of work, and it contains some really great recommendations that will work, particularly on joint enterprise.

Only 10% of Crown court judges are from ethnic minority backgrounds, and just 1% are black—a figure that has remained the same for a decade. When trust in the police and the criminal justice system remains chronically low among black communities, and when we know that these systems produce disproportionate outcomes, particularly in relation to joint enterprise, why are we pouring yet more fuel on the fire? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, particularly when we all know that evidence exists but is being ignored.

All hon. Members recognise that the backlog needs to be tackled, and that victims need to be given the swift justice that they deserve, because justice delayed is justice denied. However, we need evidence-based solutions, focused on what is causing the backlog. The Institute for Government says that the proposals will save only between 1% and 2% of court time. To put that into perspective, that means that rape complainants and victims who are currently waiting for around a year for their case to be heard may see their cases brought forward by just a week.

Last month, I was pleased to visit Liverpool Crown court with the Criminal Bar Association. I had the pleasure of hearing from Judge Andrew Menary, under whose leadership Liverpool courts can now proudly boast the lowest backlog in the country. His work in bringing together prosecution and defence teams to negotiate common-sense solutions to avoid cases needlessly going to court, speeding up access to justice for victims and ensuring fair outcomes for defendants, make him a leading light in our country. I am pleased that the Government are looking to roll out these solutions.

I know that the Justice Secretary cares deeply about tackling racism in the justice system; it is on record that he has been trying to do exactly that for decades. I urge him to listen to the strength and breadth of feeling in the House today, and across the legal profession and our country, including to the voices of the 3,000 signatories of a letter to the Prime Minister. Once the right to trial by jury is removed, we may never get it back again. Justice needs juries, and today we must defend them.

18:21

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

The Opposition have chosen to misrepresent this Bill. That is their choice, but it does the delivery of justice in this country no favours. That misrepresentation has centred on one of the Bill’s many provisions—the proposed changes to mode of trial—but this Bill does not abolish jury trials. It moves some cases to the magistrates courts, introduces bench trials for certain other cases, and introduces reforms to either-way proceedings. If implemented, the Bill will mean that the accused in either-way cases will no longer have the ability to overrule the decision of a magistrates court about the mode of trial, namely where their trial should be held.

I want to offer a different perspective on this point. The current right to elect for a jury trial is not an ancient right. Instead, we can think of it as an anomaly—a legal practice created in the 1850s that survived reforms in the 1970s—and court modernisers have been calling for the practice to be closed down for decades. I focus on the history, because it is important for us to be aware of how others before us have used democratic processes to enact judicial reform in the public interest.

In 2001, Lord Justice Auld noted that

“our system is probably unique in that, in a large range of offences…the accused, not the court, decides how and where he is to be tried.”

Lord Auld recommended that this element be abolished, but that is the system that the Opposition are defending. When they defend that anomaly, they are delaying justice and undermining victims.

Last year, more than 4,000 defendants opted for a jury trial. As the Magistrates Association reported to the Justice Committee, some will have done so in the hope that the resulting delay would deter victims from continuing. We know that many stopped prosecutions are caused by victims dropping out—demoralised, defeated and denied justice. This Bill turns that dreadful situation around through a whole package of measures, but in part by ending the either-way anomaly.

This Bill preserves jury trials for the most serious cases. If it did not, I would not support it. It also allows those presiding over a bench trial to reallocate the case to jury trial if new evidence emerges to suggest that the defendant might receive a sentence of more than three years. That is an important point that has been overlooked so far in this debate.

There is more that I could say about the other measures introduced by the Bill, and about the desperate need to do more for sexual offence victims; for example, I would love us to fast-track RASSO courts at pace. We have a once-in-a-generation chance to improve our courts, so let us take that chance today.

18:24

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

We have heard many moving speeches today. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), and for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), for sharing their personal experiences.

Jury trials are a really important mechanism in the British legal system, and should not be taken for granted, so I want to share my experience. A number of years ago, I was asked to be a witness in a trial in which somebody I knew was being prosecuted for harassment. Just a couple of years ago, I was the victim of harassment myself. The detail of these cases are not needed, but the premise is. In the earlier case, the trial was led by a judge. While I was inexperienced, I felt that the judge and legal representatives worked hard to ensure that both sides of the case were examined and presented as openly as possible. Fast-forward some years, and I found myself in a different situation. I was a victim, alongside a number of individuals, of direct harassment. In that case, the perpetrator wanted to proceed with a jury trial, and they got that choice.

The trial was postponed repeatedly and went forward after the third rescheduled date. Each postponement meant more delay, more cost to the public purse, and more stress for the victims. The delays were extremely frustrating and meant that justice—whatever the jury may have decided—was delayed for a long time. Those of us who were victims were unable to move on, and that is what it is like for so many victims. I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on how victims will be supported by the proposed changes.

In the first trial, as a witness, I was cross-examined by the opposing counsel. In the second trial, I was cross-examined by the person who committed the crime against me. I could see that the jurors were uncomfortable with the perpetrator’s line of questioning. We should spare a thought for those jurors—people from across society doing a really important job for the public by serving on a jury. Many of them would have had to rearrange work commitments; would have lost money, if they were self-employed; and would have had to catch up on work in the evenings, just to make justice happen. In my view, the defendant should not have been able to delay the case in the way that they did, and the jurors should not have had to sit through a trial that could have been managed effectively with just a judge.

Finally, we should spare a thought for taxpayers, including those in North West Leicestershire who have been in touch. I understand their concerns. They do not want to see the loss of jury trials, and they will not; we will see a restriction of jury trials. We should recognise that there are too many cases in which perpetrators can choose to go for a jury trial, and that is being used by people simply to delay justice. As we have already heard, justice delayed is justice denied, and victims deserve so much better.

18:24

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I rise to support this Bill, particularly clause 17— Jack and Paul’s law—to finally repeal the presumption of contact in the family courts. It is the result of 11 years of campaigning by my incredible constituent Claire Throssell MBE, who is in the Gallery today, following the tragic deaths of her beautiful sons, Jack and Paul. They were killed in a house fire by their father, a known domestic abuser. Their dad lured Jack and his nine-year-old brother Paul into the attic with the promise of a train set, but he started 14 fires around their family home, killing himself in the blaze.

Jack and Paul’s deaths happened during a two-hour, court-ordered, unsupervised contact visit permitted by a family court and allowed to go ahead by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. The state failed Jack and Paul; it failed to put their wellbeing first, after a decade of their father’s abuse, neglect and coercive control of them and their mother. This House must act today and vote through this Bill to save the lives of a future generation of children by ending contact at any cost.

The presumption of parental involvement is a legal principle in the Children Act 1989 that means that any parent, even those who are known domestic abusers, should always be given contact with their children, but the retention of presumption continues to be fatal. Some 68 children—that we know of—have died at the hands of known domestically abusive parents since Women’s Aid started research on this issue. This Bill presents a life-changing opportunity to prevent such deaths and puts children’s wellbeing at the heart of our family courts.

[Sarah Russell]

Does my hon. Friend agree it is absolutely crucial that we fund contact centres properly, so that there are properly supervised options for courts to order?

[Dr Tidball]

I do indeed. In combination with the provisions in the Bill to effect structural reform, to stop criminals from gaming the system and to triage trials effectively, such measures will embed a child-centred and victim-centred approach in the courts.

[Kirith Entwistle]

I commend my hon. Friend on her exemplary campaigning on behalf of her constituent Claire Throssell. Does she agree that it is not right that rape victims are waiting 400 days to be heard?

[Dr Tidball]

I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend.

When Jack and Paul died, Claire promised them that no more children should lose their lives like they did, at the hands of an abusive parent. When I first met Claire, I told her that if I was elected, I would do all I could to help her. That was in 2023. On the 11th anniversary of the boys’ death, in October last year, I took Claire to No. 10 Downing Street to meet the Prime Minister—the first Prime Minister to personally commit to fulfil Claire’s promise to her beautiful boys.

I ask this House to vote for the Bill today, so that we can collectively fulfil Claire’s promise to her sons Jack and Paul; so that children like Jack and Paul are listened to, not ignored; and so that no more towns like mine are left to grieve. I urge this House to make that world a reality and support the Bill.

18:30

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

While there is lots to welcome in the Bill, I fear it has been completely overshadowed by plans to restrict jury trials. This is not what victims are asking for—they need changes that are backed by evidence and that will result in genuine improvements to the criminal justice system. Jury trials are not what has led to the backlog, and these reforms will not reduce it.

I have a close friend who is a survivor of rape, and she is alarmed by this proposal. After a three and a half year wait for her trial, the delay made her suicidal. She desperately wants action on court backlogs, but she opposes these plans and is outraged that her trauma and that of thousands of survivors is being used to justify what she sees as effectively a cost-cutting exercise. As learned Friends know, courts could be instructed to prioritise rape cases and have them heard in a set period of time, such as six months. As my brave hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) asked, where are the specialist courts? None of these things require legislation. We need to address the backlog in our criminal courts, but any steps taken should never jeopardise equality or access to justice.

[Kim Johnson]

My hon. Friend is talking about not jeopardising equality. Does she agree that more needs to be done to recruit more people from diverse communities, to ensure that our systems are far more diverse and represent the communities they serve?

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She will have heard people talk many times in this Chamber about the lack of diversity in our judicial system.

Last July, I met the Bar Council, because when a sector has issues we should talk to the workers—more often than not, they have the solutions. In my view, that has always been the Labour way. They had a number of recommendations that should be considered—for example, that defendants who are awaiting trial should be remanded at a conveniently located prison close to the court, because Serco, the company tasked with prisoner transportation, persistently fails to transport prisoners in good time. This wastes the court’s time and results in a new court date having to be set. We should end that privatisation and bring prisoner transportation back in-house.

We should provide greater flexibility for hearings and allow virtual courts, so that more cases are heard; permit all available judges, including those who have retired but are below the age of 75, to sit as many days as they are available; invest in more court staff and support; and list trials from Monday to Thursday, so that all short matters can be dealt with on one day—namely, Friday—minimising disruption for all other court users, such as jurors, witnesses and defendants. These are all simple changes that would significantly maximise sittings while preserving the basic foundations of our criminal justice system. The wholesale change that we ought to be considering today is the complete reversal of the austerity measures introduced by the coalition Government, which led to this mess, but that has been overshadowed by the proposal to restrict jury trials.

Finally, racial bias in our criminal justice system is well documented. Any reforms should address this head-on, but to conduct a post-legislative review on discrimination is deeply insulting to those communities that are impacted. As I said earlier, this Bill was our opportunity to fully implement the Lammy review; instead, we will have a situation where there is no automatic right to appeal, when black women are 22% more likely to be convicted. To quote Ife Thompson, one of the brilliant lawyers who was protesting outside Parliament today,

“In a justice system that already produces racially discriminatory outcomes, removing juries means removing one of the few spaces where ordinary people and some real diversity still exist in the courtroom.”

We all have to have red lines, and racism in our justice system has ruined so many lives in our communities. I cannot support this measure, and if it is not removed from the legislation, I will not be supporting this Bill.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Sarah Russell to make the final Back-Bench speech.

18:34

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I draw attention to the fact that I am a solicitor with a current practising certificate who has appeared before tribunals historically.

I will speak briefly today about the £1.3 billion maintenance backlog in our courts. We have heard that the Justice Secretary will commit £287 million to it. That is a large sum of money, but it is not enough.

I want to talk about the fact that legal aid rates have not gone up since 1997. The Justice Secretary is looking at increasing them significantly, but unfortunately that is moving them from £40 an hour to £60 an hour. In private practice, most solicitors would expect to be billing about five times that to run their firms. It is just not enough.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sarah Russell]

I am afraid I will not.

When we look at how much these measures will bring down the backlog in totality, it is simply not enough. When the time from reporting a rape to an actual trial is, on average, six years, bringing down the backlog slightly by the end of the next Parliament is just not enough. I have significant concerns about the restrictions on access to jury trials.

Anyone who has read Baroness Harman’s independent review of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the Bar should have real concerns about the attitudes of some barristers towards women and ethnic minorities. Not every barrister exhibits those traits, but they are a systematic problem. She talks about the fact that:

“A recurrent theme in the submissions was that there is a tolerance of misconduct at the Bar which is learned and passed down from generation to generation. I was told that some barristers, particularly men of the older generation, ‘have no idea how outdated and offensive some of their views are, nor do they care about the impact of sharing those views with others who may be offended by them’.”

[Kim Johnson]

The Justice Secretary identifies that we have these problems, and he talks about the delivery of training on racism and misogyny to support people to be brought into the 21st century. Does my hon. Friend believe that those kinds of training courses can work?

[Sarah Russell]

Obviously not everyone is exhibiting these traits and training can help, but my understanding, from what I have heard anecdotally, is that substantial numbers of members of the judiciary are not up to date with the training requirements that they already have. I would welcome hearing more from the Secretary of State about exactly how those training programmes will be developed, brought forward and made mandatory in a way that is effective.

It is of significant concern that Baroness Harman had to make a recommendation on the importance of the Judicial Appointments Commission taking into account findings of misconduct when considering who to appoint as judges. It is astonishing that she had to recommend that that should be required. How has the Judicial Appointments Commission been operating to date?

I stand here as someone who does not like to criticise the judiciary. I know that it has many hard-working members who have been operating in a difficult environment for a very long time. We have to be honest in saying that most of the rates that I have referred to were not put up by the new Labour Government either. We have had cuts to the justice system for 25 years, and that is why it is on its knees. We can do things within the context of the current system that might make it somewhat better, but I go back to my original question: when rape trials are taking six years from arrest to prosecution, what are we going to do to make wholesale change? Nothing I have heard so far has convinced me that what we will do here today, whichever permutations we go with, will fundamentally transform those waits.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

18:38

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It has been a positive debate in terms of the exchange of ideas, and there have been some fantastic contributions. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for the very personal way in which they made their cases. There is consensus that for victims, the current waits are terrible and an experience that they should not have to go through. It is not only damaging for them as individuals, but some of them drop out as a result. We see perpetrators who would have been found guilty walking away and escaping justice, and we see defendants who would have been found innocent having to wait too long to have the accusations over their head removed.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Mullan]

Not yet.

We must have a serious discussion about why that is. It was disappointing for those who sought to put forward a credible analysis of what has happened that the Justice Secretary and most Labour Members did not mention the word “covid” once. In reality, the backlogs in the Crown court under this Government before covid were lower than those we inherited from the previous Government.

It is fair to say that for many years—25 years, as we heard from the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell)—it has been accepted that not enough political attention has been paid to our justice system. The question is, what do we do about it? There is no single answer to that question, because there is no single problem. A whole variety of things are going wrong in our justice system. We are seeing late pleas because of insufficient early advice, faulty courtrooms, a lack of reports from probation services, and problems with prison transport. All those problems, and others, cause the delays and other issues.

The central recommendation of the Leveson report was for more sitting days— 130,000—and that will require more venues, more court staff, more prosecution staff, more solicitors and more barristers. However, as I have mentioned, there are simpler things that we can do ahead of that, and we need look no further than Liverpool Crown court under the leadership of Andrew Menary. At a time when the national average wait from charge to trial is 321 days, that court manages an average wait of 206 days. As far as I am aware, neither the Justice Secretary nor any of his team has visited Liverpool Crown court to speak to the judge and hear how he does that. In fact, he achieves it partly through the use of early guilty pleas. Nationally, we lose court time because too many people—31%—plead guilty on the day of a trial. In Liverpool, the proportion is just 6%. Those are not bold reforms. They are not measures that allow a Secretary of State to give a grand speech and consider himself a great reformer. It is just hard work, or what one Member described as “pretty boring” stuff that gets the job done.

As was pointed out by the hon. Members for Warrington North and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), these reforms will not only fail to achieve what the Government claim they will; they will be an overbearing, destructive distraction from that sort of hard work. And what will the Government gain? Certainly not what they claim in the impact assessment, which is full of assumptions and fantasies, and certainly not anything that might be described as modelling. The Government want us to believe that 24,000 Crown court days will simply be converted into 8,500 magistrate days, but they have no evidence for that claim. They want us to believe that trials without juries will be 20% shorter, but they have no evidence to support that claim either.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

Has the shadow Minister seen today’s statement from the Institute for Government, which has backed the Government’s modelling and overturned its previous position? He might want to reflect that in his comments.

[Dr Mullan]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman read the entire statement. What the institution actually said was that the modelling

“relies on several assumptions—some of which are highly uncertain.”

Did he read that part of the statement? I do not think he did, because it claims that there will be reductions of only 2% in trial time as a result of these reforms.

What are we being asked to give up? We are being asked to give up 800 years of English legal history. A sledgehammer is being taken to the cornerstone of our system, and to fundamental rights. Thousands of accused people risk spending years in prison, losing their livelihoods, losing their families, losing their homes, and not being able to make the simple request for a forum of their peers to make that decision—a part of the justice system that is trusted and supported more than any other. That is perhaps why it is being defended so robustly by those within it. Just today, thousands of retired judges and retired and working legal professionals asked the Justice Secretary to think again. What has been the Government’s response to that? It has been to denigrate the role of jury trials.

We have had the appalling sight of the Lord Chancellor comparing three years in prison to a scraped knee. We have heard the Minister for Courts say that being accused of an offence of sexual assault, which could be considered either way at the moment, was not serious—an accusation that, if proven, would lose someone their livelihood. It is shameful and desperate stuff from a desperate Government. In contrast, what did the Prime Minister say? He said:

“The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.”

Now he asks us to upend that balance in a historically unprecedented way.

Of course, we can talk about the facts and figures, as woeful and thin as they have been, but at the end of the day, these decisions come from political instinct and a deep sense of what is right and wrong. That is not shallow; it is based on knowledge and years of experience —the sort that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) have. That experience told them, before they saw the figures, that the Government’s approach was not going to work. They have been proven right by the figures.

Is it any surprise that the Prime Minister does not understand this? Time and again, we have seen that he is absolutely devoid of any sort of deep political instinct. His only instinct is to chop and change his mind as it suits him on any particular day. No wonder he has been, more than any other Prime Minister in recent history, an agent of the civil service. He has forgotten the golden rule that civil servants advise and Ministers decide. The Conservatives have said yes to more resources, to efficiency and to the hard work of getting things done, but we have said no to eroding a fundamental right, no to more overbearing state power, and no to gutting and scouring away the mechanism by which all of us watch the watchmen.

The Courts Minister tells us that the Bill has been introduced on a point of political principle, whereas other Members have argued that it is a matter of necessity and resource. Too often, Labour Members have said yes to a Prime Minister to whom they should have said no. They have an opportunity tonight to say no to the Prime Minister when it counts. Let us hope they have the courage to do so.

18:46

[The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)]

It is my pleasure to deliver the closing speech for this Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for all their contributions. A consensus has broken out across this Chamber that the acute backlog in our criminal courts represents an injustice. We have a record and rising backlog of 80,000 cases, and behind each and every one is a victim and somebody accused of a crime. Lives are put on hold, immiserated by the fact that today we are seeing trials listed in 2030.

A consensus has broken out that we cannot sit idly by and do nothing. We have to act based on pragmatism, on what works and on the principle of fairness to ensure that every citizen in this country has the right to a fair trial. Whether someone is a defendant or a victim, it is deeply unfair to make them wait years for justice. Victims’ lives are put on hold, and witnesses’ memories fade. People are pulling out of trials, allowing perpetrators to walk away. That is not justice at all. That is what we mean when we say justice delayed is justice denied, and we have to act.

How do we frame these principles? We make a choice. Traditionally, our justice system has had two central parties: on the one hand, the prosecution; on the other, the defence. Victims have only a walk-on part. That will change, because the measures in this Bill place victims at their heart, and I pay tribute to them today. Again, consensus reigns in endorsing the fine speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), who paid tribute to her constituent Claire Throssell for her campaign. The measures in the Bill repeal the presumption of parental contact.

We have heard powerful speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack). Their voices have been added to those of the countless victims I have met throughout this process, who have implored me to act and to challenge the injustices in our court, the delays and the nature of the justice process, which means that so often they feel they have been put on trial. That is why, as part of the reforms that we are bringing forward, we have centred victims by delivering a package of over half a billion pounds to support victims’ services. Today we have announced that there will be independent legal advisers for rape victims and that we are changing the law on the rules of evidence, which means that rape myths will be busted in our courts. Of course, as the Victims’ Commissioner has said, there is a need to address the delays.

We are being asked to vote on a reasoned amendment, and before I turn to the remarks made by other hon. Members—

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Sackman]

The right hon. Member has not been here for the entire debate, so I am afraid that I am not going to address his comments.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) moved a reasoned amendment that would drive a coach and horses through this Bill. Politics is about choices, and to govern is to choose. We know what choices those on the Opposition Benches would make about our justice system, because it is writ large in how they gutted legal aid, shut criminal courts and capped sitting days. They have presented many criticisms, but one thing I have not heard is an apology, nor have I heard an alternative plan for how to address the backlog.

This Government have brought forward a plan built on three pillars, or three levers that we choose to pull. The first is investment in uncapping sitting days, removing the financial constraint on how much our courts can sit and putting record investment into criminal legal aid. I have heard the important contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), the hon. Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) and for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) about needing to look at the availability of legal aid, because of course access to justice is vital.

The second lever is modernisation. Many Members across the House have pointed to the wasted time in our inefficient and broken court system, with the time it takes to bring prisoners to court, the courtrooms empty because of disrepair—we are now investing in courtrooms —and problems with listing and how we adopt best practice from successful courts such as Liverpool. These are all valuable suggestions, and as the Deputy Prime Minister said in his vision speech last week, we are taking them all forward because we have to pull every lever.

Thirdly, the conclusions of the independent review of criminal courts led by Sir Brian Leveson were clear: investment and efficiency alone will make a dent, but they will not bring down the backlogs. We have to bring forward structural reforms to alleviate the growing pressure on our Crown courts. That was caused not simply by covid or by lack of investment; these long-term changes in our criminal justice system have been coming down the track for decades. Crown court trials take twice as long as they did 20 years ago, the police are making more arrests and it is right that we have more procedural protections. All this means that our system is creaking under the demand, as the modelling we have put forward demonstrates.

The way we are going to bring about transformation is through people—the brilliant people who work every day in our criminal justice system. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) and for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), to the CPS, the police and the prison staff, and to the defence and prosecution barristers who power our criminal justice system, because we will need them. As many have pointed out, we will also need our magistrates, and I commend my hon. Friends the Members for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) and for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), who demonstrated how magistrates will power our system. These are lay justices—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Sackman]

I will give way, but I am mindful of the time. I have to wrap up on time.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I do not expect an answer now, but will the Minister take away one point that I and others made, which is that people of good character should have an absolute right to a jury trial? She need not answer now, but will she at least consider that point?

[Sarah Sackman]

I will not respond to that point now, but I will say that there needs to be equality before the law irrespective of background.

That brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) about rushing. We are not rushing. This Bill, as seen in the vibrant debate we have had today, will receive ample scrutiny. I have taken on board the suggestions from right across the House, whether it is the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) about district judges, or those of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). We will engage in constructive dialogue to strengthen the Bill. One of the most important ways in which we will do that is through a review, to which the Deputy Prime Minister has committed, focused primarily on the racial disparities and the inequalities in our system.

I am not here to defend the status quo. We know that for too long, marginalised communities, working-class communities and racial minorities—

[Mr Adnan Hussain]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Sackman]

I will not give way, because I have a lot of comments to cover.

Members representing those communities have been vocal in this debate. We hear you, and that is why we will be bringing forward a review in Committee. I pay tribute to the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), for Bradford West (Naz Shah), for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson). Something that came through in their comments was the importance not just of justice being done, but of justice being seen to be done. The justice system that we reform needs to command the confidence of communities, and we will work constructively to ensure that the review that we put on the face of the Bill does just that.

I return to the central theme, which is the need to act. For too long, those on the Conservative Benches were prepared to sit idly by while they presided over a crisis in our prisons, a crisis in probation and, now, a crisis in our courts. We have heard loud and clear from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) that there is a necessity to act. As Sir Brian Leveson himself said,

“if not this, then what?”,

and if not now, then when?

Politics is about choices. This Labour Government choose modernisation over tradition, investment over decline, and to put victims and communities first in a transformed, modernised justice system in which our public and our citizenry can have confidence.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

18:56

Division 444

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 203

---

Conservative: 104
Liberal Democrat: 62
Independent: 8
Labour: 7
Reform UK: 6
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Plaid Cymru: 4
Green Party: 3
Traditional Unionist Voice: 1
Your Party: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 311

---

Labour: 308

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

19:09

Division 445

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 304

---

Labour: 301

Noes: 203

---

Conservative: 104
Liberal Democrat: 62
Labour: 10
Independent: 8
Reform UK: 6
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Green Party: 3
Traditional Unionist Voice: 1
Your Party: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

Bill read a Second time.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Courts and Tribunals Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 28 April 2026.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to.

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Courts and Tribunals Bill, it is expedient to authorise:

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a Minister of the Crown, and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to.

Deferred Divisions

Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Secretary David Lammy relating to Courts and Tribunals Bill: Carry-over.

Courts and Tribunals Bill: Carry-over

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),

That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Courts and Tribunals Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to.