Courts and Tribunals Bill

Debate between Vikki Slade and Andy Slaughter

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this statement. The Courts and Tribunals Bill was introduced in February as a response to the Crown court crisis. There were over 80,000 outstanding cases as of December 2025, with some trials being listed into 2030. That harms victims, defendants and witnesses alike. We recognise the urgency of that crisis and acknowledge that continuing with the status quo is not an option.

In response to the crisis, the Government commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to conduct his independent review of criminal courts, which has been published in two extensive parts and makes 180 recommendations to address the crisis and reduce the backlog. The Government’s Bill has been informed by Sir Brian’s review, although it deviates from his recommendations in some key areas.

Last Wednesday, the Justice Committee published a report setting out our critique of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, based upon three oral evidence sessions and over 130 written submissions. I take this opportunity to thank all those who contributed to the report, in particular Committee members of all parties, many of whom are here today, and of course our secretariat. Our report makes recommendations to improve the Bill and draws attention to some of its unintended consequences, and it aims to inform further scrutiny of the Bill in both Houses. I note that we do not yet have a confirmed date for the Bill’s return to this House on Report. I hope we will have that soon.

The Government introduced the Bill without publishing a formal response to part 1 of Sir Brian Leveson’s review. The Government also declined to allow the Justice Committee to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny. We instead launched our inquiry a matter of days after the Bill’s publication, as we felt this landmark piece of legislation required proper, in-depth parliamentary scrutiny. We know it is hard for the Government to change course once a Bill is introduced, but this is an area where the Government should have enabled more parliamentary input before pushing forward, particularly given that the Bill’s provisions will not come into force until March 2028 at the earliest. Our report is analytical, but crucially it is constructive and aims to improve rather than dismiss what the Government have proposed. It covers all clauses of the Bill dealing with reform of the criminal courts, but I will focus my remarks on a few key areas.

First, let me address the impact on magistrates courts, which will significantly increase owing to the removal of the right for defendants to elect for Crown court trial and by increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers. Our principal finding on this point is that we are not convinced that the magistrates courts will be able to cope. It seems unrealistic to propose that 7,000 magistrates can be recruited in three years so that there will be 21,000 magistrates by 2029. Previous recruitment campaigns have fallen far short of their targets. Retention also remains a persistent challenge and there is a chronic shortage of suitably qualified legal advisers. The Government must demonstrate, in more detail than they have done so far, that expanding capacity in the magistrates court is deliverable. As part of that, we recommend that the Government should significantly increase the number of salaried district judges. They must also ensure that the pay of legal advisers matches comparable legal roles in the public sector.

The Government seek the authority to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers to 18 months or even 24 months—double what they are now. Until recently the maximum was six months, and then from October 2024, 12 months. Sir Brian said that this should be set permanently at 12 months and that the Government should not be able to vary it at will. We say at the least that any change should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and debated in Parliament. Otherwise, every time there is a peak in prisoner numbers, the Government will shift magistrates’ sentencing powers down to six or 12 months and then back up to 18 or 24 when they stabilise again.

On appeals from the magistrates court, we recognise the Government’s concern that, as more cases are retained, unmanaged growth in appeal volumes could place additional pressure on the Crown court. We also accept that the current automatic right to a full rehearing can, in some cases, place a stressful burden on victims and witnesses. However, appeals currently represent a small and declining proportion of overall Crown court receipts, with only 0.4% of magistrates court decisions appealed in 2025. They are resolved quickly and with a high success rate, suggesting that the right to a full rehearing plays an important role in correcting wrongful outcomes.

The Bill provides for the introduction of audio recording in magistrates courts for trial and sentencing. This would allow for an accurate record of proceedings to be transcribed in support of an appeal. Several submissions we received raised concerns about the scale of such an undertaking and the practicalities of equipping magistrates courts with the necessary facilities. It would benefit no one if changes were introduced before recording systems were properly functioning or if they subsequently failed. We recommend that any changes to magistrates appeals should be introduced only once recording of all magistrates court proceedings has been introduced and is proven to be operating effectively.

The main public and professional criticisms of the Bill have been around judge-only trials, and the creation of a Crown court bench division. Our report focuses more on the question of whether that will work in practice rather than the principles of the reform. We decided the proposal to introduce judge-only trials hangs on allocation to a jury trial or the bench division. That will be done by an assessment, at the first hearing in the Crown court, as to whether the defendant would receive a sentence of three years or more.

While many cases will be straightforward, the allocation process could consume a significant amount of court time and judicial resource overall. We think the three-year threshold for deciding which sort of trial a defendant gets will need some more consideration. At present, when magistrates decide whether a case should be allocated to the Crown court, they consider the length of the potential sentence, but they also can consider the circumstances of the case. Should the Crown court not also be able to say that a case is likely to have a sentence of less than three years, but should still have a jury trial?

We conclude that the allocation process as currently designed is likely to be complex, time consuming and will lead to unintended consequences. Reliance on likely sentence length as the sole criteria will mean that defendants with previous convictions are more likely to face a jury trial than those without, and that children are less likely to face a jury than adults accused of the same offence. We recommend that children should be exempt from being tried at the bench division. We also raise concerns that the predicted 20% time saving of judge-only trials, so heavily relied on in both the Bill and Sir Brian’s review, lacks sufficient evidential basis.

Finally, on equality, we share the concerns of many in the justice sector around the potential equality impacts of the Bill, particularly in relation to race. An unreformed justice system already perpetuates a range of inequalities, and we do not feel that the Government have tackled those head on through the Bill. The Bill proposes to expand the role of both the magistrates court and judge-only Crown court proceedings, while reducing the role of juries.

The Lammy review, in 2017, concluded that juries are one of the few areas of the criminal justice system where black and ethnic minority defendants do not face disproportionate outcomes. It is shocking that only 1% of Crown court judges are black, a figure that has not changed since 2015. This has serious implications for the trust that black defendants may have in the bench division, where judges will sit alone. We recommend that the Government take action to improve progression routes to the senior judiciary, and that they set a clear national target to achieve a representative judiciary and magistracy by 2035.

We recognise the need to reform our criminal justice system and commend the Government for commissioning the Leveson review and proposing comprehensive reforms. We hope, however, that they will take note of our recommendations, which we believe would improve the Bill while maintaining the core values of justice and fairness in our criminal justice system.

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

I put it on the record that I voted for an alternative report that I felt better reflected my concerns, but I accept that the report is a fair reflection of the Committee’s view.

Given that the last recruitment drive for magistrates failed to deliver the much-needed uplift at that point, and with the expansion of magistrate-led trials adding further pressure, does the hon. Member agree that the Government should publish regular statistics on magistrate recruitment to ensure that they are on track to achieve the 21,000 by 2029?

Reoffending: Rehabilitation in Prisons

Debate between Vikki Slade and Andy Slaughter

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter]

The numbers of women and, indeed, young people in prison are a small percentage of the prison population, but they give particular cause for concern. As I mentioned in my statement, the health and mental health needs of women prisoners and the levels of self-harm are both higher. There is a clear need there and it is one that, to be fair, the Government have recognised and which they have policies to address. It is the practicality that we are lacking at the moment, because of the levels of support required. I welcome that the Government have clearly said that they want to see fewer women in prison, but we need to know how that will be achieved from this point onwards.

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

Around half of prisoners are neurodivergent and the population of young prisoners with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is around 10 times higher than in the population at large. With such specialist targeted support needed for those prisoners, we have heard that they have been let down by the system and that they cannot access the right support at the right time, regardless of the new system that is in place. Does the hon. Member agree that the delay in producing an update to the neurodiversity action plan is unacceptable and that it really must be published straightaway?

[Andy Slaughter]

The hon. Lady is the newest member of the Committee, and I am pleased to see her here today. She has obviously got behind the brief very quickly: we are waiting for an update on the neurodiversity action plan. Many levels of societal problems are reflected to a much higher level in prisons, whether that be around people with learning difficulties, literacy problems or neurodivergence. That is not a coincidence, but it is a wake-up call to the fact that such issues have to be addressed. Rehabilitation is for all prisoners, and special steps need to be taken, particularly in relation to neurodiverse prisoners. I hope that we are going to see that. The very capable Minister for Courts and Legal Services is in her place, listening to all this, and I am sure that she will tell us soon when that action plan will be updated.

Bills Presented

Tax Reliefs (Evaluation)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Bobby Dean presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to establish and maintain a framework for the regular evaluation of tax reliefs, including in relation to their effectiveness, cost and value for money and to require annual reporting under that framework; to require the Secretary of State to review all existing tax reliefs; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 335).

Declaration of Income and Gifts by Candidates for Elected Office (Russian Federation)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Max Wilkinson, supported by Lisa Smart, presented a Bill to place a duty on candidates for elected office to declare any past or current income or gifts from the government of the Russian Federation or from any person or organisation connected to that government; to place a duty on political parties to ensure that their candidates have made this declaration; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 July 2026, and to be printed (Bill 334).